John Kerry's time in Vietnam should not be the central issue of the 2004 Presidential race, even though Kerry decided to tout it as his main -- perhaps only -- qualification for office. His running mate, John Edwards, told prospective voters, "If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him." Kerry's four months in Vietnam ended thirty-five years ago; a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. Doesn't he have any more recent acquaintances who could vouch for his character? Personally, I'd like to hear more about the people he spent time with when he returned from Vietnam. Although Kerry would have us believe that the period between his Vietnam days and the present time -- or at least his election to the Senate -- was more or less an empty void, that's not the truth.

When Kerry returned home from Vietnam, his sister recruited him to fly protester (and advisor to Ted Kennedy) Adam Walinsky around to give speeches against the war. Kerry requested an early out from the Navy in order to run for Congress on an anti-war platform, and was transferred to the Naval Reserve six months early. An article in the Harvard Crimson at the time stated that he was against the war even before he went to Vietnam. "At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966." Kerry was quoted as saying that the United Nations should have control over most of America's foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations," he said. He was also quoted saying that he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity."

He didn't get the 1970 Democratic nomination for Congress. Instead, Kerry got more deeply involved in the anti-war movement. Kerry joined the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) in June 1970, and quickly rose to become the group's national spokesman. He attended protest rallies all over the country, including the infamous Valley Forge rally (at which Jane Fonda spoke) and a staged "occupation" of Washington DC in April 1971, during which Kerry threw his medals, or his ribbons, or possibly someone else's medals or ribbons over the Capitol Building fence. (Even now, no one has been able to get a straight answer out of Kerry.) The VVAW marched through towns, passing out flyers saying:

A U.S. INFANTRY COMPANY JUST CAME THROUGH HERE!

If you had been Vietnamese---

We might have burned your house
We might have shot your dog
We might have shot you...
We might have raped your wife and daughter
We might have turned you over to your government for torture
We might have taken souvenirs from your property
We might have shot things up a bit...
We might have done all these things to you and your whole TOWN!

If it doesn’t bother you that American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are "Gooks," then picture YOURSELF as one of the silent VICTIMS.

Help us end the war before they turn your son into a butcher or a corpse.

Although Vietnam veterans and anyone who supports and honors our troops may feel slighted and even angered by Kerry's characterisation of them, his First Amendment rights protected all of this. He had the right to say anything he wanted to, lies or not. But this was not all that Kerry did.

Kerry and Jane Fonda were both in Detroit in January 1971 at the "Winter Soldier Investigation," financed by Fonda. They recorded testimony from supposed disgruntled Vietnam veterans about atrocities and war crimes... testimony that turns out to have been largely false. According to Mackubin Thomas Owens, Vietnam veteran and professor at the Naval War College, the Naval Investigative Service "discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans." Among others, Al Hubbard, Kerry's partner in the VVAW, was in fact lying about his rank and service in Vietnam. When John Kerry testified before the US Senate in April 1971, he was acting in his capacity as spokesman for the VVAW. Kerry accused all American soldiers of war crimes, and the United States government of full knowledge of them. Kerry claimed that atrocities were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Tapes of Kerry's speech were played over and over for American prisoners of war in Hanoi, as they were tortured to make them confess to war crimes they never committed -- the atrocities Kerry accused them of committing.

That's giving aid and comfort to the enemy, defined as treason in the Constitution (Article III, Section 3). The penalty for treason is defined in the United States Code of Law (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381). "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Kerry also admitted to committing atrocities himself. On Meet The Press in April 1971, Kerry attempted to absolve himself of the responsibility for what he had done, accusing the government of the United States of forcing him to commit war crimes. Kerry did not mention whether he was alone when he performed the acts he confessed to:

I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.

It sounds as though the only person Kerry can be certain was razing villages "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan" was Kerry himself. Despite his confession on national television, Kerry was never brought before a court-martial. Note that a "free-fire zone" is not an order to "shoot anything that moves," but the discretion to fire first if a threat is perceived.

