SwiftVets.com

[Guest]

_____----********O********----______

THE FOUNDATION

"In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington

_____----********O********----______

THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Top of the fold -- John Kerry: More "aid and comfort"...

In recent months, this column has set about to distinguish manifestly between President George W. Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry in regard to character, policy matters and competing visions for our nation's future.

After George Bush's razor-thin and highly contested victory over Albert Gore in 2000, many political observers argued (and continue to insist) that there are few distinctions between the Republican and Democrat parties. Indeed, in regard to some seminal issues that once distinguished party lines -- most notably central government spending -- those lines are now blurred. Additionally, the recent Republican National Convention headlined party moderates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who disagree with significant elements of the Republican Platform, while also featuring Democrat Zell Miller, who agrees with most of the GOP Platform. This, understandably, leaves some with the impression that the two parties have all but merged.

To be sure, there is a semblance between the background of the presidential incumbent and his challenger. Bush and Kerry are contemporaries who hail from wealth and privilege, from prestigious prep schools and Ivy League universities, and from political dynasties in their respective home states. During their tenures in national office, both Bush and Kerry have advocated, respectively, for big and bigger central government spending programs.

But are there notable variances in policy matters between George Bush and John Kerry? You bet -- which is precisely why this presidential campaign is being bitterly waged, mostly between centrist Republicans and leftist Democrats. While the national party lines may seem fluid, the political lines which separate Bush and Kerry and their respective ranks are cast-iron.

Volumes have been written about the sizeable chasm separating the character of President Bush and John Kerry -- the distance between their values as reflected in their disagreement over public policies concerning family and faith, their diametrical selection criteria for federal-bench nominees, and their opposing views on taxation. While these are important distinctions, their most significant policy divergence relates to U.S. national security -- the first order of a president's Constitutional duties, the palladium without which all other duties become meaningless. And it is this critical difference which should be foremost in the minds of voters on 2 November.

Indeed, this difference couldn't have been any clearer than during the first presidential-candidate debate (see "We will not waver..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/). In a discussion about the President's obligation to protect the country with pre-emptive military action, Kerry insisted that such pre-emption must first pass "the global test." In other words, any pre-emptive action by a "President Kerry" would first require a thumbs-up from the likes of France, Germany and the perennially hostile United Nations.

For his part, George W. Bush has steadfastly advocated Ronald Reagan's foreign policy dictum -- Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum (to maintain peace, prepare for war), which has deep roots in our national foundation. George Washington, in his first address to the nation (8 January 1790), proclaimed, "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."

That resolve notwithstanding, on 11 September 2001, after eight years of military-budget depredation, foreign-policy ambiguity and outright appeasement under the Clinton regime (with full collusion from John Kerry), George Bush and our nation were dealt a heretofore-unimaginable blow by a suicidal gang of Islamist cutthroats. As a result, President Bush was forced to demonstrate not only his commitment to military readiness, but also his willingness to use the ultimate instrument of diplomacy, military force, in defense of our nation. Consequently, his proficiency as Commander in Chief is well established.

John Kerry, on the other hand, has spent much of his political career denigrating American military personnel and the nation they defend, while advocating for policies of appeasement -- the same policies that made lower Manhattan, Northern Virginia and a field in Pennsylvania the front lines in our war with Jihadistan (see "Jihadistan: A clear and present danger..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander).

On its face, Kerry's endorsement of appeasement resembles the yellow streak of his contemporary Leftist ilk; long gone are the days of robust, hawkish Democrats like Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But on closer examination, Kerry's sordid history of collaboration with Communist regimes for more than three decades, even in times of war, raises much more serious questions about his motives and his fitness for the highest office in the land.

Kerry is, indubitably, the Left's most "useful idiot" (as V.I. Lenin famously labeled Western apologists for socialist propaganda) in contemporary politics. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry's anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements."

