Sunday, October 31, 2004

My endorsement

I have been contemplating over the last few days on whether I should give an endorsement to either candidate. I finally decided, what the heck, why not.

My endorsement goes to George Bush. Why, you ask? Only 2 reasons. The War on Terror and tax cuts. After 4 years these two issues are the only two things I have REALLY agreed with Bush on.

The War on Terror. While I do have some problems with some of the things that have happened, I generally agree with what the President has done over the last 2 1/2 years. I do not think that John Kerry will prosecute the war in the way that I think needs to be done.

Taxes. The less of my money the government gets, the better. I earned my money and I should have the right to spend it how I see fit.

There are a lot of things that Bush has done that I totally disagree with, one is, not knowing what a veto is. But, because of the above two reasons, he will get my vote.

While there are some things that I agree on with Kerry, those above reasons are the most important to me and, I don't think he will do the job I want done.

There you have it, my endorsement.

Now, I don't care who you vote for, that is completely up to you. What I do ask is that you get off of your backsides on Tuesday and vote.

UPDATE: Allan made the comment "The electoral college emboldens the two party system thereby making a third party at best non-viable. At worst, irrelevent."

Harry Browne made a similar argument, although he didn't mention the Electoral College, that I commented on here. If I have time, I'll go into the electoral process tomorrow.

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Bin Laden

You may be wondering why I haven't commented on the OBL tape that was released yesterday. I have a very good reason for not commenting on it, I really don't care what the jackass has to say.

If you are interested, wretchard, at Belmont Club has an interesting insight into it.

I'm a little upset

I just got through reading Jeff Harrell's blog, The Shape of Days. He has decided to take a hiatus because of some of the commenting that has been going on at his site. In one sense, I can't blame him. In another, it pisses me off because Jeff is a fantastic writer and I always enjoy reading his blog. He does a LOT of research into the things he writes, unlike me, and his writing style is the best I've read in all the blogs I do read. I want my readers to go and read his blog and tell him not to let the bastards get him down. It truly would be a loss to the blogosphere if he decides to quit.

Just a reminder

Just wanted to remind you to set your clocks back tonight. It's that time of year again.

Friday, October 29, 2004

I got to thinking

While I was driving I got to thinking about the story that our troops didn't have body armor when they went into Iraq, untrue by the way. What I got to thinking about was, the people doing the most screaming about this, Democrats, would be the first to scream bloody murder if the newer body armor was asked for in a time when we aren't at war. Hypocrycy anyone?

To overseas military personnel

Very seldom do I listen to Rush Limbaugh. Today I switched over to him and he was talking about something useful. If you are on active duty overseas and have not yet recieved your absentee ballot from your state you can download a federal absentee ballot. Just go to and you can see if you are eligible and download the form. You can also prin a postage paid stamp onto your mailing envelope so that there is no charge to you. You folks are on the front line and you deserve your chance to vote.

To other bloggers, if you read this, please either link to this post or write a post of your own on this subject.

Thank you.

Oh boy

Well, it's happened. I have finally figured out that I pay WAY too much attention to politics, or I've lost my mind. Last night I had a dream. It wasn't a scary dream. It was actually a nice dream, no, you bunch of peverts, there wasn't sex involved. I had a dream that I was dating, are you ready?, Alexandra Pelosi daughter of House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. I don't know why I had this dream, all I know is, MAKE IT STOP.

Thank you for your time.

Thursday, October 28, 2004


RAMALLAH, West Bank — An ailing Yasser Arafat performed Muslim prayers before dawn Thursday and ate a light breakfast, but his condition remained serious and Israeli security officials said he would be moved from his headquarters to a nearby hospital.

However, Israeli security officials said the Palestinians have only requested, for now, to take Arafat to a local hospital.

On Wednesday evening, Arafat's persistent two-week illness took a sudden turn for the worse. He vomited after eating soup, then collapsed and was unconscious for about 10 minutes, a bodyguard said.

This may seem like a rather mean thing to say but, I hope he dies. Arafat is 90% of the problem between Israel and the Palestinians. Until he dies, nothing we or anyone else does will do any good.

The missing explosives

I haven't said anything on this story for a couple of reasons, I had more important things going on and, I wanted to wait and see just what ould come up. Well, it seems that the Russians may have had a hand in moving those explosives BEFORE we even invaded.