It's an election year, and America stands at a crossroads. At stake is the future of the country itself, and its place in the world. The Republican President, seeking re-election, is conducting a war that divides the country -- a war he never wanted and tried to avoid at first, though all the blame is laid at his doorstep. The Democratic party, split between pro- and anti-war elements but united in its hatred of the incumbent, even accuses him of stealing his first election. The Democratic challenger, a military man, is running on both his war record and his opposition to the war, trying to bring both halves of the party together. The people see the election as a referendum on the war itself, as well as on the commander-in-chief. The media excoriates the President on a daily basis, abusing their power to deliberately drive his public support down. Democrats accuse him of prolonging the war through his stubborn adherence to his policies and methods. Pundits, commentators and armchair generals denigrate his conduct of the war, while comparing his intelligence and facial features to an ape's... and not favorably. While trying to convince the nation he deserves re-election, the President struggles to preserve and re-unite it. The measures he has taken in order to do so have inflamed the opposition to new heights of vitriol, causing them to accuse him of attacking liberty itself. Despite all of this, President Lincoln prevails...

Yes, President Lincoln. Or did I mean the upcoming election? The election of 1864 was every bit as crucial to the future of America and the rest of the world as the one we face in 2004, and is eerily similar in so many respects. One main difference is that John Kerry's military experience was over thirty-five years ago, while George McClellan's war experience was only months old (plus, McClellan was a General who had commanded and organised entire armies, not a Lieutenant - the simile would be even more apt if Wesley Clark were running). Also, instead of liberating millions of enslaved Americans, President Bush has liberated fifty million Muslims from totalitarian dictatorships bent on terrorism against Americans. Yet the similarities outweigh the differences by an order of magnitude. 1864, a new documentary about to be released by X-Back Pictures (named for the anti-static coating on film), will expose and probe these similarities. Note for Michael Moore fans: this is a real documentary, not a two-hour MoveOn.org hate-Bush commercial. It'll be interesting to see how the critics receive it. I'm willing to bet it doesn't receive a standing ovation from the French, nor will it win the Palme d'Or at Cannes.

Like President Bush, Lincoln was accused by bitter Democrats of stealing his first election. The "Oxford Fraud" in Kansas helped split the Democrat vote between two Democratic nominees, allowing Lincoln to be elected with 180 electoral votes but only 40% of the popular vote. The newspapers of 1864 attacked the President viciously, the way the mainstream media does today. In one instance, the Chicago Times argued that the Lincoln administration "has been offered peace and Union, and has rejected the offer. It demands the wealth and lives of our people to prosecute a crusade against an institution whose rights are guaranteed by the law investing them with temporary power, and which they have sworn to defend and support." Lincoln was accused of disregarding civil liberties, and with more reason -- he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war. It must be noted that Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."  Since the Constitution did not specify who had the power to do so, he assumed that power for himself -- and it was the assumption of that power, not the suspension of habeas corpus itself, which was found unconstitutional. However, the accusation was not brought against him until the war was over. (Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney declared the suspension unconstitutional, but Lincoln, Congress and the military ignored him. There was a war on, after all.) Today's Democrats see no problem in attacking the President in the middle of a war, for suspending habeas corpus only for suspected enemies, and with the consent of Congress and the Supreme Court. Remember that the PATRIOT Act passed 357-66 in the House and with only one "nay" vote in the Senate.

In 1864, the American people saw through the media-driven anti-Republican bias, and re-elected Lincoln with 212 electoral votes to 21, and 55% of the popular vote. Once again, the American people will have to choose between finishing the job that we've begun, or cutting our losses, running away from the problems, and forfeiting both international prestige and international power. We saw how running away affected us in every way possible for decades after Vietnam. We're still feeling the effects of our self-inflicted loss. What will the future hold for us if we elect to pull back, pull out of Iraq and commit to asking permission of the United Nations before defending ourselves from our enemies in the future? Even France, the "moral" compass the Left steers itself by, unilaterally invaded Cote d'Ivoire in 2002 to force the increasingly isolationist government to share power with a pro-France rebel faction. France is helping the unpopular government to crush other, anti-France factions, which have popular support and are calling for transparent elections. The only threat to France from the Ivory Coast was economic (and prestigious) in nature, yet neither the UN nor even the most arrogantly self-important Liberals in America have raised so much as a murmur against the blatantly imperialist aims of the French. Their ire, it seems, is reserved for the United States. What will become of us, should we subsume our national interests to the will of partisans who condemn the US for upholding its cease-fire agreement while allowing France to freely invade other countries just to maintain its influence? 

