Friday, October 29, 2004

 

Kerry Makes a Case For the War and Defines His Global Test

Tom Brokaw interviewed John Kerry last night. John Kerry is now trying to deny that Saddam would still be in power had he been president.

Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."

Kerry: "Not necessarily."

Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."

Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."

Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."

Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."

Several Points:

1. Despite voting to gut the national defense and intelligence for years, Kerry thinks that a legitimate threat of force is needed to get things done. Now he did not define that statement and that is classic Kerry since now he can define legitimate as anything he wants. Kerry may even think that Zell Miller's spitballs are legitimate. Let's see if the anti-war base catches Kerry comments about the threat of force.

2. Kerry now defends exactly why we went to war. He says that if Saddam did not comply, we might have had to go to war. How many UN resolutions does it take? We had already watched the UN pass 18 resolutions and Saddam was still hiding weapons from inspectors, still refusing to account for all his chemical and biological weapons and still harboring aspirations of building up his arsenal in the near future. This was good enough reason for the 70 supporting countries, 21 of whom supplied troops. Apparently this was not enough of a coalition for Kerry.

3. The global test rears it's ugly head again. A new twist on the global test is that "...the entire world would understand why we did it." So I guess that right or wrong is not the issue but as long as everyone understands are motives, then it's OK. This reminds me of the kind of psychology which gives and excuse for anyone to do anything as long as they had some motivation which they could not resist. This is exactly why the global test is bunk and why, when it comes to defending our security, we don't need to explain ourselves to anyone.

4. Notice this exchange:

Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."

Kerry:
"That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was
required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."

Brokaw: "But
he wasn't destroying them."

Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors
for.


Read between the lines here. Kerry is acknowledging that the inspections were not working and that Saddam was not destroying his weapons. This is the same Kerry who has said time and again that the inspections were working and just needed more time. I smell a flip-flop.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

 

Russia Sent Troops To Destroy Evidence of Russia-Iraq Weapons Sales

The Washington Times reports today that not only did Russia move the weapons John Kerry is accusing the president of loosing before the war started, but they also were sent to destroy all evidence that Russia continued to supply Iraq and Sadaam with weapons despite the UN sanctions. So not only did our military NOT LOOSE THE WEAPONS, a member of the UN security council was undermining the sanctions against Iraq and then tried to cover it up once it was clear the US was coming to clean the house of Hussein.

Russia...still our enemy???

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.


The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.


Yes, John Kerry took his orders from the NY Times and made several hysterical speeches and a commercial. Unfortunately, he was had by big media and now looks like a doofus.

The damning stuff:
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.


Just so you get it, read that last paragraph again and email it to all your friends who are still on the fence. Don't bother sending it to any Kerry supporters - make that Bush haters - as there is no such thing as a Kerry supporter.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

 

Keep This Up and There Will Be No More Doctors

This is very dangerous. First of all this is simple rationing of care by the government. Second, fine doctors for giving flu vaccines (or any other treatment considered standard of care) and watch all the pre-med students quickly turn to pre-law, engineering, MBA school and dental school. Not that any of those are a step down from medical school but we can't afford to have a significant decrease in the number of doctors in this country. Most rural parts of this country are severely underserved by doctors already.
Medicine is an art. We don't understand more than we understand. That is where judgment comes in. A list of approved situations in which a doctor can provide a specific treatment completely misses the goal of treating each patient individually, based on his or her own health, social needs and future. It is simply impossible to specifically delineate all situations in which each and every treatment is appropriate. As physicians, we try to use reason, judgment and past experiences to treat each patient. As soon as limits are put on the treatments we can provide, the quality of care decreases. I'm sure at some point in the recent past you have all run into your insurance company not approving a certain medicine or procedure. Continuing with the treatment prescribed by your doctor could cost you thousands of dollars. Most of us simply go with the treatment which may cause more side effects, takes longer or is more painful. In the end however, you do have the right to pay for any treatment your doctor prescribes - until now. The lesson is that if the government becomes too involved in the delivery or rationing of healthcare, everybody will loose.

