BushCheney2004

Friday, October 31, 2003

It's "Letters To The Editor" Friday!
Get active in support of the President by writing letters to the editor TODAY!

We continue to see the grassroots effort on Letters to Editor Friday gain momentum so keep up the great work! The topic for your letter is completely up to you. There has been a lot going on so here are a few great ideas you can write about:

» The breathtaking momentum in the current economy discussed with a great round-up here, here and here;

» The smearing of judicial nominee Janice Brown (or is it racism from the Democrats?) discussed here, here and here;

» Keeping Iraq in perspective with Victor Davis Hanson's Event of Our Age piece, Tom Friedman's Iraq is not Vietnam column, Cliff May's post from NRO's The Corner on leveling with Americans or the recent Independant (UK) article on what pulling out of Iraq would mean;

» Democrats either predicting a Bush victory (George Stephanopolous, or endorsing his candidacy (Zell Miller);

» The need for continued vigilence regarding CBS' distortion of Ronald Reagan and the public's effort to stop CBS;

Now those are just a few, so simply type in your zip code below and find the news outlets in your areas!

If you're a blogger who wants to join this effort, just copy and paste the following ZIP-code lookup box so people can write letters directly from your site for Friday's festivities:

<table><tr><td bgcolor="#F2EDB5"><form name="mainForm" method="post" action="http://www.georgewbush.com/getactive/writenewspapers.aspx?aid=92" language="javascript" onsubmit="ValidatorOnSubmit();" id="mainForm"><input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE" value="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"/></form> <br /><script language="javascript" src="http://www.georgewbush.com/aspnet_client/system_web/1_1_4322/WebUIValidation.js"></script><B>Enter your ZIP code:</B><INPUT id="Text1" type="text" maxLength="5" size="6" name="zip"><input type="image" name="ImageButton1" id="ImageButton1" src="http://www.georgewbush.com/images/gwb_getactive_bgetinfo.gif" border="0" /></td></tr></table>

Let's show them what the Bush-blogosphere can do! If you support President Bush, write a letter to the editor today and every Friday!
- posted by KP @ Friday, October 31, 2003 |

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Let the Tidal Wave Begin (Jackie Calmes, 10/31/03, Wall Street Journal -- subscription required)

REPUBLICANS SEE sweep of 2003 governors' races ahead.

On heels of Schwarzenegger's California upset, they expect Republican Rep. Fletcher in Kentucky and former party chief Barbour in Mississippi to win Tuesday's odd-year elections. White House is poised to credit Bush, who campaigns for both men this weekend.

Democrats concede Kentucky nominee Chandler's attack on "Fletcher-Bush" economy fell flat. In closer Mississippi race, Gov. Musgrove hits Barbour's special-interest lobbying. To rally whites, Republicans exploit state-flag flap, link Musgrove to black lieutenant governor candidate Barbara Blackmon. Her request that her female foe swear she never had an abortion backfires, they say.

Democrat Sen. Breaux delays exit plans to see who wins Louisiana runoff and the right to fill his job.

- posted by KP @ Thursday, October 30, 2003 |

What the Resistence in Iraq is Really All About (Tom Friedman, 10/30/03, New York Times)

Tom Friedman's piece today is a must-read on how the resistence in Iraq understands exactly what is going on there and how the US efforts are nothing like Vietnam, but more about having the Iraqi people govern themself rather than suffer under the iron fist of Baathist Dictators -- and the evil in that region must do everthing to keep the US from being successful:

Since 9/11, we've seen so much depraved violence we don't notice anymore when we hit a new low. Monday's attacks in Baghdad were a new low. Just stop for one second and contemplate what happened: A suicide bomber, driving an ambulance loaded with explosives, crashed into the Red Cross office and blew himself up on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. This suicide bomber was not restrained by either the sanctity of the Muslim holy day or the sanctity of the Red Cross. All civilizational norms were tossed aside. This is very unnerving. Because the message from these terrorists is: "There are no limits. We have created our own moral universe, where anything we do against Americans or Iraqis who cooperate with them is O.K."

What to do? The first thing is to understand who these people are. There is this notion being peddled by Europeans, the Arab press and the antiwar left that "Iraq" is just Arabic for Vietnam, and we should expect these kinds of attacks from Iraqis wanting to "liberate" their country from "U.S. occupation." These attackers are the Iraqi Vietcong.

Hogwash. The people who mounted the attacks on the Red Cross are not the Iraqi Vietcong. They are the Iraqi Khmer Rouge — a murderous band of Saddam loyalists and Al Qaeda nihilists, who are not killing us so Iraqis can rule themselves. They are killing us so they can rule Iraqis.

Have you noticed that these bombers never say what their political agenda is or whom they represent? They don't want Iraqis to know who they really are. A vast majority of Iraqis would reject them, because these bombers either want to restore Baathism or install bin Ladenism.

Let's get real. What the people who blew up the Red Cross and the Iraqi police fear is not that we're going to permanently occupy Iraq. They fear that we're going to permanently change Iraq. The great irony is that the Baathists and Arab dictators are opposing the U.S. in Iraq because — unlike many leftists — they understand exactly what this war is about. They understand that U.S. power is not being used in Iraq for oil, or imperialism, or to shore up a corrupt status quo, as it was in Vietnam and elsewhere in the Arab world during the cold war. They understand that this is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched — a war of choice to install some democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

- posted by KP @ Thursday, October 30, 2003 |

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

President Bush's Message to the Grassroots: "I Need You"

Bush Team Leaders ^
| 10/28/03 | President George W. Bush

Dear Republican,

Over the last few months, Laura and I have traveled the country and have been humbled by the enthusiastic support we have been given.