If George McClellan had been elected President in 1864, the "two Americas" John Edwards speaks of would be very real today, though not in the way he imagines. One important difference: America's economic and military might would not have been so easily united and turned against Germany in the First World War. Today's world would look remarkably different if the United States had chosen the path to immediate, easy peace in 1864. How will tomorrow's world look if we do so in 2004?

There really are two ways of looking at the world. To most of us, the world works in rational, linear, fairly predictable ways. Drop a hammer, for instance, and it will always fall, accelerating at thirty-two feet per second, every second. Science works. Reason works. We're capable of understanding the world, and using our understanding of it in small ways to advance ourselves. The world around us makes sense.

Then there are people who see the world through emotionalism, symbolism and magic. The world makes sense to them, too, but in a completely different way. They believe in Grand Gestures and symbolic attacks. They can't merely disagree with someone, that person must become a larger-than-life Enemy of All Humanity. Their emotions drive their thoughts and fears. Those who believe in a symbolic world don't see the universe as working along the same rational, linear lines as the rest of us. Liberals and terrorists both belong to this latter group of people.

Terrorists attack representative symbols of things they hate. Innocent people are symbolically representative of the larger group they want to hurt -- they're emotionally incapable of separating the individual from the group. To attack America or Israel, they kill random Americans or Israelis; to attack America's military, they attack the Pentagon or blow up a truck full of American soldiers; to attack America's economic might, they attack the World Trade Center and other financial buildings. Even the symbolic gesture of burning American flags is, by magic, supposed to be an attack on America itself. Rational people would strive to build a better economy or military to increase their position in the world. By making the Grand Gesture of killing themselves along with the symbol that represents their chosen enemy, terrorists ensure that their attack "means" something -- it's the magic that translates the attack on the symbol to the hated real thing. Because their world functions by magic instead of rationality, they believe that they can hurt America by hurting symbols or representatives OF America.

Most Liberals have the same magical, emotional worldview as terrorists. Liberals feel that magic, of a sort, actually works. Their speeches are full of metaphor and emotional overtones instead of fact and realism. Like terrorists, they are fond of the Grand Gesture and symbolic attacks. When you see them dancing wildly and chanting obscenities in the streets of New York City to protest the Republican convention all next week (ironically using their freedom of speech to protest other people's freedom of speech), understand that what they do makes sense in a magic-run emotion-driven universe. If they can out-shout the Republicans, they can "beat" them. If they can project their hate loudly enough, they can "win." That is why arguments with Liberals almost inevitably devolve into shouting matches. When they burn American flags, they're burning a symbol that represents America -- and in their minds, they are burning America itself. Their weird costumes, hate-spewing signs and slogans are all designed to symbolically attack the things they hate -- law, order, capitalism, common decency and morality, freedom (to disagree with them), American power, the rational world and George W. Bush -- the current symbol of all these things. It doesn't matter that their arguments are irrational and not based on all the available facts -- they feel right, and, magically, they can become right by the power of emotion. As for the giant puppet heads... okay, no one can explain the giant puppet heads.

Knowing that they can't possibly hurt any of these things only makes protesters redouble their efforts. Watch them carefully through the week and ask yourself whether they represent your way of thinking. Where terrorists kill themselves to seal the magical deal, as it were, Liberals merely get more outrageous and outlandish in their symbolic street theater -- wearing hateful, scary costumes, staging "die-ins," painting their faces and bodies, making criminal accusations without proof (or even evidence), running around naked and so on. The shock value of their appearance and actions, they feel, is sufficient to translate their attacks from the symbols of the things they hate to the real thing. Having felt better for making the Grand Gesture, they return to their comfortable world, bought and paid for and protected by the very things they profess to hate. Their main difference from the terrorists lies in this hypocrisy.

We survived the Cold War only because our enemy was generally as rational as we are. We could foresee the Soviet response to any action on our part because they thought the same way we do -- in rational, linear terms. Each move, like a chess game, led to a response from a set of rational responses. We're not so lucky this time. Terrorists are not really crazy, though they appear so to the rational thinker. Their belief in symbolic magic merely makes them seem insane to us. Liberals, likewise, view the world in an irrational way... they're only slightly less incomprehensible.

Prepare for a shock. This post has nothing to do with Conservative ideals, history, politics, or anything "normal" for this site.

