Res Publica 2005

• One hundred days of abortion are more dead than even the most outrageous estimates of deaths on all sides in the war.

• One year of this is over three times the death of the war, and four years of it will be more than 12 times the death of the war.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 5:32 PM 0 comments

Former CBSNEWS anchorman Walter Cronkite believes Bush adviser Karl Rove is possibly behind the new Bin Laden tape.

Cronkite made the startling comments late Friday during an interview on CNN.

Cronkite said he is "inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

Interviewer Larry King did not ask Cronkite to elaborate on the provocative election eve accusation.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 3:15 PM 0 comments

The pictures that follow aren't Hollywood, they are real. All too real I am afraid. And shame on us all for forgetting the cost they paid before we finally put a stop to it.

I want you to look. Take a deep,long look. These are not cartoons, or Speilbergian Special Effects. These are people. Fellow human beings every bit as deserving of our care as the haunting souls who walked out of the gates of Dachau.

While looking at each of the pictures that follow, for each of the bodies you see, say quietly to yourself, "father, mother, brother, sister, cousin, uncle, aunt". Repeat this process 300,000 times.

Welcome to the horror of Saddams Iraq.

Behold!, Dear reader and despair:

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 10:14 AM 0 comments

The Kerry campaign recently announced a new strategy. Michael Whouley, the DNC’s elections operations operative and a (wink, nudge) Kerry “confidant” has publicly stated that the Kerry campaign has assembled an army of 10,000 lawyers and at least six “SWAT Teams” of lawyers and politicos waiting by fully fueled jets on election eve. When notified of a battleground state battle, the Kerry patrols will swing into action, jetting off immediately to file litigation in order to facilitate a Kerry victory. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter has promised that the Kerry team will “hit the ground running” and she further vows that Kerry will not make the “mistakes” that Al Gore did in the 2000 election.

According to an AP article, Kerry’s campaign believes that Al Gore made several critical mistakes which allowed George W. Bush to “steal” the election. Gore conceded too early in Florida, according to staffers, and he never declared victory. Furthermore, Bush gained a crucial advantage when he started discussing the transition and his national security picks, making his Presidency appear assured.

Ah, where’s Doris Kearns Goodwin when you need her? Nothing like a spot of historical revisionism. Let us not forget how the 2000 debacle unfolded - first, the MSM - shilling as usual for the left-wing candidate - announced that Gore had swept Florida. This was an hour before the strongly Republican Panhandle polls closed, and it was in direct defiance of a request made by (Florida) Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Tom Brokaw was the first to announce Gore’s win at 7:49 pm, and the other networks quickly followed suit, even though 96 percent of the Florida vote remained uncounted. Lilewise, the polls in the Midwest and West wouldn’t close until later that evening. As the voting proceeded, a clear pattern was revealed. Shortly after the polls closed, if exit polling and initial results looked promising for Gore, the victory was instantly called. If the state was trending Bush, the networks said nothing. The networks triumphantly announced important Gore wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania (making, with Florida, the crucial “trifecta”) within three minutes, while remaining curiously silent on Bush’s victories in Tennessee (Gore’s home state) and Arkansas. While Rather, Brokaw and Jennings yucked it up over the impending Gore victory, a third of all registered voters in the Midwest and Western states had yet to vote. Disheartened voters got out of line and went home, further dampening Republican numbers.

