Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Geocaching - The Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Not Quite A Dream Team; Some of John Kerry's Foreign Policy Advisers Should Give Pause to Progressives
Not Quite A Dream Team; Some of John Kerry's Foreign Policy Advisers Should Give Pause to Progressives: "Some of John Kerry's Foreign Policy Advisers Should Give Pause to Progressives"
As the jockeying begins among those who fancy a government job should Kerry beat Bush in November, it's never too early to give the hopefuls currently advising the candidate a serious look.
Consider Kerry's foreign policy advisers. Ask the candidate's supporters, and the advisor they mention first is Joe Wilson, the Clinton-era National Security Council member who investigated claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy weapons-grade uranium from Niger. Wilson won battle stars from progressives for going public with his findings, which contradicted the Bush administration's claims. Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was outed by a White House source or sources as a consequence.
Wilson may be a white hat, but it's hard to say the same about Richard Morningstar, Rand Beers and William Perry, three other members of Kerry's foreign policy team.
As the jockeying begins among those who fancy a government job should Kerry beat Bush in November, it's never too early to give the hopefuls currently advising the candidate a serious look.
Consider Kerry's foreign policy advisers. Ask the candidate's supporters, and the advisor they mention first is Joe Wilson, the Clinton-era National Security Council member who investigated claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy weapons-grade uranium from Niger. Wilson won battle stars from progressives for going public with his findings, which contradicted the Bush administration's claims. Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was outed by a White House source or sources as a consequence.
Wilson may be a white hat, but it's hard to say the same about Richard Morningstar, Rand Beers and William Perry, three other members of Kerry's foreign policy team.
9-11 Commission Final Report
Media Fund Twists the Truth More Than Michael Moore
Media Fund Twists the Truth More Than Michael Moore: "Media Fund Twists the Truth More Than Michael Moore"
Radio ad claims most air traffic was grounded when bin Laden's family was allowed to leave. Not true. In fact, the FBI questioned 22 of them and found no links to terrorism.
Radio ad claims most air traffic was grounded when bin Laden's family was allowed to leave. Not true. In fact, the FBI questioned 22 of them and found no links to terrorism.
Election Night
Some people wonder why I consider myself independent yet vote for Bush. I believe in several key points regarding our Constitution. First, the Executive branch of which the President and his cabinet consist of, are here for our protection. Second, I have seen firsthand the failures of foreign policy in Somalia and Iraq and also North Korea, and realize that historically, appeasement of aggressive nations doesn't work forever.
Why Bush? I picked up a book on the leadership tactics that he uses in order to understand how he fights a war, or as we used to call it in the military, 'works a problem'. The way he does it is to pick people who can provide the best solution and let them work the details. By not micromanaging he allows himself to still approve the broad strokes of policy yet not get bogged down in the weeds.
Why not Kerry?
The key issues with Kerry result from his Congressional record and his ambivalence in treating Terrorism as a war. Regardless of the sound bites from this week, his opinion as stated over the long term missed several key foreign policy decisions.
1) Cold War. Not supporting the Reagan effort to win the Cold War shows me that his loyalty will remain with the Party platform, and that he will not commit to tactical and strategic victory over terrorism.
2) Defense and Defense Intelligence cuts in the early 1990s. Here's an opportunity to show what that five months in-country in Vietnam taught our intrepid naval line officer. Nope. Let's give the troops even less to work with, and as a direct result human intelligence that could have given us more contact with the growing radical elements of Islamism will never develop.
3) The terrorist threat after 9/11 can somehow return to some level of background noise. Sorry, this doesn't cut it for me either. It's all or nothing. Terrorism can win against democracy, because it already did a number in Morocco, where in the early 1990s fundamentalist Islamists were killing young schoolgirls for not wearing headscarves. Sorry, no ostrich head-in-the-sand tactics for me. All that will happen under appeasement is the same as Fallujah; they get time to regroup and rally, and you have to go back and wipe them out. Same thing the UK discovered about Hitler after Chamberlain tried appeasement with the Third Reich.