New Jersey, original home of the drive-in movie, has a drive-in theater once again, according to the Drive-Ins.com website. The Delsea Theater in Vineland NJ opens tonight, 27 August 2004, with a double-feature of Alien vs. Predator and Collateral.

Save me some popcorn.

In a startlingly bad piece of political theater, John Kerry sent his supporter Max Cleland to hand-deliver a letter to President Bush at his ranch in Texas. The 25 August 2004 letter contained a plea for the President to infringe upon the free speech rights of a group known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: 254 Vietnam veterans who have collectively questioned the circumstances under which Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in only four months, without spending any time in the hospital. Many of the SBVT are decorated themselves. Because of their questions, however, John Kerry feels they must be silenced. What Kerry pretends not to know is that President Bush trying to direct their activities in any way would constitute the coordination with the group Kerry is accusing him of. It's a neat trap, and Bush is not falling for it.

So why a hand-delivered letter? Did Kerry forget the password to his email account? (Hint: try "ketchup") Couldn't he wait three days for the Post Office to deliver it? Perhaps Kerry never heard of Federal Express? No, nothing like that... Kerry callously used wheelchair-bound Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, a man who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, as a photo-op delivery boy, just to stir up your emotions. What an incredibly low opinion Kerry seems to have of the American public. "Oh, that poor guy," you're supposed to say. "He has to deliver mail for Kerry because Bush is so mean. I'm voting for Kerry now!" (If this "thought" actually did cross your mind, please stop reading this now. Really.) And Cleland is allowing Kerry to use him, his disability and his Vietnam service just to score political points.

President Bush has praised Kerry's service many times, and denounced the activities of all 527 groups (so named for the section of the tax code which allows them). "All of them," Bush responded to a reporter's question about whether he specifically condemned the SBVT ad. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s." Kerry and the Democrats don't want anyone denouncing MoveOn.org and the Media Fund, however -- two of the 527 groups that have spend over a year and millions of dollars bashing President Bush in the most vicious ways possible, under cover of the First Amendment right of free speech. They demand that President Bush "order" SBVT to take their ads off the air -- an abridgement of their own right of free speech. According to a March 2004 press release from Kerry's web site, however, those two left-wing groups have been "assailing the president and serving as the Democrats' answer to Bush." The press release also declared that "when [Kerry's ad] buy is combined with those from the Media Fund and MoveOn, the Democratic message saturates the airwaves in some places." Collusion? Collaboration? Of course not!

Rather than answer the claims of the SBVT by signing form 180 to release all his military and medical records and possibly prove himself in the right, Kerry has sent platoons of lawyers to threaten TV stations running their ads and bookstores selling their book, Unfit for Command. He has operatives compiling "incriminating dossiers" on the Swift Boat Vets in preparation for a personal smear campaign. He sends the pathos-inspiring figure of Max Cleland to trundle up to Bush's door in a wheelchair -- followed by a fleet of camera-wielding media types -- to hand-deliver a letter asking that the President denounce this group of people exercising their right of free speech and this group alone. The letter was signed by Senators Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Tom Carper of Delaware and Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, both of New Jersey. It should go without saying that they're all Democrats.

In response to Kerry's accusatory letter, a group of Republican veterans prepared a letter of their own for Senator Kerry:

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham [CA]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [CA]
Rep. Sam Johnson [TX]
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

Senator Kerry may be forced to release his records soon enough. Judicial Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that investigates government corruption. Now they've turned their sights on the allegations made against Senator Kerry. On 18 August 2004, Judicial Watch filed a "Request for Investigation, Determination and Final Disposition of Awards Granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, USNR." The request makes special mention of Kerry's anti-war activities (including meeting with the leadership of the enemy during wartime, while still an officer in the Naval Reserve). The request concludes:

Serious, credible reports of dishonorable conduct; false official reports and statements; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and U.S. Code by Lieutenant (jg) John Forbes Kerry, USNR (Senator Kerry) are now before you.

These reports are specific as to the nature of the wrongdoing, the timeframe and location.  There are corroborating witnesses.  These witnesses have made public statements detailing their specific knowledge of wrongdoing by Senator Kerry.  The claims against Senator Kerry – both concerning his fraudulently obtained awards for valor and combat wounds, as well as his dishonorable and potentially illegal conduct as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve – are gravely serious matters that demand your immediate and direct action.