But Kerry's infamous (and unlawful) coddling of Vietnamese Communists some 35 years ago (see "Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry Record..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/) was not his last rendezvous with the Reds. After his election to the Senate in 1984 (as Ted Kennedy's understudy), Kerry spent years dismissing claims by POW family groups that some Americans were still being held in Vietnam and Cambodia. And he has, since, given aid and comfort to plenty of other Red regimes, including some in this hemisphere.

For example, in 1985 Kerry courted Daniel Ortega and his Communist regime in Nicaragua, even traveling to visit his "Dear Comandante" in Managua. Kerry returned to the U.S., where he advocated a policy of appeasement rather than continued funding of Ortega's opponents, the anti-Communist Contras. In 1988 Kerry attempted to make political hay of U.S. policy in Central America by using his Senate committee as a launch-pad to accuse George H.W. Bush of sanctioning a Contra drug-smuggling operation that was importing cocaine into California. The unfounded charges were, not surprisingly, timed to coincide with the elder Bush's campaign against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, under whom Kerry had served as lieutenant governor.

In 1996, Kerry accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution in return for arranging a meeting between Honk Kong businesswoman Liu Chaohying and a senior Securities and Exchange official in order to get Chaohying's company listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Chaohying was a lieutenant colonel in Red China's People's Liberation Army. That same year, Kerry traveled to Beijing on a "U.S. trade mission." Here it's worth noting that the ChiComs never forget their useful idiots; the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, has endorsed Kerry's presidential bid.

But Kerry's fondness for despotic regimes did not subside in the '90s. In March of this year, Kerry was asked on a campaign stop in Florida about his affiliation with Cuba's Fidel Castro and his oppressive regime. Given the number of Cuban expatriates in Florida who fled Castro's slave island, Kerry answered, "I'm pretty tough on Castro. ... I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him." (Would someone kindly cue the laugh track?)

Helms-Burton, you may recall, strengthened the U.S. embargo against Cuba after Fidel's fighter jets shot down two single-engine civilian aircraft over international waters, killing four Cuban ex-pats. The small planes belonged to Brothers to the Rescue, an organization of small aircraft owners who volunteered their time flying over the waters between Cuba and the Keys, and alerting the Coast Guard when they came upon Cuban refugees on makeshift rafts who needed rescue.

However, Kerry voted against Helms-Burton, and he later clarified his support for Castro by arguing that the embargo should be lifted. "The only reason [Cuba is treated differently from other Communist nations] is the politics of Florida," said Kerry. Of course, the ever-opportunistic Kerry wasn't campaigning in Florida at the time of that "clarification."
Indeed, John Kerry has a well-documented record of anti-American activities, especially aiding Communist regimes. But the "aid and comfort" he gave to North Vietnamese Communists in 1971 (while still a U.S. naval officer, and while Americans were still fighting, dying, and being held captive by that regime) is the most grievous of these transgressions.

His treasonous actions in 1970-1971 are the subject of an indictment that will be delivered to Senate President Dick Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft on 12 October. The indictment [http://www.PatriotPetitions.US/Kerry] notes both Kerry's UCMJ and U.S. Code (18 USC 2381) violations, and it calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President...having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Why issue this indictment now? Because John Kerry chose to make his Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his presidential campaign (see "Kerry's Quagmire..." http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/). In response, more than 160,000 signatories of the aforementioned indictment have made it the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify him from public office.

Clearly, there will be no determination on these charges until after 2 November, but Kerry will be held to account for his treasonous actions -- for there is no statute of limitations on treason.

For those who would argue that Kerry's anti-American activities in 1971, which clearly cost American lives in Vietnam, do not reflect the nature of the man today, we refer you to this statement from Kerry from the first debate. On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "It is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before."

Indeed, it did happen before, and it is happening again today.

Kerry can't have it both ways. There is a direct correlation between his undermining of U.S. and Allied resolve in the war against terrorism -- specifically on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan -- and American and Allied causalities on that front. Those forces, including countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed in larger numbers because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting.

During Tuesday night's vice-presidential debate, John Edwards unwittingly provided the evidence for this very correlation: "We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June."