Our country has faced many challenges in the last two and half years and we are meeting these challenges at home and abroad. We're defeating the enemies of freedom. And at the same time, we're confronting challenges to build prosperity for our nation and a more compassionate society.

Every test has revealed the true character of America. And no one in the world can doubt the spirit and will and strength of the American people.

We are meeting the challenges of our time but there is much more to be done and I need your support. Will you join me in these efforts by volunteering for my re-election campaign as a Bush Team Leader?

http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/SignUp/

As a Bush Team Leader you will be asked to help by volunteering at local events, hosting your own events, registering new voters, turning out voters on Election Day and more. Most importantly, you will be asked to recruit more Bush Team Leaders to help us win in November 2004. Please sign up to be a part of this important effort today.

http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/SignUp/

The challenges we face cannot be met with timid actions or bitter words. They will be overcome with optimism and resolve and confidence in the ideals of America.

We are acting to advance human freedom and liberty and making the world and America more secure. We took action to create jobs and get the economy growing again.

We acted on principle. You did not send me to this office to mark time. You sent me here to restore dignity and honor to the White House and to help build a safe and prosperous and caring nation. Will you join me in this effort by becoming a Bush Team Leader and volunteer your time?

http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/SignUp/

I want to thank you for the work that you will do in the months to come. There is no question in my mind that with your help we are laying the foundation to win a great victory in November of 2004.

Sincerely,

P.S. Again, thank you for making my campaign strong at the grassroots level all across the country. I am grateful to the over 300,000 Americans that have contributed to my campaign and the millions more who've signed up on the campaign email list. And I am grateful to everyone that chooses to volunteer in support of this effort. I need you to make certain your friends and family register to vote. I need you to make phone calls, send emails, help organize rallies, put up signs, and get out the vote. I need you to volunteer in my campaign today.

http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/SignUp/

- posted by KP @ Wednesday, October 29, 2003 |

I'm Jealous . . . Seriously

Rich Galen gives up his comfortable state-side job and lifestyle to work in Iraq:

MULLINGS will be taking a break for the next two to four months because I will be in Iraq for the next two to four months.

If everything goes according to plan, just about this time next week I would be winging my way east as a civilian employee of the United States Department of Defense with the task of helping to see that the full story of what the US is accomplishing and what the Iraqis are accomplishing in Iraq is being told to viewers, listeners, and readers in America and around the world.

This week will be devoted to various physical exams, filling out even more paperwork, buying whatever items folks already there think I'll need to bring along, and packing.

I am not being heroic. If you believe, as I do, that we are at war and if you believe, as I do, that if your country asks you to use your skills in the waging of that war, then there is only one answer: "When do I leave?"

- posted by KP @ Wednesday, October 29, 2003 |

Do You Want to Tell CBS What you Think of the Reagan Movie Distortions?

The people at Jessica's Well have set up a page to facilitate feedback to CBS over their contemptible fictional and slanderous account of Ronald Reagan:

Welcome to an un-official and one of what I hope to be many web pages published with the aim of facilitating feedback to CBS and those companies that ultimately sponsor the upcoming CBS hatchet job on Ronald Reagan during the next "sweeps week".

We will record the show when it airs and make a list of the companies that sponsored the show and the products that they were advertising. We will then list them here on this page along with any contact information we can find for these companies in order for you, dear readers, to merely click and inform at that point and let them know what you thought about the program and what you think about their support of same.

For now, let us start off with CBS itself: Here is the CBS On-lIne Feedback Link.

When they get this thing up and running I will blast this around the blogosphere.

Update: Here is a petition drive to tell CBS that we, the public supporters of Ronald Reagan, will stop watching CBS if they portray Reagan as inaccurately as has been reported.
- posted by KP @ Wednesday, October 29, 2003 |

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

LEVELING WITH AMERICANS (Cliff May, 10/28/03, from NRO's "The Corner")

Great post putting recent events in the context of the bigger picture (complete with dripping sarcasm!):

Consider: The Saddamites and their foreign allies decide that the proper way to celebrate the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan is to massacre several dozen innocent people – Iraqi police officers, Red Cross workers and American troops among them.

They use ambulances to carry suicide terrorists and explosives. They dress up as policeman.

And the world is outraged – at President Bush.

Why? Because when he said back in May that the work ahead in Iraq would be “difficult” and “dangerous” people naturally took that to mean it would be a cakewalk, a day at the beach, a bowl of cherries.

We all believed that, and we had every reason to believe that because Bush told us so, not in words exactly but he did stand with his shoulders squared in front of a banner on the ship that read: “Mission Accomplished.”

How could anyone be so jejune as to interpret that to mean that Saddam Hussein had been toppled, the mission of the troops on that ship had been accomplished, the ship was now heading home?