The truth will come out... one way or the other. When the SBVT came out with their book and their first TV ad, Kerry blamed the attacks on President Bush rather than answer them directly. He intoned, "Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on." The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have indeed brought it on, and not even a direct order from President Bush -- were it legal for him to do so -- can make it stop.

I only hope we can find time between now and election day to debate plans for the future instead of the past.

At long last, the troops are coming home. No, not the troops in Iraq -- the job there isn't yet finished. America has more than 200,000 military personnel stationed all over the world, almost half of them in Germany. In most cases those soldiers are there for reasons that no longer exist, protecting old allies against enemies long gone. It's about time the Pentagon has taken a serious look at our overseas deployments and began the process of reconfiguring them to meet our current needs. While speaking before a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, President Bush announced his plan to remove some troops from foreign bases altogether, and to move others to where they can be more effective. Over the next ten years, more than 70,000 soldiers -- including two divisions in Germany -- will be based in the United States instead of places like Germany and North Korea. Not only will having them home benefit them and their families psychologically, but with today's faster transportation methods, they can get to the action just about as quickly.

Naturally, Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry attacked Bush's plans, as he is bound to do no matter what the President says or does. If Bush buys a puppy, Kerry is sure to hold a press conference lambasting the President for buying yet another dog instead of a cat, choosing the wrong breed of dog, and for feeding another mouth on a salary paid by the taxpayers. Kerry would also complain about the dog's name, sex, and the brand of dog food Bush bought. It's an election year, after all. Even one's dog food choices aren't safe from criticism.

In this case, however, Kerry raised some questions about the redistribution plan that simply aren't valid. Kerry called it a "hastily announced plan" and asked, "[W]hy are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea — a country that really has nuclear weapons?" It was an interesting remark from a man who stated on the Senate floor in 2002, "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." Perhaps someone ought to let the Senator know that no amount of American soldiers -- no matter how well-trained and well-equipped -- can stand up against nuclear weapons. Those 37,000 soldiers became more like hostages than protectors the minute North Korea developed the Bomb.

The redeployment plan is neither hasty nor unilateral -- although why the United States would need another country's permission to bring our own troops home is another question for Senator Kerry. What would he do if, as President, he decided to move troops out of Germany and the German government refused to agree to it? The fact is that these moves have been planned meticulously, and have been discussed with the leadership of the countries involved. A December 2003 UPI article called it "a long-studied repositioning of U.S. forces and bases" as the US was negotiating with Poland for the use of several bases there. "Informal talks have been under way for weeks with old allies such as Japan, South Korea and Germany about a possible reduction of U.S. troops in their countries, and there have been negotiations, too, about establishing new bases in the former Eastern Bloc countries of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria." In February 2004, Germany and America agreed to a schedule of US troop reductions. It was during talks in June 2004 that the government of South Korea may have suggested that the troop withdrawal take place over ten years, as the Associate Press reported at the time. The only person surprised by President Bush's announcement, it seems, was Senator Kerry.

Why are Democrats so opposed to a better, more efficient use of American troops? What is wrong with repositioning US forces to meet the needs of the war we're currently fighting, instead of a Cold War that ended more than a decade ago? Does John Kerry expect Soviet tank divisions to smash through France the minute we walk out of Wiesbaden? Germans and South Koreans have held massive demonstrations against the presence of American military personnel. According to the New York Times, the German people say we can't leave fast enough to suit them. "Once viewed as a potent symbol of Cold War vigilance - eagles standing against the Soviet bear - the American soldiers in Germany are now seen by some people here as something approaching a nuisance." Should we not be responsive to the feelings of our allies? Frankly, the only purpose served by the American servicemen in Germany is spending their salaries -- American tax dollars -- to shore up the European economy. If the Democrats were as concerned for the American economy as they pretend to be, they would welcome the idea of bringing that tax money home, to be spent here.

The US has been making pacts and agreements with allies around the Middle East to base more troops in the area for years. For instance, the Bush administration has been expanding the Abu Dhabi air base in the United Arab Emirates since the spring of 2003. The Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar has been upgraded and expanded to house as many as 10,000 troops. The US presence in Qatar is neither new nor unwanted. In 1999, according to GlobalSecurity.org, "Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad, reportedly told US officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000 US servicemen permanently stationed at Al Udeid." Since our main enemies today are from the Middle East rather than Moscow, the move makes logical sense... except to those who would politicise our national security. 