4) This whole non-reality of bringing in other allies sort of makes me ill when you look at the realistic view that even Kerry embraces. At least GWB is straightforward and honest. Kerry is irritating when you look at the promises that he makes vs. what he knows he can deliver. Others would call that lying. I call it campaign amnesia. Particularly when we're talking about whether he can deliver on that promise to bring in more European troops and he says he won't be able to do it - not what he said in the debates. What changed?
National Security is the job and responsibility of the Executive branch. You fail at that, and we're left with the same thing as Chechens running into Russian schoolhouses and blowing up hundreds of kids. You're left wondering when terrorists will figure out how to hijack tanker trucks full of gas and use them as smaller versions of aircraft in blowing up buildings.
Earlier in October I posted regarding the threat of terrorism with dirty bombs posed by Iraq. There are plenty of non-WMD attacks that would disrupt the US and create havok. Living 15 miles from the busiest border crossing in America with seven military bases within ten miles, I am convinced that the number one issue in the US is not the economy, whether Bush will appoint a new Supreme Court Member, health care, education, or any of that. It's whether I'll be able to buy a Snickers bar at the local liquor store without getting blown up.
Why Bush? I picked up a book on the leadership tactics that he uses in order to understand how he fights a war, or as we used to call it in the military, 'works a problem'. The way he does it is to pick people who can provide the best solution and let them work the details. By not micromanaging he allows himself to still approve the broad strokes of policy yet not get bogged down in the weeds.
Why not Kerry?
The key issues with Kerry result from his Congressional record and his ambivalence in treating Terrorism as a war. Regardless of the sound bites from this week, his opinion as stated over the long term missed several key foreign policy decisions.
1) Cold War. Not supporting the Reagan effort to win the Cold War shows me that his loyalty will remain with the Party platform, and that he will not commit to tactical and strategic victory over terrorism.
2) Defense and Defense Intelligence cuts in the early 1990s. Here's an opportunity to show what that five months in-country in Vietnam taught our intrepid naval line officer. Nope. Let's give the troops even less to work with, and as a direct result human intelligence that could have given us more contact with the growing radical elements of Islamism will never develop.
3) The terrorist threat after 9/11 can somehow return to some level of background noise. Sorry, this doesn't cut it for me either. It's all or nothing. Terrorism can win against democracy, because it already did a number in Morocco, where in the early 1990s fundamentalist Islamists were killing young schoolgirls for not wearing headscarves. Sorry, no ostrich head-in-the-sand tactics for me. All that will happen under appeasement is the same as Fallujah; they get time to regroup and rally, and you have to go back and wipe them out. Same thing the UK discovered about Hitler after Chamberlain tried appeasement with the Third Reich.
4) This whole non-reality of bringing in other allies sort of makes me ill when you look at the realistic view that even Kerry embraces. At least GWB is straightforward and honest. Kerry is irritating when you look at the promises that he makes vs. what he knows he can deliver. Others would call that lying. I call it campaign amnesia. Particularly when we're talking about whether he can deliver on that promise to bring in more European troops and he says he won't be able to do it - not what he said in the debates. What changed?
National Security is the job and responsibility of the Executive branch. You fail at that, and we're left with the same thing as Chechens running into Russian schoolhouses and blowing up hundreds of kids. You're left wondering when terrorists will figure out how to hijack tanker trucks full of gas and use them as smaller versions of aircraft in blowing up buildings.
Earlier in October I posted regarding the threat of terrorism with dirty bombs posed by Iraq. There are plenty of non-WMD attacks that would disrupt the US and create havok. Living 15 miles from the busiest border crossing in America with seven military bases within ten miles, I am convinced that the number one issue in the US is not the economy, whether Bush will appoint a new Supreme Court Member, health care, education, or any of that. It's whether I'll be able to buy a Snickers bar at the local liquor store without getting blown up.