Trackback to Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam

 

Keep This Up and There Will Be No More Doctors

This is very dangerous. First of all this is simple rationing of care by the government. Second, fine doctors for giving flu vaccines (or any other treatment considered standard of care) and watch all the pre-med students quickly turn to pre-law, engineering, MBA school and dental school. Not that any of those are a step down from medical school but we can't afford to have a significant decrease in the number of doctors in this country. Most rural parts of this country are severely underserved by doctors already.
Medicine is an art. We don't understand more than we understand. That is where judgment comes in. A list of approved situations in which a doctor can provide a specific treatment completely misses the goal of treating each patient individually, based on his or her own health, social needs and future. It is simply impossible to specifically delineate all situations in which each and every treatment is appropriate. As physicians, we try to use reason, judgment and past experiences to treat each patient. As soon as limits are put on the treatments we can provide, the quality of care decreases. I'm sure at some point in the recent past you have all run into your insurance company not approving a certain medicine or procedure. Continuing with the treatment prescribed by your doctor could cost you thousands of dollars. Most of us simply go with the treatment which may cause more side effects, takes longer or is more painful. In the end however, you do have the right to pay for any treatment your doctor prescribes - until now. The lesson is that if the government becomes too involved in the delivery or rationing of healthcare, everybody will loose.

Monday, October 25, 2004

 

John Kerry, No Lie Is Too Small If It Might Help Him Win

Football Fans for Truth strike another blow at Kerry's credibility. It seems like if happened, he was there. He ran the Boston marathon - or not, he ran secret Cambodia missions - or not, he met with the UN security council - or not, and he saw first hand Bill Buckner miss that ball - or not. This kind of stuff is piling up too fast. The fact that Kerry has any support is simply an anyone but Bush attitude. God help us if we elect a president based not wanting the other guy.

John Kerry has spoken many times of his agonized presence at Game 6 of the 1986 World Series:
"I was 30 yards away from Billy Buckner in that famous Shea Stadium game in'86." (Cite: ESPN Page 2)
"Talking baseball on the plane, he reminisced, "I
was at Shea Stadium, 30 yards from Bill Buckner," recalling the error that many
consider cost the Sox the 1986 World Series." (Cite: "Sox Detour for Kerry", New
York Daily News, 7/26/2004)
"The Bay State senator says he....watched in anguish as the ball rolled through Bill Buckner's legs in the 1986 Series against the Mets." (Cite: "Bogus Bosox Fan", New York Post, 9/19/2004)
"I was about 30 yards away from Billy Buckner when that ball wiggled away" (Cite:
Kerry tries to rejuvenate his campaign, USA Today 11/24/2003)


Game 6 of the 1986 World Series was held in New York City, on the evening of October 25, 1986.

According to the Boston Globe, John Kerry was at a banquet in Boston on the evening of October 25, 1986


 

Kerry Lied About Metting With UN Security Council Before Iraq War Vote - Is anyone Surprised?

Security Council members deny meeting Kerry This is really an article for those of you who are still undecided. Those of you who have followed the campaign closesly knows that Kerry and his team will say anything - true or not - to try to win this election. This theme is throughout my blog, that these guys will do whatever it takes and as long as they reach their goals, the ends always justify the means to them. This comes close to the most blatant lie Kerry has told. And compare this lie (saying he met with the security council when he did not), to the left's accusation of Bush's lie (passing on information from credible sources which later turned out to be bad intelligence). If Bush was lying, Kerry is committing a mortal sin.

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.


Perhaps the most insulting of this entire lie is the elitism with which they try to explain the fact that Kerry did not meet with the security council:

When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council.
But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion."


Yet the evidence is still damning:

Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that "our office does not have any record of this meeting."

Even Kerry's precious UN can't produce, or even suggest the meeting took place.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?