Obviously, that banner meant that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Condi and the rest of the neo-conservative cabal believed that the War in Iraq was over, the War on Terrorism was over, Saddam Hussein would soon turn himself in and be sentenced to community service (after his attorney, Johnny Cochran, argued that “if the aluminum tubes don’t fit you must acquit”), and Osama bin Laden would become a basketball coach at a non-sectarian madrassa in Karachi.

Not only that, “Mission Accomplished” also meant there would finally be peace on Earth, good will toward persons, swords would be turned into plowshares, drug benefits would be free, and the lion would lay down with the lamb -- to loud and sustained applause from PETA.

Yes, that stupid Bush cleverly fooled us all because he’s a big, fat liar like all those right-wingers – especially Ann Coulter who’s a big, fat liar even though she is skinny. That’s just part of the lie.

- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 28, 2003 |

More on the Saddam/Al-Qaeda Connections (Stephen F. Hayes, 11/03/03, The Weekly Standard)

There remain exponentially more questions than answers concerning Saddam Hussein's relationship to al Qaeda. Among them, it is a mere matter of detail to know why a native Iraqi, thanks to a contact in the Iraqi embassy, was in a position to escort two September 11 hijackers to a critical planning meeting, or why he possessed contact information for Osama bin Laden's "best friend." But the overarching fact--that Saddam and al Qaeda had a relationship--can no longer be seriously disputed.

And PLEASE remember, no one ever said Saddam plotted the 9/11 attacks. What they Administration HAS been saying is that Saddam was a main supporter of terrorism world-wide and he had links to Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. It is connections like these that more than justify our liberation of Iraq from that madman.
- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 28, 2003 |

How The Politics of Supply-Side Economics Has Made the Democrats Un-Electable (Alan Murray, 10/28/03, Wall Street Journal--subscription required)

The election of 2004 is shaping up to be the ultimate triumph of supply-side economics. That is the theory that proffers tax cuts as the solution for almost anything that ails the U.S. economy -- as well as anything that ails the Republican Party.

Supply-side economics has always been as much about politics as economics. Twenty-five years ago, Jude Wanniski, a former editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal and self-appointed high priest for the supply-side movement, dubbed it the "Two Santa Claus" theory. He argued Democrats were winning elections by playing Santa with government-spending programs, while Republicans were losing them by being responsible and focusing on deficits. The solution, he said, was for the Republican Party to abandon the green eye shades and become the Santa of tax cuts.

And so it has. Under President Bush, the party has pushed tax cuts for everyone, and turned a blind eye to galloping increases in government spending. Democrats, in turn, have taken the bait, becoming ever more "responsible," wringing their hands over deficits. Gen. Wesley Clark's economic speech last week, attacking Mr. Bush's "free lunch" and mixing patriotism with deficit reduction, could have been written by one of those Republicans Mr. Wanniski railed against a quarter-century ago.

The two most successful Democratic presidential candidates so far -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is leading in New Hampshire, and former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, who appears to be ahead in Iowa -- have walked right into the president's trap, calling for complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts. That gives them resources to make some bold policy proposals. But I believe it all but assures neither can win the general election. Polls show most Americans weren't eager to receive a tax cut in the first place. But now that the money is in their paychecks, they won't be happy to give it up -- especially after Mr. Bush floods the airwaves with advertisements reminding people what's at stake.

- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 28, 2003 |

Andrew Sullivan Deconstructs the Misleading and Inaccurate Pronouncements from John Kerry and Wesly Clark

The foreign policy views of Wesley Clark and John Kerry deserve special consideration because both men represent what is supposed to be a foreign policy realism among Democrats. They're not Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton. But that makes Sunday night's rhetorical cheapness, nitpicking, and Tuesday-morning quarterbacking all the more frustrating.

Take Kerry's response to the following question:

[FOX NEWS MODERATOR CARL] CAMERON: Senator Kerry, I want to direct the next question to you, in part because you voted for the Iraq resolution but have also opposed the $87 billion. To many, that speaks to an inconsistency that your candidacy has been criticized by, for having a difficult to explain position on the Iraq war.

Is it inconsistent for you to support the resolution and not the reconstruction money?

KERRY: Not in the least. In fact, it is absolutely consistent, because what I voted for was to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but to do it right.
But the Iraq Resolution was clearly designed to sanction war if Saddam Hussein didn't fully and immediately comply with U.N. resolution, i.e. fully disarm or account for those weapons he had not accounted for. The congressional resolution wasn't some generic statement designed merely to put pressure on Saddam. It was a declaration of conditional war. Everyone understood that at the time. Kerry is spinning history to pretend otherwise.

...

Clark didn't fare much better:

CAMERON: General Clark, your campaign implies that your combat experience gives you a better understanding of the implications of war, but your political message is confusing.

You have not only praised the president that you now want to defeat but, according to the Arab Institute Voting Guide, in February of 2003, you said this, quote: "Saddam Hussein has these weapons, and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this, and the rest of the world has got to get with us," unquote.

But you have also so far refused to take a firm position on the president's request for more money. Can you tell us exactly where you do stand?

CLARK: I'd be happy to tell you where I stand. I think I've been very consistent from the beginning.

Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait and switch on the American public. President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today.
The compression of ideas in that last statement by General Clark speaks volumes about the Democratic Party's approach to foreign policy and the war on terror. Clark implies that the Bush team deliberately switched attention away from Afghanistan in order to go after Iraq--"right after 9/11." But the months after 9/11 were consumed with the war against the Taliban, a war successfully implemented with minimal casualties. There was no "bait-and-switch" "right after 9/11." Why would the Bush team want to focus on Iraq because they hadn't found Osama bin Laden when they didn't know at the time that they wouldn't find and eliminate bin Laden? It makes no sense.