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

"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."

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.

First, let me just come out and say, John Kerry should never have open his mouth on this subject until more was learned. He spoke over the last few days of the Presidents incompetence in letting these explosives disappear. IF this story is true, than maybe Mr. Kerry should think about his own incompetence in jumping on a story BEFORE we know the WHOLE story.

Second, just what was the Russian government trying to hide? This is a rather interesting question. What was it they were destroying and why?

Lastly, IF this is true, and it seems to be, what else did they hide for Saddam? This is actually the most important of the questions that need answering. IF they took THESE explosives into Syria, could they have moved other, more dangerous weapons?

I think Putin has some answering to do. I don't think he will.

Go BoSox!!

Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox. While I am not a fan of theirs, 86 years is a damn long time to go without a World Series victory. If you've been living in a void, the BOSox won it in a 3 game sweep last night. Congrats again.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

A moment of introspection

After the funeral this morning I decided to go and sit at the beach. As I sat there watching the waves, I realised how small we all really are. I began to think though. Even though we are all just small specks, we all can have an impact on the world. Some of us decided we wanted a life of service to our country. I know this isn't for everyone but there are ways each one of us can do something. We can try to right a wrong in our own neighborhood. We can do charitable work. Any number of things. Never think that you are just one person and can't make a difference. We ALL make a difference, if we try. We all want a better world but we sit and do nothing to make it better. It's far past time we got out of our little boxes and try and do a work to better the world. That could mean the world of your family, the world of our neighborhood, our city and on and on. Just TRY.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Sorry folks

For the next couple of days I doubt I will be doing any posting. I found out Saturday morning that a friend that I went through basic with was killed in Iraq. His wife wants me to be a member of the Honor Guard at his funeral. I'll be back Wednesday evening and will try and get caught up with the happenings in the world.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Blog note

If possible, tomorrow I will be attending a speech given by John Edwards and Saturday I will attend one given by Bush. I don't know yet if it will happen but, if it does, I will give you a general overview of the two speeches and possibly some atendees responses.

John Kerry is an idiot

Once again John Kerry has rammed he foot deep down his throat.

The campaign complained that Treasury Secretary John Snow and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist also had jabs, despite Bush's advice that the young and healthy did not need to get an injection.

"Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the campaign said in a statement issued in Pittsburgh where Kerry was campaigning.

"The very week that (health) secretary (Tommy) Thompson is telling Americans to keep calm, Dick Cheney, John Snow and Bill Frist are getting flu shots."

Let's look at a three of these people. Dick Cheney has had heart problems for over 20 years. Bill Frist is a physician who works in free clinics on the weekends. John Snow is 65.

These people clearly fall within the President's and the CDC's criteria for getting a flu shot. Shut up idiot.


The Washington Post ran a story on John Kerry that is rather interesting.

In Senate debates and media interviews over the years, John F. Kerry has repeatedly returned to three axioms on the use of military force: Win as much allied support as possible before going to war, listen to advice from the professionals, and, most significant, heed the many lessons of the Vietnam War.

Actually, I happen to agree with Senator Kerry on these points. We SHOULD try and win our allies supprt. We SHOULD listen to our professional soldiers and we SHOULD learn lessons from Vietnam. I don't think there is anything to disagee with here.

But, we come to a parting with this,
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

So, let me get this right, it's okay to die fighting for the U.N. and not okay to fight and die for ones country? Am I missing something or is that what he is saying? For all his talk about not giving up the sovereignty of this country, his past words and deeds sure do go a long way to doing just that.

A good point is brought up on the issue of coalitions in this article
Conservatives argue that Kerry's emphasis on multilateralism would result in weak coalitions unable to further U.S. interests.

"What it means, practically, is that you always go to the lowest common denominator," said Tom Donnelly, a defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute, "so whatever the least willing member of the coalition is willing to do, that defines the policy."

And Dale brings up another good point over at Q and O.
It’s no accident that his priority list starts with getting allied support in the number one spot. But the key priority in warfare isn’t to get allies, as helpful as they can be. The number one priority is to engage the enemy, to kill his forces, to disrupt his supply lines, and to destroy his ability to fight. If the attempt to gain more allies pre-empts that, then all the allies in the world won’t prevent your defeat.