The punchline is that just two weeks before President Bush made his announcement, Senator Kerry himself was advocating the very same thing. Once again, John Kerry has shown that he can take either side of any issue, as long as he believes it will get him votes. "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry said on 1 August 2004, on ABC's "This Week", declaring his intention to remove troops from Iraq. "If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world; in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps." The problem with his Iraq hopes is that no country that doesn't already have troops in Iraq will send troops, no matter who is President. The French and German governments have made it clear that sending troops is out of the question. If "help is on the way," it's not speaking French or German.

Kerry's insistence that other countries will suddenly, mysteriously reverse their positions -- flip-flop, if you will -- is solely based on wishful thinking, like his belief that creating a more business-hostile environment will create jobs in America. Unless he starts coming across with specific, credible plans to explain exactly how he intends to accomplish his aims, Senator Kerry is campaigning on smoke and mirrors.

Jim McGreevey's resignation from his position as Governor of New Jersey has plunged politics -- never a field for the naive -- to a new low of cynicism. On 12 August 2004, McGreevey announced that he was stepping down because he is a "gay American" and that he had cheated on his wife with another man. Let's leave aside the question of whether he really believes gay people are a separate ethnic group of some sort. McGreevey's attempt to sidestep questions about the rampant corruption in his administration by wrapping himself in a Gay Pride flag is about as transparent as a sheet of plate glass.

McGreevey's administration has been troubled from the start. He appointed Joseph Santiago as superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, but Santiago resigned after only 11 months due to his reported ties to the mob. In 2003, McGreevey aides Paul Levinsohn and Gary Taffet made millions by apparently using their influence to get billboards (run by a company they worked with) approved without a public hearing. In an unrelated investigation, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) charged Taffet with insider trading. Roger Rajesh Chugh, McGreevey's assistant State Department commissioner, was forced to resign after promising favors to Asian-American businessmen in return for campaign donations. Elizabeth Wong, head of the State's college loan agency, used public funds for a personal makeover, Broadway tickets, limousine rides, parties, lunches, gifts, trips, and office equipment for her home. Wong resigned earlier in 2004.

In July 2004, David D'Amiano was indicted on Federal charges. McGreevey's top fundraiser was caught soliciting bribes and political donations from a Piscataway farmer who was negotiating to preserve his lands from condemnation. D'Amiano told the farmer that in exchange for $20,000 in cash and $20,000 in political contributions, D'Amiano could have the condemnation halted by the intervention of a "high-ranking government official." The farmer voluntarily cooperated with Federal investigators and taped conversations between himself, D'Amiano, and others. McGreevey himself used the chosen code word "Machiavelli" during a meeting, a pre-arranged signal to let the farmer know that the deal was approved.

The same month, Commerce Secretary William Watley was forced to resign amid allegations that he mishandled State funds. An $11.5 million loan to a church in which Watley is a minister was canceled after it was determined that he was also a member of the partnership that would have received the money. Watley somehow neglected to mention his partnership on the financial disclosure forms submitted with the loan application. Watley also awarded a no-bid consulting contract to his chief-of-staff's sister.

The tale of Charles Kushner is more sordid by far. Kushner was McGreevey's largest campaign donor, as well as being a fundraiser for NY Senator Charles Schumer, former President Bill Clinton and Presidential hopeful John Kerry. Kushner's income tax filings and campaign contributions were under investigation by Federal authorities. In an attempt to gain leverage over the chief witness against him, Kushner sent two minions to find a hooker willing to help them videotape the witness having sex with her. The two men spent three months and an unknown amount of money in various go-go bars and gentlemen's clubs (expensive go-go bars), with no luck. (This raises the important question of whether New Jersey's state motto ought to be "We Have the Most Inept Criminals" or "We Have the Most Virtuous Exotic Dancers." Someone ought to run a poll.) Kushner took matters into his own hands, contacting a NYC call girl he happened to know. The call girl successfully seduced the witness -- using the old "damsel in distress" ploy -- and taped the encounter. Instead of using the threat of exposure as leverage to force the witness to refuse to testify against him, Kushner simply mailed the tape to the man's wife... his own sister. The witness, you see, was his brother-in-law. Kushner even timed the delivery to occur during an engagement party for his own nephew. Conversation over this year's Thanksgiving dinner ought to be somewhat... strained. Though McGreevey is not personally named in this case, it raises important questions about his judgement and the sort of people he surrounds himself with. Kushner had been McGreevey's pick for chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but withdrew from consideration due to the campaign contribution investigation.