In fact, the war against Iraq was designed to complement the war against the Taliban, to show that the United States would no longer tolerate the possible nexus of terrorists with outlaw regimes building WMDs. You may disagree with that policy, but to argue it was a cynical "bait and switch" deal makes a mockery of history. So too is the simplistic notion that the war on terror was a simple attempt to get rid of two men--Saddam and OBL--rather than two dangerous regimes in Kabul and Baghdad. But the administration has accomplished both objectives, while still obviously struggling to win the fragile peace in both countries, a peace that Kerry and Clark refuse to finance.

- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 28, 2003 |

Monday, October 27, 2003

Economic Recovery in Full Swing

Both the LA Times and the New York Times have extensive pieces regarding the latest economic data and the outlook for the coming week's forcasted numbers:

When the gross domestic product for the July-September quarter is announced Thursday, it is expected to show that the economy barreled forward at an annual rate of 6% or perhaps even 7% — a performance unmatched since the glory days of the '90s boom.

Although growth is likely to slow somewhat between now and the end of the year, most analysts think that it will remain strong enough to ensure a second-half growth rate of 5%.

That would put the current period nearly on par with late 1999, when the combination of a rollicking stock market and fear of the Y2K computer problem set off a business buying spree unmatched since.

And the New York Times gets into the act with:

Wage increases for employees at almost all income levels are giving important and unexpected support to the nation's economy. If the gains continue, they offer hope that the rapid economic expansion of recent months could prove more durable than other spurts of growth over the last two years.

Forecasters expect the Commerce Department to say in its quarterly report on Thursday that the economy grew about 6 percent in the three-month period ending in September, which would be the fastest pace since 1999.

All in all, things are looking mighty rosy so we just need to keep this economic engine roaring and November 2004 will make November 1984 look like a barn-burner!
- posted by KP @ Monday, October 27, 2003 |

The Bombs in Baghdad are French-made . . . Only Democrats Would Be Surprised (Trevor Kavanagh and Brian Flynn, 10/27/03, The Sun (UK))

A BAGHDAD hotel where US defence chief Paul Wolfowitz was staying was yesterday blitzed by rockets made in FRANCE.

Half of the missiles fired were modern French weapons, said experts â€” produced after the arms embargo imposed on Iraq following the first Gulf War.

The shock discovery will further fuel growing concern over blackmarket French arms links with Islamic terrorists.

The French government has furiously denied turning a blind eye to illegal weapon supplies, despite the recent discovery in Iraq of military hardware apparently built there.

- posted by KP @ Monday, October 27, 2003 |

Bumper Stickers That Drive the Left Crazy

- posted by KP @ Monday, October 27, 2003 |

Saturday, October 25, 2003

International Community Pleadge Over $13 Billion in Aid to Iraq (Paul Richter, 10/25/03, Los Angeles Times)

Nations and international groups pledged more than $13 billion in grants and loans Friday to rebuild Iraq, despite misgivings about American unwillingness to share power over the mammoth reconstruction project.

The aid, which will be combined with an expected $20 billion in U.S. grants, was more than the White House had forecast at the beginning of the month but less than the $56 billion sought. U.S. officials said that some pledges made at a two-day conference may not pan out and other officials expressed disappointment that Persian Gulf states had not given more, despite U.S. pressure.

Of the $13 billion, between $6 billion and $9 billion is expected in loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund; most of the remainder will be grants, a senior U.S. official said. As recently as two weeks ago, the Bush administration worried that pledges might total less than $2 billion.

The aid "demonstrates that the international community is coming together to help the Iraqi people build a new nation, one that will be proud to rejoin the international community," Secretary of State Colin Powell told representatives of 77 countries and 20 groups assembled in a Madrid convention center. The money is earmarked for projects through 2007.

- posted by KP @ Saturday, October 25, 2003 |

Friday, October 24, 2003

The Deciding Issue of Our Time (Victor Davis Hanson, 10/24/03, The National Review)

For some reason or another, a series of enormously important issues — the future of the Middle East, the credibility of the United States as both a strong and a moral power, the war against the Islamic fundamentalists, the future of the U.N. and NATO, our own politics here at home — now hinge on America's efforts at creating a democracy out of chaos in Iraq. That is why so many politicians — in the U.N., the EU, Germany, France, the corrupt Middle East governments, and a host of others — are so strident in their criticism, so terrified that in a postmodern world the United States can still recognize evil, express moral outrage, and then sacrifice money and lives to eliminate something like Saddam Hussein and leave things far better after the fire and smoke clear. People, much less states, are not supposed to do that anymore in a world where good is a relative construct, force is a thing of the past, and the easy life is too precious to be even momentarily interrupted. We may expect that, a year from now, the last desperate card in the hands of the anti-Americanists will be not that Iraq is democratic, but that it is democratic solely through the agency of the United States — a fate worse than remaining indigenously murderous and totalitarian.