As the hand-wringing of the Kerry/Edwards ticket grows stronger, so too does the spirit of the enemy. And while the net effect can certainly be felt in American and Allied casualties in Iraq, it may also yet be felt more dramatically in al-Qa'ida's efforts to ensure the election of its useful-idiot appeasers.

Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding U.S. national security, the protection of Americans and our vital interests, is this: Given the chance, would Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for a) George Bush, or b) John Kerry? How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan vote?

Editor's Note: A Correction, sort of...

In Patriot 04-29, we mistakenly stated that the Communist Party USA (now there's an oxymoron) had "endorsed" Comrade Kerry for president. The CPUSA website has since corrected the record by saying, "We do not endorse the candidates of other political parties. We have refrained from fielding our own candidate so as not to distract from the main effort of defeating Bush and the ultra-right extremist agenda."

_________________________________________________

Quote of the week...

"It wasn't easy for my opponent to become the single most liberal member of the Senate. You might even say, it was hard work. But he earned that title -- by voting for higher taxes, more regulation, more junk lawsuits, and more government control over your life. And when the competition includes Ted Kennedy, that's really saying something. ... Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat. Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake -- but also called the liberation of Iraq a "colossal error." He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there. He said he wants to hold a summit meeting, so he can invite other countries to join what he calls 'the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.' He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border, but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror. ... Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous. My opponent announced the Kerry doctrine, declaring that American actions in the war on terror must pass a 'global test.' ... My opponent's doctrine has other consequences, especially for our men and women in uniform. ... My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. Parts of it should sound pretty familiar -- it's already known as the 'Bush plan.' ... Iraq is no diversion; it is the place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror -- and we must not waver." --President George W. Bush sharpening his sword in advance of Friday night's second debate -- and not a minute too soon!

Memo to W: In tonight's Town Hall debate with JFK, please find an opportunity to make the following statement: "Why hasn't my opponent signed a Standard Form 180? All of my military records have been released -- even the ones fabricated by CBS. What is it about his military records that he's afraid to make public?" In his 1971 congressional testimony, Kerry admitted that he committed war-crimes. Kerry also admitted to treasonous collaboration with the enemy by directly meeting with the NVA in Paris in 1971 -- while he was still a Navy officer. His anti-American exploits during the war are already well-documented. So, what is he hiding? Mr. President, ABC News debate moderator Charlie Gibson is, shall we say, unlikely to ask Kerry that important question. It's up to you.

Open query...

"[F]irst they voted to commit the troops, send them to war. John Edwards and John Kerry. Then they came back, and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it. I couldn't figure out why that happened initially, and then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democrat primaries, running away with the primaries based on an antiwar record. So, they in effect decided they would cast an antiwar vote, and they voted against the troops. Now, if they couldn't stand up the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to al-Qa'ida?" --Vice President Dick Cheney

In other news...

The external investigation into SeeBS News' use of fabricated documents in a "60 Minutes" story about President Bush's Air National Guard service will not be completed until -- surprise, surprise -- after the election. The reason: "so that it doesn't affect what's going on," says Les Moonves, co-president of CBS parent company Viacom. In other words, the Leftmedia will continue to serve as cheerleaders for the Kerry campaign, while completely ignoring any news that might help the President, this "investigation" notwithstanding. That CBS fears it might "affect what's going on" by reporting the truth of its findings certainly puts the lie to any notion of an objective media.

From the Bush campaign journal...

The vice presidential debate on Tuesday was certainly more riveting than the Bush/Kerry debate last week. Dick Cheney was the clear winner, having shown presidential quality, poise, integrity and confidence, while John Edwards ... well ... didn't. Cheney asserted his knowledge of policy, while Edwards merely parroted lines used by the other John last week. Cheney also offered strong arguments for the administration's policies by supporting them with facts, facts, and more facts -- all while debunking the random, out-of-context statistics regurgitated by his young and inexperienced opponent. (For a complete rundown of Edward's distortions, link to http://kerry-04.org/fact_check.php)

More than any other, this exchange summarizes what is wrong with Kerry/Edwards: Edwards insisted, "We've taken 90% of the coalition casualties." VP Cheney replied, "[T]he 90% figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces, that have suffered casualties as well as the allies, they have taken almost 50% of the casualties..."

"Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties," fired back Edwards. Cheney responded, "Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of our Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're...putting their [lives at risk] to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifice, that strikes me as beyond the pale. They shouldn't count because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90% of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future. We'll win when they take on responsibility for governance, which they're doing, and when they take on responsibility for their own security, which they increasingly are doing."

Mr. Cheney also noted, "Our most important ally in the war on terror in Iraq, specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over with the Speaker of the House. And John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where he came and he thanked America for our contribution, for our sacrifice, and pledged to hold this election in January, went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility. That is not the way to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude."

President Edwards? Think about that one.

_________________________________________________

From the JFK DEMO-lition derby...

There go those tolerant, inclusive, open-minded liberals again.... The Republican campaign headquarters in Orlando was assaulted by protestors from the AFL-CIO Tuesday. They caused quite a disturbance, vandalized signs and posters, and several face assault charges. "We want to send a clear message to Bush," one protestor said. That clear message is apparently, "We can't help but be violent, ignorant hypocrites." A spokesperson with the AFL-CIO said that the Orlando protest did not go as planned. Do you think?

The incident in Orlando followed another assault in Knoxville earlier in the day Tuesday, when an unknown gunman fired several shots into a local Bush-Cheney campaign office. On Wednesday, a Bush campaign office in Kentucky was hit. In Maryland, large "Bush/Cheney" campaign signs have been burned -- but the campaign is leaving the sign remains in place as they aptly demonstrate the spirit of Kerry/Edwards ilk.

The BIG lie...

"Mr. Vice President, you and the president are still not being straight with the American people." --John Edwards with a tired line being repeated by Kerry-Edwards et al., every time they find an open mike.

This week's "Alpha Jackass" award:

"I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the [global] test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere." --John uFo Kerry on the "global test," now apparently expanded to include more than just planet Earth. Now that's multilateralism.

DEMO-gogue campaign quotes...

"Does that mean allies [France and Germany] are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that." --John Kerry, finally admitting that -- Non! Nein! -- France and Germany aren't about to send troops into the fray even if he becomes president.

News from the Swamp...

In the Executive Branch, L. Paul Bremer, former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, offered a critique of the invasion plan for Iraq in remarks that were off the record -- until Kerry got wind of them. Bremer's comments about the administration's not having enough troops on the ground to prevent looting and to control the escalating violence contradict statements made by military commanders, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Bremer himself during his tenure at the coalition authority. At the time, all of them believed troop levels were sufficient -- of course, hindsight is 20/20, and military historians note that military planning is the first casualty of war.

Kerry sopped up Bremer's words, endeavoring to exploit them in his ongoing attack on Bush's prosecution of the warfront in Iraq. Kerry continues to repeat his mantra that the president has not been straight with the American people about Iraq...a tall indictment from a man who isn't even straight with himself about Iraq.

Bremer, however, had a few words in response to Kerry's "out-of-context" use of his remarks: "The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism," writes Bremer, ironically enough, in The New York Times. "I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush." Regarding Kerry's use of his remarks, Bremer continues, "Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism."

In other Executive Branch news, President Bush signed into law this week the fourth tax cut enacted during his administration, extending the $1,000-per-child tax credit and continuing to ease the burden on the middle class and married couples. An added bonus was a $13-billion tax break for business to help pursue research and development.

In response, Candidate Kerry reiterated his pledge to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year. He still wants us to believe that he won't raise taxes on the middle class, but it's obvious he'd not stop at bilking the rich. After voting to raise taxes 98 times during his career in the Senate and promising budget-busting plans for health care and other domestic programs, why should anyone believe otherwise?