The incident that directly prompted McGreevey's resignation makes the other examples of corruption pale in comparison. Whether McGreevey is gay is immaterial, as is the other man's insistence that he himself is not. McGreevey hired Golan Cipel without a background check for the critical and sensitive position of Homeland Security Advisor, despite the fact that Cipel was an Israeli national and could not obtain the neccessary Federal security clearance. McGreevey chose Cipel over Louis Freeh, the former FBI Director who offered to fill the position without salary. Isn't security -- especially in a state that lost so many on 9/11 -- too serious a business for the Governor to be handing out Homeland Security positions to the unqualified like party favors? Not to be denied, McGreevey simply reassigned Cipel to a job as "counselor to the governor" with no specified duties when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Cipel's appointment. Whether McGreevey approached Cipel with bribes in return for his silence about the affair (which Cipel insists never happened) or Cipel attempted to blackmail McGreevey is simply bad street theater at this point. Either way, it's barely a blip on the NJ corruption radar.

The punchline of the whole McGreevey resignation joke is his decision to step down in November, instead of right away. By holding onto the office until November 15th "to facilitate a responsible transition," McGreevey will ensure that the Democratic political machine retains control of the Governor's office until the 2005 election. That will give them a year to spin the story to their advantage. If McGreevey steps down before 3 September, then -- as New Jersey has no Lieutenant Governor -- the citizens will get to elect a new Governor in a special election at the same time as the Presidential election. Rather than take the chance, McGreevey is using his sexual orientation as a smokescreen to avoid demands that he leave office in time for the citizens of NJ to elect a new Governor this year. Now that's cynical.

Watch as the "mainstream" media plays right along, calling him "brave" and "courageous" for discussing his homosexuality in public while ignoring the real story. As the Seattle Times reported, "Gay-rights groups expressed support and compassion for McGreevey, but their reactions were tinged with sorrow because McGreevey announced his resignation just as he became the nation's first openly gay governor." With the backing of such lobby groups, McGreevey will be able to turn any indictment, impeachment or demand that he step down immediately into a personal attack based on his sexual proclivities. Corruption of any magnitude can be excused by the media, if one is a member of a Liberal-protected group... and you can bet McGreevey knew that when he announced his delayed resignation.

Presidential hopeful John Kerry has been telling the American people that he would fight a "better" war against terror, but not exactly how. At the UNITY 2004 conference for minority journalists, Kerry stated, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." (This was the same conference, by the way, at which the neutral, non-partisan journalists broke out in wild cheers and whistling for Kerry, but heckled Bush as he spoke the very next day. But remember, folks, there's no media bias!)

I wondered just how one would fight a "sensitive" war against the kind of subhuman slime who cut the heads off innocent victims on videotape. Kerry has offered few specifics on his plan for fighting terror, aside from forming a "real coalition" of nations (a massive slight on the British, Italians, Poles, Australians, Japanese, Spanish, and dozens of others who have been with us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, if you ask me). He has said he sees fighting terrorism as "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." On his web site, Kerry's plan for making America safer consists mainly of tracking terrorists once they arrive, "hardening targets," and making sure first responders have what they need to clean up the carnage after the terrorists strike. Apparently, the lack of mess is supposed to discourage them. Nothing about preventing them from coming here in the first place, of course... nothing about letting them know it's not going to be worth the price. Nothing about stopping the nations which support them from doing so, by either diplomatic or military pressure. That sort of thing just isn't done, it seems.

In any case, it looks as though John Kerry needs help coming up with specific ways in which he can fight a more thoughtful and sensitive war on terror. In the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to suggest the following helpful list...

10. Stop calling it a "war." Rename it to the "Protest Against Terror." Protests always get people's attention and let them know that what you're protesting against is wrong.

9. Use softer bullets. Metal bullets hurt the terrorists, and that makes them hate us more.

8. Perhaps President Kerry can invite Osama bin Laden to the White House for a "cuddling party" with Kerry/Edwards. Nothing makes friends faster than a good cuddle.