- posted by KP @ Friday, October 24, 2003 |

If you're a blogger who wants to join this effort, just copy and paste the following ZIP-code lookup box so people can write letters directly from your site for Friday's festivities:

Let's show them what the Bush-blogosphere can do! If you support President Bush, write a letter to the editor today and every Friday!
- posted by KP @ Friday, October 24, 2003 |

Thursday, October 23, 2003

Don’t the Democrats care even a little about terrorism? . . . Apparently Not (Byron York, 10/22/03, The Hill)

There is some stunning — and so far unreported — news in a new poll conducted by Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg.

The survey — sponsored by Democracy Corps, the group founded by Greenberg, James Carville and Robert Shrum — focused on Democrats who take part in the nominating process in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

What Democracy Corps found was that Democrats, at least those who are most active in politics, simply don’t care about terrorism.

Just don’t care.

In one question, pollsters read a list of a dozen topics — education, taxes, big government, the environment, Social Security and Medicare, crime and illegal drugs, moral values, healthcare, the economy and jobs, fighting terrorism, homeland security, and the situation in Iraq — and asked, “Which concern worries you the most?”

In Iowa, 1 percent of those polled — 1 percent! — said they worried about fighting terrorism. It was dead last on the list.

Two percent said they worried about homeland security — next to last.

In New Hampshire, 2 percent worried about fighting terrorism and 2 percent worried about homeland security.

In South Carolina — somewhat surprising because of its military heritage — the results were the same.

Democrats in each state were then given the same list of topics and asked to name their second-most concern. Fighting terrorism and homeland security still placed near the bottom of the list.

- posted by KP @ Thursday, October 23, 2003 |

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Wictory Wednesday

Here is Polipundit's post:

Here's how a witness described a partial-birth abortion procedure:

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus.

The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.

Congress overwhelmingly passed a ban on this procedure. "Centrist" Democrat Bill Clinton vetoed it.

This time there's going to be no veto. President George W. Bush will sign a bill that finally bans partial-birth abortion, with exceptions to save the life of the mother.

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, Polipundit and others ask readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign. If you've already volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you.

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And do e-mail polipundit so that I can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be a part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

- posted by KP @ Wednesday, October 22, 2003 |

Monday, October 20, 2003

The Case for War (Jonah Goldberg, 10/20/03, National Review Online)

Jonah makes his case for why we went to Iraq:

The legitimately surprising and disturbing failure to find weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq is now seen as the ultimate proof that George Bush "lied" even though it is virtually impossible to make that argument logically.

For that to be the case, Bush would have had to have known that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the charge, right? That he lied about Saddam having WMDs. Okay, so if Bush knew that Saddam didn't have those weapons, he would have known something which the CIA, the United Nations, the British, the French, the Germans, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Pentagon, scores of Iraqi exiles were convinced was not true. Moreover, he would have to have known that Saddam Hussein was willing to forgo $100 billion in oil revenues to conceal the fact that he didn't have WMDs. But forget about that. Anyway, so Bush knew there were no WMDs, but at the same time he pretended otherwise. He convinced his entire Cabinet, Congress, Tony Blair, and most Americans that Saddam had WMDs and that he himself was convinced of this even though he knew otherwise. (Presumably, he even went back in time — like Peter Potamus the Hurricane Hippo — and convinced Bill Clinton and his entire national-security staff and the Democratic leadership of Congress that Saddam had WMDs.)

- posted by KP @ Monday, October 20, 2003 |

The Emerging Republican Majority (Fred Barnes, 10/27/03, The Weekly Standard)

AFTER THE 1972 AND 1980 ELECTIONS, Republicans said political realignment across the country would soon make them the dominant party. It didn't happen. Now, despite highly favorable signs in the 2002 midterm elections and the California recall, Republicans fear a jinx. Realignment? they ask. What realignment?

Matthew Dowd, President Bush's polling expert, notes heavy Republican turnout in 2002 and the recall, a splintering of the Democratic coalition, Republican gains among Latinos, and shrinking Democratic voter identification--all unmistakable signs of realignment. But he won't call it realignment. Whoa! says Bill McInturff, one of the smartest Republican strategists, let's not be premature. Before anyone claims realignment has put Republicans in control nationally, McInturff says, the GOP must win the White House, Senate, and House in 2004 and maybe even hold Congress in 2006. Bush adviser Karl Rove agrees. He recently told a Republican group that the realignment question won't be decided until 2004.

There's really no reason to wait. Realignment is already here, and well advanced. In 1964, Barry Goldwater cracked the Democratic lock on the South. In 1968 and 1972, Republicans established a permanent advantage in presidential races. In the big bang of realignment, 1994, Republicans took the House and Senate and wiped out Democratic leads in governorships and state legislatures. Now, realignment has reached its entrenchment phase. Republicans are tightening their grip on Washington and erasing their weakness among women and Latinos. The gender gap now exposes Democratic weakness among men. Sure, an economic collapse or political shock could reverse these gains. But that's not likely.

...

Nothing is guaranteed in politics. The political future is never a straight-line projection of the present. And the ascendant party always hits bumps in the road. Democrats were dominant from 1932 to 1994, but they lost major elections in 1938, 1946, and 1952. Now, Republicans are stronger than at any time in at least a half-century and probably since the 1920s. Realignment has already happened, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

- posted by KP @ Monday, October 20, 2003 |

Thursday, October 16, 2003

Iraq Resolution Gets Unanimous Support

Syria backs U.S., joining Germany, France and Russia; measure clears way for multinational force under American command.