On the Hill, much like their counterparts in the Senate, House Republicans are increasingly confident about their holding and possibly expanding their majority this November. "The odds just keep getting better to keep the House," noted Rep. Tom Reynolds (NY), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee this week. With the Republicans holding 214 solid seats compared to the Democrats' 187, it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will be able to make much of a dent, despite the glassy-eyed optimism of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Candyland). In fact, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already conceded some races, cutting back ad buying in 11 media markets.

Even with the likelihood of Republicans' maintaining control of the Senate, several leadership changes are in store come 2005. Thanks to the GOP's self-imposed 6-year term limits for committee-leadership positions instituted during the term-limit-popular 1990s, the top spots in some of the most powerful committees will be changing hands. Commerce, Budget, Appropriations, and Judiciary will be seeing some new faces. While there's still speculation about who will shift where among the Republican senatorial hierarchy, this won't translate into a change of strategy, ideology, or policy.

One committee we'll keep our eye on is Judiciary (Arlen Specter), which is expected to see a lot of action next year. First, Republicans are going to make another attempt to ban the filibustering of judicial nominees made so popular by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Second, one or more Supreme Court vacancies are expected to open over the next presidential cycle. To say the least, we expect the fight for the ideological direction of America's highest court will not be pretty.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 96 to 2, in favor of reorganizing the national-intelligence community. Based on major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Senators moved to establish a cabinet-level national-intelligence director who would oversee the government's 15 intelligence agencies, as well as a national counterterrorism center. An interesting side note on the Senate vote: the only two Senators who didn't vote were John Kerry and John Edwards. Surprised? Neither were we. The same two men who have railed against the administration for not doing enough to fight the war on terror couldn't even take time away from their campaign to vote on such pivotal legislation.

On the House side of the 9/11 legislative equation, it's unlikely that passage will happen with the unanimity that the Senate enjoyed. Partisan debate still rages over immigration provisions that would make it easier to deport illegal aliens and harder to grant driver's licenses and foreign-student visas. When the two versions meet in conference, there will be much to reconcile, including just how much budgetary and personnel authority the NID will have.

Also in the House, Demo-Rep. Charles Rangel's bill calling for reinstitution of the draft (as you recall, last week Kerry was trying to pin this one on President Bush) failed Wednesday 402-2. In fact, Rangel was not even one of the two who voted "aye" on his own bill (Demos Murtha and Stark, for the record).

On the National Security front...

Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss is facing a radical change in job description if the 9/11 Commission's recommendations became law. But even before his likely reduction in the rank order of intel's chain of command, he is still feeling the heat of his new job.

Goss drew the ire of his colleagues at Langley as well as congressional critics this past week for appointing four staffers from his days as head of the House intelligence committee. This move exacerbated worries about bringing partisanship into the CIA, which was at the forefront of Demo concerns during Goss's confirmation hearings.

Michael Kostiw, Goss's pick for Executive Director and former staff director of the House terrorism subcommittee, withdrew his name from consideration after it was revealed he shoplifted a package of bacon -- Congress' favorite food group -- in 1981. Absurd as that sounds, it demonstrates the seriousness of the turf war that still rages in the CIA. Perhaps opponents of Goss should look inward if they are really serious about combating partisanship at Langley.

From the warfront with Jihadistan...

On Wednesday, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), released the group's final report. Among its key findings, the ISG estimates that Iraq most likely destroyed its previous chemical/biological weapon stockpiles, while its nuclear-weapons program had decayed since the end of Desert Storm.

Naturally, Kerry and his minions proclaimed once again that President Bush all but lied about the rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Overlooked by the Left-lot, the report also states that, regarding the above weapons, Hussein had preserved key elements of his WMD programs so they could be reconstituted within a month of UN inspectors' exit; Iraq's chemical industry infrastructure allowed it continue a modest amount of dual-use research; and perhaps most ominously, regarding biological weapons, Iraq still had significant dual-use labs in its biological-weapons program, and still possessed biological seed stocks, still possessed its bio-scientists. What is more, if needed, Hussein planned on their all-out use, including the striking of all Israeli cities.