During all this backslapping, the networks neglected to mention a critical development - the slow inexorable turn for Bush in Florida. As early as 8:45 pm, the Associated Press showed Bush ahead by 30,000 votes. By 9:45, Bush was leading by 130,000 votes. The networks completely ignored this turn of events, reliably still adding states to the Gore column while withholding states that Bush had won handily. Florida was not removed from the Gore column until 10:00 pm. Even though Bush was now leading by 150,000 votes, Florida was pronounced “too close to call” by the network chieftains and remained in official limbo. This charade continued for another four hours, while Bush remained heartily in the lead. Finally, at 2:16 am, the networks declared Bush the winner. Vice-President Gore phoned George W. Bush at 2:30 am in order to offer his concession. Meanwhile, the votes continued to pour in for both candidates, and by 3:11 am Bush’s lead in Florida had dropped to a mere 6,000 votes, enough to trigger an automatic recount. At 3:30 am, Gore called Bush to retract his concession. The MSM, with their slanted bias toward Gore and inaccurate reporting, disheartened Republican voters in the Florida Panhandle, the Midwest and the West. Who knows how many millions of votes they may have cost Bush. It also gave Gore a crucial advantage, allowing his winning of the popular vote. Democrat operatives quickly leaped upon this fact, arguing for the abolition of the Electoral College because the “guy with the most votes should win.”

The next phase of the strategy was hurriedly implemented. At 6:00 pm on Tuesday, TeleQuest, a telemarketing firm was hired to call Palm Beach County Democrats in order to postulate that they may have been confused by the so-called “butterfly ballot” and may have voted for Patrick Buchanan instead of Al Gore. 5,000 voters were called and several hundred complained to the elections board. Jesse Jackson and the usual suspects immediately jetted down to Palm Beach County in order to protest - with preprinted yellow signs obligingly made up by the AFL/CIO. As the chad counting continued however, something completely novel and unexpected occurred. Republicans actually - for once - fought back.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 9:22 AM 0 comments

Infamous Monsters of Filmland

You decide: who is REALLY scary?

Face it: the so-called "Famous Monsters of Filmland" may have scared us as children, but they were mostly misunderstood creatures who weren't malicious or intentionally monstrous. Now, however, we are forced to confront real-life monsters who will truly make it difficult to get to sleep this Halloween (being so close to Election Day and all)

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 7:03 AM 0 comments

Bin Laden Influencing Election... But in who's favor?

That liberal media...

It's so easy to surf the web and find headlines such as this one:

Bin Laden Tape Seen by World as Attempt to Influence U.S. Election

The hard part is, putting together the specifics. It's sort of like the writers don't want to just come out and say who Bin laden is rooting for, so they reveal the story in codes, kind of.

Here are some quotes from various news stories:

• Montasser el-Zayat, a Cairo-based lawyer who defends Islamic radicals, said the video amounted to an "unprecedented attack on Bush at a very critical time, before the U.S. elections."

• Staunch U.S. ally Australia responded to a new videotaped message from Osama bin Laden by underlining its resolve to "confront and defeat" terrorism, and international experts said the message was a clear attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election.
  
  
• “It’s a very crude but sinister attempt to try to influence the presidential election,” said Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland.

• Fugitive al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden emerged yesterday with a dramatic pre-election appeal to Americans, coupled with a stark warning that they face more attacks like that of Sept 11, 2001, unless their leaders stop waging war against the world's Muslims.

I mean, it's amazing... Every single article tells of how Osama is trying to influence the vote, yet, it fails to just come out and tell us the truth.

OSAMA BIN LADEN WANTS KERRY TO WIN.

Just face the music, guys, Osama bin laden is on the same side of the issue with you democrats who hate Bush. Osama bin laden and John Kerry both have very similar resentments towards our President.

Osama wants to influence the election, yes, indeed. These words are true. Now, why not tell us who Osama would like to see win the election? Read all the articles yourselves. It's clear that Osama is threatening more violence against us so as long as our policies on terror stay the same. Osama wants Bush to lose.

Code it all you want. The answer is obvious.

Billy Kess

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 6:35 AM 0 comments

It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 8:33 PM 0 comments

His talk of freedom is spurious nonsense which is clearly aimed at us, as quite different language is used towards his followers. One could try to follow the logic of the statement, but what would be the point? Two things stand out: he takes credit for 9/11 for the first time which one wonders what those who still think the whole thing was a CIA-Mossad plot will do now that their tin-foil hats are spinning round their collective brow, and he also said his patience had run out.

Wow, we exhausted Osama bin Laden’s patience. Apparently over the Palestinians and Lebanon for which you should read our support for Israel.