In a diplomatic victory for the United States, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday aimed at attracting aid to stabilize Iraq and putting it on the road to independence.

The vote bolstered U.S. efforts to win credibilty for its rebuilding effort in Iraq and to ease the burden of American troops there.

...

The United States also won backing from China and Pakistan, and finally -- and most surprisingly -- from Syria, the only Arab nation on the Security Council and a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led war. Earlier Thursday, a U.S. official had said an abstention by Syria, rather than a vote against, would be "a huge win."

Germany, France and Russia had announced their decision to vote "yes" after a 45-minute conversation earlier Thursday, in a bid to bring international solidarity to the reconstruction effort.

The announcement by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at a European Union summit in Brussels marked a dramatic shift by the three countries.

"We agreed that the resolution is really an important step in the right direction," Schroeder said after the conference call with presidents Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin of Russia. "Many things have been included from what we proposed. This led us ... to jointly agree to the resolution."

- posted by KP @ Thursday, October 16, 2003 |

Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Wictory Wednesday

466,884! That's how many volunteers Howard Dean has already signed up for his campaign. Imagine what a difference those volunteers could make in 2004, when they'll spread out all over the country to elect a hard-left Democrat who will raise your taxes, appease terrorists and fill the courts with ultra-liberal nominees who will make the Ninth Circus look reasonable by comparison.

The Bush campaign needs a strong army of volunteers to counter the powerful Democratic machine. Join up by entering your e-mail address below.

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven't done so already. If you've donated and volunteered already, get a friend to join you.

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And do e-mail polipundit so he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be a part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

- posted by KP @ Wednesday, October 15, 2003 |

Dick Cheney Was Right on Links Between Al-Queada and Saddam Hussein (Stephen F. Hayes, 10/20/03, The Weekly Standard)

So was Saddam Hussein involved in September 11? Evidence, at this point, is scarce, but the proper answer is the one Cheney gave: We don't know.

The Bush administration does know, however, about Saddam Hussein's connections to al Qaeda. And it's learning more every day. This, despite the woeful lack of resources devoted to exploring those links.

Is there a specialized team searching for Saddam-al Qaeda ties--something like David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, say, with its 1,400 scientists and intelligence experts roaming Iraq in search of proscribed weapons? "There is no such operation," says one intelligence official familiar with postwar intelligence. "What we know, we know because a handful of uniformed guys on the ground in Iraq have a hard-on for this stuff."

If the CIA ever gets serious about investigating Saddam-al Qaeda ties, it can start by sending someone to Toronto. On April 27, 2003, Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter, his translator, and a colleague from the London Telegraph came across a document in the burned-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat in Baghdad. The document was found in the accounting department of the old Iraqi intelligence building and discussed who would pick up the tab for upcoming meetings between a bin Laden representative and Iraqi intelligence. It was, Potter wrote at the time, "the first hard evidence of contact between bin Laden's al Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime." Bin Laden's name appeared three times in the document--crudely covered with liquid paper. The goal of the meeting, according to the memo's author, was to discuss "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The individual coming to Baghdad, the memo continued, may represent "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

Pretty damning stuff. I emailed Potter in July, and while he was careful to avoid drawing conclusions about the document's meaning, he was certain of its authenticity. "I have no doubt that what we found is the real thing," he wrote. His phone rang off the hook after he reported his find. One of those calls, he assumed, would come from the CIA or some other investigative arm of the U.S. government.

It's been nearly six months. That call never came. As of Thursday, no one from the U.S. government had contacted Potter about the document his editors are now holding.

- posted by KP @ Wednesday, October 15, 2003 |

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Winning the War on Terror: U.S. Captures Senior Members of Ansar al-Islam (Robert Burns, 10/14/03, AP News)

American forces in Iraq have captured one of the most senior members of Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group suspected of having ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, U.S. defense officials said Tuesday.

The arrest of Aso Hawleri, also known as Asad Muhammad Hasan, late last week in the northern city of Mosul has not been announced. Larry Di Rita, chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, told reporters, "I'm not in a position to confirm" Hawleri's capture.

Hawleri was taken by soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division, said a defense official, who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

The capture netted a number of other people besides Hawleri, the official said, adding that there apparently was not a gunfight.

- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 14, 2003 |

99% of America's Counties Represented in Bush Campaign Contributions

The President’s campaign announced today that 262,000 people have made a contribution to his re-election campaign.

Grassroots supporters like yourself make up the vast majority of those contributing to the President’s re-election. In fact, contributors to the President's re-election campaign represent over 99% of America's counties. Now that's broad, grassroots support that represents America.

Check out the official press release here.

Setting the standard for full disclosure, you can find the names of all contributors on the Web site at www.GeorgeWBush.com/Donors/. Check it out; see if you can find your name, if you can’t, go here.

- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 14, 2003 |

Poll: Most in Baghdad Want Troops to Stay (Will Lester, 10/14/03, AP News)

When Gallup set out recently to poll Baghdad residents, the biggest surprise may have been the public's reaction to the questioners: Almost everyone responded to the pollsters' questions, with some pleading for a chance to give their opinions.

``The interviews took more than an hour to do, people were extremely cooperative with open-ended questions,'' said Richard Burkholder, director of international polling for Gallup. ``People went on and on.''