7. Only go to war if the French and the UN say it's okay. Everyone knows how skillful the French are at dealing with other nations, and the UN has proven time and again its efficacy in dealing with terrorists.

6. Pull the troops out of Iraq within six months, but stay the course and even send more troops. If you have to ask, it's too nuanced for you.

5. Gently but firmly remind the terrorists that he was in Vietnam for four months thirty-five years ago. They won't dare pull anything then.

4. Ensure government owned and operated health care for all Americans, paid for with higher taxes. Terrorists won't bother to attack if they know all Americans have health care; it won't do any good then.

3. Stop eating pork and cover the women. Don't let them read or vote. That will show the terrorists that we understand them and appreciate their culture.

2. Don't call them "terrorists." They feel bad enough about our bullying, abusive foreign policy as it is. Call them "armed peace demonstrators." They'll feel more... peaceful.

1. Don't send soldiers; send social workers. All they really need is love and understanding.

"Armed" with these suggestions, I'm sure John Kerry will be able to convince the terrorists to stop hating us in no time, should he win November's election. As for me... I'll be in the mountains building a bunker.

Florida has been declared a state of emergency and the National Guard put on alert due to a pair of so-called "hurricanes" sources claim are going to hit the state sometime in the near future. Named "Bonnie" and "Charley," the storms are supposedly entering the US from Cuba, a declaration some see as a prelude to a declaration of war against the dicta... er, beloved president-for-life Fidel Castro. Many prominent Democrats see the storm threat as being hyped for political purposes.

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said when asked whether President Bush and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, have overstated the threat of hurricanes. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." Kerry relentlessly reminded reporters, a few curious passers-by, a group of mimes and a janitor that such storms were dealt with in a multilateral, sensitive fashion when he was in Vietnam. "This administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path," Mr. Kerry declaimed. "I will make America safer from hurricanes than they are." Mr. Kerry also stated that he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations," instead of unilaterally declaring a state of emergency in Bush's "go-it-alone" fashion. Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards added that while storm security is important, Mr. Bush has ignored other pressing issues. "The President of the United States actually has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," he said, blowing a rather large bubble. Howard Dean, the former front-runner for the Democratic nomination, questioned the timing of the hurricane threats. "This administration knew about this at least three weeks ago," a red-faced, angry Dean raged at reporters. "They could have chosen any date they wanted to reveal this to the public." Suddenly calmer, Dean rolled down his sleeves and said,"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is hurricanes." Added Dean, "I think in some ways, unfortunately, the hurricanes have already won."

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) even suggested the administration was using the fear of hurricanes to aid President Bush's political campaign. "I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration is copying and pasting old hurricane alerts that were later found to be fabricated. This administration has a long track record of using deceptive tactics for political gain," said Wexler. "One cannot help but question whether their aim was to deflect attention from the Kerry-Edwards ticket right after their inaugural week," he said.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, also panned the announcement as "a reminder of the Bush administration's ... politics of fear," adding that the administration "is primarily focused on covering its political behind between now and November." A spokesperson for the think tank added,"Oh, I almost forgot... Bush is Hitler."

Everyone knows by now that John Kerry served for four months on a "swift boat" in Vietnam. Don't say you haven't heard, unless you've spent the last year in a cave. Kerry mentions it several times per minute in every campaign speech he intones. He deflects nearly every question asked of him by holding up his Naval service in 1968 and 1969, especially questions about his plans for national security and defense should he become President. His campaign ads feature pictures of him in uniform. Former servicemen flank him at every campaign stop, some of whom even served with him. When he made his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, he made a show of saluting the audience and "reporting for duty." (Perhaps President Bush should take him at his word, and send him to Iraq.) The "highlight" of the evening was a nine-minute biographical movie directed by Steven Spielberg protege James Moll, and narrated by Morgan Freeman. The bulk of the movie featured -- surprise! -- John Kerry in Vietnam, including footage filmed at the time by Kerry, or at his direction. (No one, of course, seems to have asked who gave him authorisation to use military personnel to shoot his personal home movies if the films were actually shot while in combat. No one has asked who authorised him to take military transport and personnel to visit areas where action had taken place in order to recreate the action for his own purposes, if the films were shot while off duty.)