I agree with Dale, to a point, he used the words " in warfare" and in those circumstances, I agree, when we are already at war, we go in to win. But BEFORE the war starts, we should go to our allies.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I am NOT saying we should ask permission, our security is our business and WE should make the decisions on what needs to be done. What I am saying is, we go to our allies, make it perfectly clear on what we intend to do, and ask if they would like to join us. IF they choose to join us, they go in knowing what we are going to do from start to finish. Then we don't have the problem that the article spoke of.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Early voting

As you may know, some states have started early voting. While I think it goes against the Costitution to do so, it has become law in some states. And of course, the Democrats whined that it wasn't fair because the people who chose to do so had to vote in their polling precinct. Colorado and Florida had cases go to their respective Supreme Courts, I'll just deal with the Florida situation because it's where I live.

Judges in Florida and Colorado yesterday tightened access to polling places in their states, a blow to Democrats who had argued that legal restrictions there disenfranchised voters -- especially new ones, mostly Democratic-leaning minorities.
The decisions came as residents in both states began early voting. Early voting was instituted in Florida after the 2000 election in hopes of preventing the electoral mayhem of four years ago that held the presidency in abeyance for weeks after Election Day.
"If you vote early now," Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry told a crowd of Democrats here yesterday, "We don't have to stay up late Tuesday night."
In a unanimous ruling in Florida, the seven justices of the state Supreme Court said the votes of residents who cast ballots at the wrong precincts do not have to be counted, upholding a state law that labor unions argued unconstitutionally deprived residents of the right to vote if they did not know their polling place.

Good decision by the state Supremes. The labor unions argument is idiotic. If the people are registered voters, it shows, right on their voters ID card, where they are supposed to vote. If they have any questions, all they have to do is call their counties Supervisor of Elections office, give their address, and they will be told where they are supposed to go. I know this because, I tried it this morning to see how hard it would be to find out, it took me 2 minutes.
Under Florida law, if voters show up at a polling place but officials there have no record that they are registered, they are given provisional ballots. Those ballots are then held until officials determine whether the persons were entitled to vote at that precinct and had not already voted.
If they should have been allowed to vote at that precinct, the ballots count; if not, they are thrown out.

I honestly see nothing wrong with this. It is YOUR responsibility to know where to vote.

This is just another case of crying before the results are known. The law is simple. Your voters ID tells you where to vote, pick up a phone if you are unsure. Simple

Tommy Franks says Kerry is full of it

Well, not really but, he comes close

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.
Poor General, you really don't understand politics at all, do you? It's seldom about facts and mostly about distortions.

Now on with the important stuff.
On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

So, we had differing intel on where he was. We were never quite sure where he was, and in all the Taliban and Al-queda fighters that were caught and killed, he was never within reach.
Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.
Hmmmmmm, that makes sense, using resourses that actually know the area.
Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
So, Kerry has it completely wrong. Big surprise there.

He goes on to explain that this is a global effort and not a regional one. Go read it, it's worth a few minutes of your time.

Poor Spain

After the bombings of the trains in March, Spain got rid of the government that would have tried to protect them and put in a bunch of appeasers and this is what happens.

MADRID (Reuters) - Police arrested seven suspected Islamic militants in raids across Spain on Monday to foil a planned bomb attack on the High Court, judicial sources said.

The arrests came seven months after train bombs killed 191 people in Madrid.

The seven suspects, including four Algerians and one Moroccan, were arrested in the southern region of Andalusia, the Mediterranean city of Valencia and Madrid.

Further arrests could be made in the coming hours as part of the operation against a radical and violent Muslim network, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Crusading Judge Baltasar Garzon ordered the arrests as part of his inquiry into Islamic militant cells in Spain.

The suspects had been in contact with other individuals in Europe, the United States and Australia, the statement said.

This is what happens when you back down from the bully on the block.

An endorsement for Bush

President Vladimir Putin on Monday made his strongest endorsement yet for his friend U.S. President George W. Bush, saying "international terrorism" will claim victory over the international antiterrorism coalition if Bush loses.

"I believe that the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at the coalition as at President Bush personally," Putin said. "The goal of international terrorism is to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term."

"If they achieve that goal, then they will of course celebrate it as a victory ... over America and, to a certain extent, over the forces of the international antiterrorism coalition," Putin told reporters in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, after a regional cooperation conference.