Well newsflash Jihad-boy - you don’t know what patience is. You don’t know the patience of a people who endured its embassy to be seized, its marines blown up, its elderly shot and thrown overboard, its planes hijacked, its terroritory attacked, its soldiers dragged through the streets, its embassies blown up, its ships blown up. But you started this fight weak horse, and whether it’s Kerry or Bush next week, the American people will finish it.

Oh, and as for freedom, just ask the Afghans and the Iraqis. They are free because of the war you started. But not because you were on their side

The reality is is that America is a country that was taught about how to deal with implacable enemies before we were a nation...and we have never forgotten those lessons. You want to make the Americans draw together and kick butt? Do something to bring in those old instincts. We will forget about the negotiating table and revert back to the ways of Wetzel and Mansker and Boone and Zane and all those others who knew how to thrive even while under threat. And we didn't do it by appeasement. Those who tried it died.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 5:08 PM 0 comments

President George W. Bush has often urged Americans to embrace a "culture of life." In the future, this heartfelt call may well be viewed as the hallmark of the Bush presidency — even though George W. Bush has also led this country during a time of war. Many Americans may not fully appreciate how central the president's culture-of-life values are to his policies in the war on terror, both in Afghanistan and Iraq — but I have no doubt.

Today, like most Americans, I take for granted living in a democratic society where the individual is valued, and no one — including the government — is above the law. But I also know how unique and precious such societies are. I grew up in the Soviet Union, where the individual's interests were always subordinated to the whims of the state, and where the government was the law. Even so, my parents and grandparents endured much worse. They lived in Stalin's Russia, and they knew real fear — not just occasionally, but every day — fear of the state and its agents. Indeed, many people during that era did not sleep well at night, waiting for the knock at the door, announcing that the security police had come to pick them up and cart them off to the Gulag, or be shot.

Before America and its allies toppled Saddam Hussein, this was also the world in which all of Iraq lived. Only one life mattered in that tortured country, and that was the life of Saddam Hussein — a man who modeled his regime on Stalin's. The entire apparatus of Iraqi government was organized and operated to ensure Saddam's continued rule. His opponents, real and imagined, were killed or driven into exile. The Iraqi army was trained and deployed to defend Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people. Indeed, he used that army, and its chemical weapons, against them. The chemical-, biological-, and nuclear-weapons programs, which brought international sanctions and ultimately war on Iraq, were Saddam's programs, designed to serve his purpose of self-aggrandizement.

In finally deciding to depose Saddam Hussein by force, President Bush did not "rush to war," as Senator Kerry claims. Rather, he made a reasoned and cautious assessment of the situation in Iraq where, after more than ten years of sanctions, Saddam Hussein continued to rule more absolutely than any of the Caesars. He also made a reasoned assessment of the danger this man posed to the United States. That danger was real. While Senator Kerry has tried to spin a recent — and subsequently discredited — New York Times story about a few tons of high explosives that U.S. troops allegedly failed to secure, he does not seem to be troubled by the fact that Saddam's regime had stockpiled hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions and ordnance, which he could freely share with numerous terrorist organizations. (Saddam's Iraq also had a long history of supporting various terrorist groups.) Since the preferred mode of operations by such terrorist organizations is to attack innocent civilians, allowing Saddam to remain in power posed a grave and continuing threat to the United States and our friends and allies.

At the most fundamental level, Saddam hated America because America stood between him and his dreams of dominating the Middle East as a new Saladin — the medieval leader who had briefly united the Arab world against the Crusaders. As he had proven over and again, anyone who got in Saddam's way — man, woman, or child — was a legitimate target. Indeed, Saddam's regime was the first government in history to institutionalize rape as an instrument of political control. President Bush decided not to wait for the blow — and someday a peaceful, free, and democratic Iraq will thank us for it.

Source: National Review

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 4:12 PM 0 comments

Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for.

The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.