The Gallup poll found that 71 percent of the capital city's residents felt U.S. troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26 percent felt the troops should leave that soon.

Along the lines of Instapundit's thinking, now that the shackles of the totalitarian regime seem to be fading, the public feels freer to speak their true mind since it was not too long ago that free speech was meant with a death senetnce.
- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 14, 2003 |

President's Approval Rating Up

President Bush's job approval rating, which had slumped in several recent polls, has bounced back to 56 percent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday.

In mid-September, the president's approval was at 50 percent in a similar poll and at 49 percent in an NBC-Wall Street Journal survey -- some of the lowest numbers of the Bush presidency. But the recent poll, conducted Oct. 10-12, shows the president's standing with the public improving.

Citing a specific reason for the change is difficult, said Gallup Executive Editor Frank Newport, who instead mentioned several possible factors for the recent increase. Newport pointed to signs of an improving economy, including the uptick in the stock market; the Bush administration lobbying on Iraq and media coverage of the California recall that pushed criticism of the president off the front pages.

In the survey, 53 percent of registered voters said the president deserves a second term, 45 percent said he does not.

Still, the poll hinted that the 2004 race appears close at this stage. Thirty-eight percent said they would definitely vote for Bush, 38 percent said they would definitely vote against him and 24 percent said they were unsure.

From USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll:

Solid majorities of Americans support changes in the nation's political system, want the power to recall elected officials and are angry about the way some things are going in this country.

A week after California voters ousted a governor, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found an electorate nationwide that shares some of the discontent that fueled Arnold Schwarzenegger's election there.

The unease that voters express now is at almost precisely the same overall level that a similar survey found in January 1992. That was the start of a campaign that ousted the first President Bush and gave third-party contender Ross Perot 19% of the vote.

But that frustration isn't focused on the current President Bush or other elected officials, at least not yet. Bush scored a healthy job-approval rating of 56%, up from its low point of 50% last month.

If it's not the Executive Branch they are angry at, and they don't have a say in the Judicial Branch, could it be the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrats in Judicial nominations and putting politics over policy in Iraq and the Kay report? Nahhhhhhhhh. November 1994 here we come . . . again.
- posted by KP @ Tuesday, October 14, 2003 |

Monday, October 13, 2003

Why We Went to War (Robert Kagan & William Kristol, 10/20/03, The Weekly Standard)

From the October 20, 2003 issue: The case for the war in Iraq, with testimony from Bill Clinton.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON is right about what he and the whole world knew about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. And most of what everyone knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with this or any other government's intelligence collection and analysis. Had there never been a Central Intelligence Agency--an idea we admit sounds more attractive all the time--the case for war against Iraq would have been rock solid. Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.

Here's a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in the frenzy of the past few months. Shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, U.N. inspectors discovered the existence of a surprisingly advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq's own admission and U.N. inspection efforts, Saddam's regime possessed thousands of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the U.N. would never have made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive biological warfare program.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

Be sure to read the whole thing . . .

- posted by KP @ Monday, October 13, 2003 |

Welfare Reform Helping Workers Find Jobs (Robert Pear, 10/13/03, New York Times)

"Welfare" used to mean a monthly check that could be immediately converted to cash. But statistics tabulated by the Department of Health and Human Services, at the request of The New York Times, show that the proportion of federal and state welfare money spent on cash assistance declined to 44 percent in 2002, from 77 percent in 1997. The proportion allocated to various types of noncash assistance shot up to 56 percent, from 23 percent in 1997.

"The program has been fundamentally transformed," said Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary of health and human services in charge of welfare policy.

The federal and state money is used not only to provide a minimal income to single mothers, but also to help them move from welfare to work, hold onto low-wage jobs and move into better-paying jobs.

Via the Official Bush Campaign Blog.

- posted by KP @ Monday, October 13, 2003 |

Sunday, October 12, 2003

The Freepers 1,000,000th Topic Thread!

Congratulations guys! Here is their complete post:

10 Things You Can Do Right Now to Re-elect President Bush.

Are you ready to get active and re-elect our President? Are you pumped up about taking our great victory in California and turning it into an even bigger national victory in 2004?

The time to start making it happen is NOW.

We can't wait until the Democrats select a candidate. The Democrats are busy organizing and pulling out all the stops to defeat President Bush and we as Freepers need to be just as strong and just as vocal at the grassroots -- just as we were during the recall.

Here are 10 things you can do to get involved RIGHT NOW, within the next 5 minutes, without being contacted from headquarters.

1. Did you know the Bush campaign is actively recruiting volunteers? Go and volunteer your time by becoming a Bush Team Leader.

2. Every contributor makes a difference -- so go and contribute now. In 2002, a million people gave $30 to the RNC and Hillary Clinton, Robert Byrd, and Tom Daschle were thrown OUT of the majority. Imagine what grassroots Freeper contributions can do in 2004.

3. The election is still a year away, but you can start organizing face-to-face in your area through Bush-Cheney 2004 Meetups. Sign up to attend the next local meeting of Bush volunteers on Tuesday, October 14, at 7 pm!

4. Start organizing a group of volunteers in your state, county, or city by starting a Yahoo or MSN Group for Bush. To get it started, e-mail everyone you know who supports Bush and ask them to join!