Them some strong words. And I totally agree with them.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Sorry Senator Kerry

Senator Kerry has been pushing the idea of opening up Canadian pharmacies to the U.S. market. Well, Canada has its answer to him.

More than 30 Canadian internet pharmacies have decided not to accept bulk orders of prescription drugs from US states and municipalities.

The move delivers a potentially serious setback to US politicians most notably Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry campaigning to give Americans easier access to cheap drugs from Canada.

Looks like the Senator needs to come up with a new idea.

Want crack?

Go to Ohio.

The Defiance County Sheriff’s Office arrested Chad Staton, age 22, of Stratton Ave., Defiance, on a charge of False Registration, in Violation of Section 3599.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, a felony of the fifth degree.

The Sheriff’s Office alleges that Staton filled out over 100 voter registration forms that were fictitious. Staton was to be paid for each registration form that he could get citizens to fill out. However, Staton himself filled out the registrations and returned them to the woman who hired him from Toledo, Ohio. Deputies allege that Staton was paid crack cocaine for the falsified registrations.

Defiance Deputies along with Toledo Police Department detectives conducted a search warrant of a residence on Woodland in Toledo, believed to be the home of the woman who hired Staton to solicit voter registration. Officers confiscated drug paraphernalia along with voter registration forms from the home. The occupant of the home, Georgianne Pitts, age 41, advised law enforcement, along with Ohio B.C.I.&I., that she had been recruited by Thaddeus J. Jackson, II, of Cleveland, to obtain voter registrations. Pitts admitted to paying Staton crack cocaine for the registrations in lieu of money.

A business card provided by Pitts indicated that Jackson is the Assistant NVF Ohio Director of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

The initial complaint received by the Sheriff’s Office came from the Defiance County Board of Elections. The Board had received the 100 plus registration forms from the Cuyahoga Board of Elections that had been submitted to the Cuyahoga Board by the NAACP National Voter Fund.

Sunday, October 17, 2004


I'm sure all of you have heard about this. I've been sitting here for a couple of days debating on whether to say something on this or not. Well, I decided it was time I had my say.

The Democrat Party leader had this to say

This disgusting flyer is a dirty trick by Republicans to try and smear Craig Fitzhugh and the Democratic Party in Tennessee. We are shocked and appalled that they would stoop to this level to try and score political points. Craig Fitzhugh is one of the most honorable, upright men in the Tennessee Legislature, and everyone who knows him knows that he is a champion of children and those with disabilities.

I am calling on Republican Party Chairwoman Beth Harwell, Craig Fitzhugh’s colleague in the House of Representatives, to put an end to this. We may not agree on politics, but Beth and I can both agree to the character and principles of Craig Fitzhugh. This is the work of shady Republican operatives, and is remnicent of the Nixon-era Watergate burglaries. This is just the latest in a long history of dirty politics on the part of Republicans.

Craig Fitzhugh has called on the District Attorney to investigate the source of this disgusting flyer. We have every intention of getting to the bottom of this disturbing incident.

According to the Tennessean
It appears there will be no official investigation into the origins of an offensive leaflet that ridicules President Bush and people with disabilities, the Lauderdale County prosecutor said yesterday.

''We have not found anything to support a criminal charge on this brochure,'' said 25th Judicial District Attorney General Elizabeth Rice, whose district includes Ripley and Lauderdale County.

I don't really give a rats ass if thier is evidence to support criminal charges. I want to know who put this flier out. I don't care if it is the Republicans or the Democrats, I want to know. Anyone who would sink to such lows as to use the handicapped as a way of going against a candidate has no business running for office.

I've been a part of the Special Olympics for going on 15 years now. My best friends older brother is severely "retarded" and because of him, I have had the honor of working with this group of people. You will never be so humbled as when watching these people do something that others think they shouldn't be able to do. First or last doesn't matter to them, the oppurtunity and the fun they have is what they enjoy

So, I have this to say to the asshole who put this flier out. Why don't you shut up and go spend some time working with the Special Olympics, maybe you will learn something about what integrity is. I truly hope the truth comes out about this and I hope you get burnt. I hope the people of your state and the rest of the country see what a true slimeball is and that you will NEVER be able to show your face in public because of the scorn and ridicule, that you so richly deserve, that will be heaped upon you. Asshole.