"We've described what we know, and as we know more we'll describe that," said DiRita.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 10:29 AM 0 comments

IAEA Seals In ABC Report Don't Match Missing Explosives

Alert CQ reader Boaz B. noticed a detail in the ABC video that apparently has escaped the notice of their reporters and editors. According to the shot shown here, the IAEA seal on the cache found by the soldiers and filmed by the embedded crew did not match the inventory for HMX and RDX stored at Al Qaqaa

He also has found these are the sequence numbers that the explosive had on their seals:

50/221075
51/221074
59/221073
41/221072
49/221071
35/221076
34/221080
38/361167
37/221087

None of these numbers are even close in sequence to the number shown in the ABC report.

Go read the rest!

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 9:13 AM 0 comments

It is the quiet issue of the 2004 presidential election, but it remains etched in the minds of liberals and conservatives, of the most devout secularist and most pious believer: abortion. It is especially salient in Pennsylvania, a battleground state that may have more pro-life Democrats than any other state.

On his first day in office, Bush authorized a ban on all U.S. funding of international abortion rights groups, reversing President Clinton's executive order. He appointed pro-lifers to key Cabinet posts, such as John Ashcroft as attorney general and Tommy Thompson as secretary of health and human services.

In August 2002, he signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which provides for the protection of a child who survives an abortion. Now, that child must be protected rather than destroyed by a doctor or nurse, regardless of whether his or her birth was desired. For decades, infants who survived abortions were left to die.

In January 2003, Bush signed the "Sanctity of Life" bill. Especially significant, he did not veto the Republican Senate's March 2003 ban on partial-birth abortion, which President Clinton had repeatedly blocked. For the two years prior to that ban, the Bush Justice Department had lent support to local efforts to prohibit partial-birth abortion at the state level. Eventually, in November 2003, he signed the partial-birth abortion ban passed by Congress.

It was telling when a few months later at the Solemn Mass for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. -- the largest Catholic chapel in the United States -- a packed throng of anguished Catholic faithful, kneeling in prayer after taking holy communion, listened intently while the presiding bishop closed the mass with a surprise message from the Protestant president. When the Bush letter acknowledged the ban on partial-birth abortion, the solemnity was interrupted with a burst of applause. The most recent polls show that pro-life Catholics will vote overwhelmingly against the Catholic Kerry and for the Protestant Bush.

Indeed, a telling difference between Kerry and Bush is how their faith relates to their positions on abortion. Bush believes that a life in the womb is a gift from God that should be protected. Kerry's position is more complicated. In the final presidential debate on Oct. 13, he said, "My faith affects everything I do, in truth. ... And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people." He explained that this credo explains "why I fight against poverty," "why I fight to clean up the environment," and "why I fight for equality and justice," all of which he as a legislator transfers in an official way to other people. The only area where Kerry seems to not allow his faith to influence his public life is abortion.

A President John F. Kerry would shape the direction of the court, starting with the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the courts with pro-choice appointments, and rejecting pro-life judges. Kerry would be the most staunchly pro-choice president ever. At the 2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, where he described pro-lifers as "the forces of intolerance," Kerry boasted that his maiden speech as a freshman senator had been in support of Roe vs. Wade. On Aug. 2, 1994, on the Senate floor, he stated: "The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure.... [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice."

In April 2004, Kerry took a rare timeout from the presidential campaign to appear on the Senate floor to vote against a bill that would make it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on the mother. Kerry also joined a Senate minority in voting against a ban on partial-birth abortion.

The pro-life constituency that would be most crushed by a Kerry victory is Catholics. No other group has so doggedly led the fight to halt abortion, and a potential Catholic president stands poised to undermine that progress. What Pope John Paul II has described as the "culture of life" could be hindered by no less than a practicing Catholic in the Oval Office.

Pennsylvania is a kind of poster child for the pro-life Democrat, for the Bob Casey Democrat. For each one of those, there is an adamantly pro-choice Democrat in Philadelphia or on the campus of University of Pittsburgh or University of Pennsylvania. And make no mistake: Both sides know what is at stake on Tuesday.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 8:11 AM 0 comments

Kidnappers holding a seven-year-old Lebanese boy have threatened to behead him if they do not receive £38,000 (€54,592) by Saturday, his father said today.