The report notes that Iraq was developing long-range delivery systems, potentially for WMD; that it had corrupted the Oil-for-Food program to evade UN sanctions; and that Saddam actively worked to divide the UN Security Council. Interestingly, there are very few hard facts in the report, which employs phrases such as "ISG judges," "ISG found no evidence," and "ISG has not been able to establish." Overall, the ISG appears to have done a relatively thorough job, but it's the lack of documentation on the alleged destruction of Saddam's previously documented WMD that is unsettling, especially since items such as biological-weapon seeds can fit a car trunk. The true, final status of many of Saddam's former WMD is currently unknown.

As for undercutting the President's war rationale, the report does nothing of the sort. The President took the Coalition to war based on the best intelligence at the time, which stated that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. (We're struck by the fact that the Kerry campaign and media are now attacking Mr. Bush's use of a generally agreed upon intelligence report with information taken from...another intelligence report!) Even the intelligence services of the Axis of Weasels believed that. If our intelligence services had been allowed to crawl all over Iraq for a year or two prior to the war, as the ISG just did, then the pre-war intelligence would have been very different. What the report does point out, however, is how very difficult it is to get good intelligence from inside a tyrannical regime.

All of the above still begs the question, what is it that we DON'T know about the WMD programs of Iran and North Korea who have openly admitted to having nuclear programs? After all, President Bush is being criticized for relying on "faulty intelligence" -- which happened to be the BEST intelligence available -- faulty in that the most recent intelligence reports contradict earlier intelligence reports. Such is the business of intelligence estimates. Had President Bush (and John Kerry) ignored the Iraqi intelligence estimates they received in 2001 -- had those reports been proved accurate after Iraq's WMD found its way to some U.S. urban center compliments of al-Qa'ida operatives -- then what would Kerry's argument be today?

Ah, and about all those repeated assertions by John Edwards last week that there is no hard evidence directly linking Saddam to al-Qa'ida, there is plenty of evidence of Saddam's intelligence operatives' ties to al-Qa'ida. In a dictatorship, this constitutes a distinction without a difference.

On the Homeland Security front...

Conspiracy theories abound over plans to shore up Election Day security nationwide. Coordinating with the states, which will have the authority to police and protect polling sites, the Homeland Security Department faces criticism from those who believe this is a subtle scare tactic by the administration to keep minorities in the cities from voting.

Despite what liberals believe, the threat of terrorist attacks meant to sway elections in their favor is very real. We've seen it time and again, most notably the bombing in Madrid on 11 March of this year, the result of which meant the defeat of American ally Jose Maria Aznar's party at the polls and the subsequent pullout of Spanish troops from Iraq. The actions being taken by the various agencies -- Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the FBI counterterrorism strike force, and the states -- are to prevent such an attack from happening here precisely so that Americans can cast their vote without being swayed by outside forces. We conclude Democrats are just making up excuses in advance for the losses they expect at the polls next month.

From the "Non Compos Mentis" Files...

In best Democrat tradition, a dozen of the tribe, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, wrote to Kofi Annan last summer, requesting that he deploy monitors to the United States for our presidential election. To placate the Dems, the State Department invited 100 monitors of the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). They hope to catch Republican soccer moms intimidating minority voters, incorrectly purged voter rolls, and irregularities in voting machines, among other things. That the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) reforms have not yet been fully implemented concerns monitors. Any skullduggery they find could delay results of affected elections for months.

Just what we need -- next thing you know, we'll have the Carter Center certifying our elections!

From the "Village Academic Curriculum" File...

Prisons, by definition, are designed to control the behavior and lifestyle of the folks who've chosen to make them their home. From dusk 'til dawn, everything an inmate engages in is monitored and maintained according to strict regimen. In recent news, Martha Stewart will fulfill her sentence at West Virginia's Alderson Federal Prison Camp. It comes as no surprise, then, that according to Collegiate Network reports, Alderson's design for his prison camp was modeled after the layout of Bucknell University. To the seasoned Patriot, one thing is clear: Prisons and universities are designed, by and large, to control behavior and outcome. But there is hope. Bucknell University is one among our 20-plus cadre of Collegiate Patriot campuses. Help us wrest control of our schools from leftist Ivory Tower Wardens by supporting The Collegiate Patriot Project, https://secure.federalist.com/support/cpsupport.asp For now, Martha will have to sit tight; our Prison Patriot Project is still on the backburner.