5. Use the official campaign's Action Center to Write Letters to the Editor or Call Talk Radio. There's no better way to set straight the liberal drumbeat in your local media than by easily writing a letter of support for President Bush through this easy to use tool.

6. Link your Freeper page to GeorgeWBush.com so that others can volunteer, donate, and take action!

7. Stock up on t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers.

8. E-mail five of your friends and get them to register to vote Republican.

9. Monitor message boards in your local newspaper websites or favorite blogs and fight leftist troll attacks and lies on Bush/Cheney.

10. E-mail ten of your friends who may just be casual Republican supporters and ask them to join you in taking all of these actions. You might be surprised at the positive response you get and people's willingness to be involved!

- posted by KP @ Sunday, October 12, 2003 |

The Democrats 'Big Lie" on Justification for Invading Iraq

Following the David Kay report that exposed vast laboratories for developing weapons of mass destruction, the Democrats (Pelosi, Kennedy et al.) charged in front of reporters and cried to all who would listen, that despite this damning evidence, the report provided no evidence that Saddam Hussein posed an 'imminent' threat. That line of reasoning caused more than a few conservative eye-brows to be raised as no one thought President Bush based his decision on the argument that Hussein posed an imminent threat. Turns out, Bush argued the exact opposite in his 2003 State-of-the-Union address where he said we cannot wait until he is an imminent threat because that would be too late, since terrorists don't exactly send "save the date" cards. Here are his exact words:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

However, since Democrats keep losing on just about every substantive position taken prior to the war, they keep 'moving the goalposts' and changing the standards by which the President should be judged. The lastest is the oft-repeated lie by Democrats that Bush justified going to war based on an imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein:

The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- contra.
-- Paul Krugman, June 3, 2003, New York Times

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D- West Virginia) did just that on Fox News' Sunday morning talkshow with Tony Snow (Matthew Hoy is all over this live exchange.). Rather than answering the question of whether he saw an improved Iraq (better than what is reported in the press) on his recent visit, he repeated this lie as Democrats hope the continued repetition will hopefully make this lie fact in the minds of Americans (in the AP's case, it appears to have worked).

Thankfully there is the blogosphere who will keep the Democrats feet to the fire and debunk these repeated lies. Andrew Sullivan has been all over it with the following quotes from Democrats themself prior to the war:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." --Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction... [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." --Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

JR Whipple has been keeping tabs on quotes with sources as well. Bo Cowgill finds this gem from Tom Daschel (D-South Dakota):

The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real, it is growing, and it cannot be ignored.

Andrew Sullivan has this Ted Kennedy (D - Massachusetts) position admitting Bush obviously hadn't claimed any imminent threat:

Here's a fascinating nugget. Ted Kennedy, who is now claiming that the administration claimed an "imminent" threat from Saddam, didn't feel that way directly after the president's State of the Union address last January. Here's the money quote from the Los Angeles Times:
But afterward, some said the speech failed to end the debate on whether to go to war. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said he would introduce a resolution today that would require Bush to come back to Congress and present "convincing evidence of an imminent threat" before U.S. troops are sent to war with Iraq. Congress approved a resolution last fall authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq, and that measure did not require a second review.
Now, presumably that means that Kennedy himself didn't believe that the president had argued or shown that Saddam's threat was "imminent." Now he's changed his tune. Pure politics, as usual, from the senator from Massachusetts. (In another twist, you'll see that the L.A. Times reporter simply describes Bush's speech as arguing that the threat is "imminent" with no evidence at all. She doesn't even notice the discrepancy between her headline and Kennedy's protestation. I guess people hear what they want to hear.)

Sullivan even has a great Howard Dean quote from his Face the Nation appearance September 29th, 2003:

The president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

Tom Maguire, over at Just One Minute, backs up Andrew Sullivan's efforts. And even a left blogger whom he has been batlling adds a series of quotes that actually back up the Right's claim that they never said Saddam was an imminent threat.

It is important to keep these truths at the ready since Democrats have shown time and again, they will resort to any level of lying to to undermine this President and the many great tasks he is undertaking.

Update: Andrew Sullivan is all over this one again.

Update II: On saturday, A. W. did a great round-up of the incredible number of news outlets who have picked up on and continue to further the "imminent" threat lie:

I thought it would be interesting to run this search on google “imminent threat Bush” and see what I got. Yes, I wanted to actually document how many people have repeated this line. The results were so staggering, that I could never document every case without completely destroying my free time. When you look up that search you get no less than 56 pages of links. 56! So, I went through less than half, only 20 pages of the links, and this is how much I came up with.

Read, and be staggered at how often a lie is repeated.

Well done!
- posted by KP @ Sunday, October 12, 2003 |

Saturday, October 11, 2003

Introduction of Iraqi Currency Major Milestone in Rebuilding Effort (10/11/03, Rueters)

Bush cited as a major milestone the plans to issue fresh Iraqi dinar notes that will no longer bear the image of Saddam Hussein, whom the United States ousted from power in April.

"We're helping Iraqis to rebuild their economy after a long era of corruption and misrule," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "For three decades, Iraq's economy served the interest only of its dictator and his regime."

"The new currency symbolizes Iraq's reviving economy," he said.

Bush said the new currency would help unify Iraq, which had previously used two different versions of the dinar in different areas.