“We’re a poor family and I love Iraq,” said Abdel-Ghani Hamad. “I’m now selling the stuff in my house just to get by.”

Earlier this month, gunmen abducted his son Mohammed on his way home from school in Diyala province, east of the Iraqi capital, and initially demanded £82,000 (€117,833) for his release, the father said.

Lebanese Foreign Ministry officials have said its embassy in Baghdad was working with Iraqis to secure the boy’s release.

The father said the kidnappers also asked him to sell his belongings and leave Iraq. He refused to say how he learned of their demands, fearing for his son’s life.

He said Mohammed was a smart boy, who loved chess and computers.

The senior Hamad said he has been living in Iraq for 32 years. He owns an orchard and raises chicken, he said, adding his business wasn’t doing well.

“I ask the kind people to call on the kidnappers to release my son,” Hamad said.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 8:04 AM 0 comments

Large Version
Small Version

Windows media from crushkerry.com

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 8:50 PM 0 comments

You know, I would guess by the enthusiasm that I see represented here today that victory is headed our way in just about five days. (Applause.) If you think about character, if you think about courage, if you think about consistency, if you think about honesty, you think about George W. Bush. (Applause.) If you talk about a leader who knows something about the global war on terrorism, it would be George W. Bush, and he knows it's global. (Applause.)

You're talking about a leader who knows that terrorism has been more than a nuisance for more than two decades. (Applause.) You're talking about a leader who does not want to roll back terrorism to the times of Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in the mid-1990s, East Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in the year 2000, and doesn't want to roll it back to 9/11/01. Terrorism is not a nuisance. (Applause.)

George W. Bush is a leader who knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and to the United States of America, and removed him from power. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knows that our troops, as of right now, have cleared 10,000 ammunition and weapons sites in Iraq. He knows that they have destroyed 240,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. He knows that they have under control -- (applause) -- he knows that they have under control another 162,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. We're talking about George W. Bush who knows, who understands that we do not yet have all the facts about 380 tons of munitions in Iraq. And he is a President who will look at you and say, we don't yet have the facts, but we will get the facts. George W. Bush. (Applause.)

In George W. Bush, you're talking about a leader who does not step out every day of his life and make more wild accusations. You're talking about a leader who actually cares about our troops, about their families, and about our veterans. You're talking about a leader who actually respects all those who serve our country with dignity and with honor. You're talking about George W. Bush. (Applause.)

The past three years have been hard years for America. The past three years have been a tough time for our country. I've looked into the eyes of our President, my Commander-in-Chief, and I have seen that character, that courage, that consistency that I just described. It's the courage that it takes to win a war, not tie one. And we have to win the war against terrorism in this country. (Applause.)

Now, I'll tell you, I don't know Senator Kerry's plan for victory. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is, but I do know -- but I do know that his criticism of military conduct of our global war on terrorism denigrates, disrespects our troops. (Applause.) And, ladies and gentlemen, I also know that he cannot lead troops to victory in a war when he has made it perfectly clear that he does not support the cause. (Applause.)

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 5:44 PM 0 comments

by Matthew Manweller via Free Republic

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 5:06 PM 1 comments

Via News Central

Two hundred and thirteen years ago, a brand new America ratified the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These amendments guaranteed certain rights to the people.

The very first amendment included the free speech clause, protecting us from government censorship or worse. Until the First Amendment was written, people usually ended up dead or in prison for criticizing their government anywhere else at the time.

Now, a controversy has put supporters of censorship of political speech firmly in the spotlight. Based on a flawed article by Elizabeth Jensen of the Los Angeles Times where the motto ought to be "we'd rather get it first than get it right" dozens of Senators and Congressmen made a transparent threat. Run a 60-minute news program that we have neither seen nor have any knowledge of and we'll seek revenge. Their goal? That 13 Vietnam veterans including two Medal of Honor winners - who collectively suffered nearly 84 years of horrific abuse and unspeakable torture, who ended 31 years of self-imposed silence and who - more than anyone else have earned the right to speak out on their Vietnam experience should be silenced.