Around the nation...

The Detroit City Council has proposed an economic "development" plan that will help solve racial tension in the city. Or not. The $112,000 plan would create a business district called "African Town," (perhaps a knock-off of China Town) composed of black-owned businesses for blacks. Immigrants from Mexico, Asia and the Middle East are stealing resources, jobs and other opportunities from the black community, according to the city council's report, and city leaders must put a stop to this economic shift. The proposal segregates and discriminates, two behaviors we thought were very much despised by the Left. Unless, of course, they themselves are committing them in the name of "affirmative action." Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, who introduced the effort to the council, said, "We see this as another complement to the exciting development going on in the city." Hmmm...we can only imagine what an exciting development "Caucasian Town" would be.

Around the world...

The United Nations is going the way of the League of Nations. It's just taking a lot longer. Nations, including the U.S., want to keep the moribund institution alive even if its ideas are already dead. The League of Nations ended when nation-states lacked common courage. The UN will end, finally and formally, when the lack of common purpose among nation-states becomes so rotten that the smell drives all the diplomats from Manhattan.

The spying stinks when Israel this week arrests 13 UN employees with links to terrorism. The hypocrisy smells when the UN Security Council votes 11 to one (U.S. veto) with three abstentions (U.K., Germany, Romania) to condemn Israel for killing a top terrorist of Islamic Jihad after two rocket attacks from Gaza murdered Israeli children.

The corruption rots from the inside out when the Special Committee (France, Russia, China, Syria) overseeing the Oil-for-Food program blocked the U.S. efforts to stop Saddam Hussein from misusing $10 billion from 1995-2003. State Department official Patrick F. Kennedy testified there was some measurable success of getting food to civilians -- and a lot of corruption.

The UN nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, demonstrated it can neither see nor smell when it missed nuclear proliferation in North Korea, Iran and Libya. The UN passed a resolution for Pyongyang to cooperate and use nuclear technology for energy, not weapons. Then, North Korea rejected the UN resolution. The UN, like the League of Nations, did nothing. The UN continues to ignore Iranian violations. To wit, the UN was utterly surprised in December 2003 to discover that Libya's Moammar Gadhafi even had a nuclear-weapons program.

At some point the majority of Americans will stop caring whether the media, other Leftists, ill-informed teachers and unknowing children keep singing "Imagine there's no country...a brotherhood of man..." and speaking of "global tests" for America's security. Other international organizations can do every good work imagined by liberals for the UN. Other coalitions of common purpose, alliances of the willing led by the U.S. can impose and preserve the peace where and when it is a vital interest. Someday, the rotting corpse of the UN will be buried -- before it spreads more disease, we hope.

And last...

Thursday's Washington Post featured this bold headline above the fold: "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons" and attributed the quote to Iraq Survey Group chief Charles Duelfer. Apparently The Post is now using Dan Rather's sources, because in a tiny correction in the back of Friday's A section, The Post's editors noted that Mr. Duelfer did NOT say, "We were almost all wrong." (At least they admit it when they are wrong!) In due penance, The Post's headline Friday morning was more accurate: "Many Helped Iraq Evade U.N. Sanctions On Weapons."

Lex et Libertas -- Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray on this day, and every day, for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.)

*Printer-friendly format
Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/current2004a.asp

[Guest]

What a great thing if the poodle would lose his citizenship

[2ndamendsis]

If I heard Claudia Rossett correctly last night in a radio interview........

she said "over 60 BILLION $$$"
_________________
PROUD wife of Army ASA Vet - 66-70
mom of Sailor - Gulf 1
daughter of WW11 Army Vet