That's right. They want to silence those who suffered more than any other living veterans because they are afraid of what these brave men have to say. You have to ask yourself? Why did the John Kerry campaign pull out all of the stops, enlist his supporters at the Washington Post, the New York Times, the major broadcast networks and elsewhere to silence men for whom the U.S. owes a huge unpaid debt? Their initial statements implying that these men are liars back-fired. Imagine that, challenging 60 and 70-year old tortured Vietnam POWs. I suppose the Angry Left thinks the POWs had a picnic at the beach.

But let's get back to these censorship advocates in Congress. Their view is simple: say what I want you to say or I will silence you. It should send shivers up your spine.

Click here to see the most recent list of those advocating censorship of media stories with which they disagree. They won't stop as long as they're in political office. The election is next Tuesday.

And that's the Point.

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 4:58 PM 0 comments

We speak to you now in the same spirit that you spoke to us then, as Americans, united on behalf of our country. Like many of you, we feel that our nation is poised at a critical moment in history. Like our parents and grandparents before us, we know that the choices we make today will affect our children tomorrow. But we face a new challenge, a new kind of war and an enemy who is different from the enemies faced by earlier generations. This is not an adversary who can be reasoned with or appeased, this is an adversary who has repeatedly demonstrated that its means and ends are one and the same: the wanton slaughter of innocents.

After the attack, President Bush articulated the primary lesson of September 11, that simply reacting to danger after lives are lost is a weak and unacceptable national defense. He believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to ensure that the enemy will not bring death to our doorstep here at home.

We agree.

Under the President‘s strong leadership in the war on terror and through the heroic efforts of our military forces, we are a safer country today. Two-thirds of al Qaeda leadership is dead, incarcerated, or on the run, its financing disrupted. The Taliban has been removed from power and training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq have been eliminated. On the domestic front, our dedicated law enforcement agencies are finally able to fight terror the same way they go after drug cartels; terrorists and terrorist cells have been thwarted in upstate New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Florida.

The 9/11 Commission has provided this nation with a solid blueprint for going forward in the war on terror. It described the threat that killed our loved ones as a “gathering storm” which went unrecognized and unchecked for too many years and characterized the inability to predict the attack itself as a “failure of imagination.” Looking forward, the Commission offered this pointed warning, “Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier--but it then may be too late.”

Through the prism of 9/11 and presaging the Commission’s conclusion, President Bush looked at Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s history, his willingness to use chemical weapons in the mass murder of his own citizens, his notorious attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, his record of giving financial aid and sanctuary to global terrorists--including members of al Qaeda--and his repeated refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. He determined that this repressive regime was an intolerable danger to our country. Rather than waiting until it was too late to prevent a fully materialized threat, the President acted. We believe history will support the President’s decision.

We speak to you from the heart, as citizens from all across the country and every political stripe. We are Republicans and Democrats, “liberals” and “conservatives,” young and old. We are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and friends. We speak out from a profound sense of obligation to those we have lost and to the country that we love. Guided by core principles, President Bush has steadfastly told us who he is, what he believes and what he will fight for. He is a caring and decisive leader who is not afraid to make hard choices to keep this nation safe, by keeping it strong. He has sent a clear message to America’s friends and foes that he will not waver in his resolve as the winds of political fortune change. He will not revert to the failed policies of the past which only served to whet the appetite of those who would destroy us. He will stand firm against our adversaries.

As Americans who have keenly felt the scourge of terrorism, we are inspired and energized to follow the President’s lead, to rise to the occasion and get the job done. We are deeply grateful to President Bush, who rallied this nation on that dark September day, who has earned our respect and confidence, and whose leadership we trust to steer this country on the right path.

Three years ago, George W. Bush stood with us and vowed that he would “Never forget.”

# posted by Knitting a Conundrum @ 2:47 PM 0 comments