To my readers, if the truth of this story comes out, I want you to flood the campaign office of the candidate responsible. I want this person to know what a true asshole, I'm sorry about the language but, it's the nicest word I can bring myself to say, he is. The links to their offices are below.

Craig Fitzhugh

Dave Dahl

Saturday, October 16, 2004

An interesting study

The Annenberg Public Policy Center released a study recently of how the way the military feel about the direction the country is going.

America’s military service men and women and their families are convinced that the country is going in the right direction, like George W. Bush much more than the civilian population does, support the war in Iraq more strongly and are more positive about the economy, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.

It also says
On particular traits, the military sample gave Bush an advantage on caring, leadership, sharing their values, knowledge, consistency and optimism. They did consider Bush more stubborn. When asked whom they would trust more to handle the responsibility of commander-in-chief, 69 percent of the military sample preferred Bush to 24 percent for Kerry. The civilian group also preferred Bush, but by only a 50 to 41 percent majority. When asked if the country was “going in the right direction” or was “seriously off on the wrong track,” 64 percent of the military sample said “right track” and 31 percent said “wrong direction.” In the general population a majority said “wrong track”; 55 percent took that view compared to
37 percent who said “right direction.” On all four of these measures, there were almost no differences between regular military
respondents and those who served in the guard and reserves. Family members were less
supportive of Bush than their active duty relatives. Families of guard and reserve members were the least supportive, but even in that last group narrow majorities took his side. There was little difference based on the rank of service members, although commissioned officers and NCOs and their families were slightly more supportive than junior enlisted members and their families.

3-1 support the President over Kerry. This should say something to people out there. These are the men and women putting on the line everyday. They are the ones who see what is going on, they see the truth of the situation and not just what we are told.

There was another interesting finding in this study
A partial explanation for the pro-Bush tilt of the military sample was that they were considerably more Republican than the general population. Forty-three percent called themselves Republican, 19 percent called themselves Democrats and 28 percent said they were independents. While the party identification of respondents in national polls moves around a bit from week to week, this was strikingly more Republican than the general population in the September 27-October 3 sample. There, 28 percent called themselves Republican, 34 percent Democratic and 27 percent
But this Republican partisanship explained only some but not all of the differences, because on many questions the Republican service members were more pro-Bush than their civilian fellow partisans. Independents in the military sample, when compared to civilians, were also more pro-Bush. For example, 94 percent of Republicans in the military sample approved of Bush’s handling of his job as president, compared to 88 percent of civilian Republicans. Among Democrats, 23 percent of those in the military sample approved, while 20 percent in the general population did.
Among independents, 59 percent of those in the military sample approved while just 48 percent of those in the general population did.
The military sample was split on whether Bush had a clear plan for a solution in Iraq, with 47 percent saying he had a plan and 48 percent saying he lacked a plan. But he rated better with them than with the general population, where 38 percent said he had a plan and 56 percent said he did not. While the military sample was more likely than the general public to credit Bush with having an Iraq plan, it was less likely than the public to believe Kerry had one. Eighteen percent of the
military sample said Kerry had a clear Iraq plan, while 72 percent said he did not have one. In the general public, 34 percent said Kerry had a plan and 54 percent said he did not.

While they still have questions about the hadling of the war, they still overwhelmingly supprt the President.

This is a very intersting study. If you are still undecided, take a look at what the people who are fighting for you have to say.

Table A

% Military Sample General Public 9/27-

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?
Approve 67% 49%
Disapprove 29% 49%

Please tell me if your opinion of George W. Bush is favorable or unfavorable.
Favorable 69% 49%
Unfavorable 23% 41%

Please tell me if your opinion of John Kerry is favorable or unfavorable.
Favorable 29% 44%
Unfavorable 54% 37%

Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction, or do you think things are seriously off on the wrong track?
Right direction 64% 37%
Wrong track 31% 55%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the nation’s economy?
Approve 60% 42%
Disapprove 36% 55%

Now I’d like to talk to you about the state of the economy. How would you rate economic conditions in this country today?
Excellent or good 45% 25%
Fair or poor 55% 75%

How would you rate your own personal economic situation today?
excellent or good 61% 48%
Fair or poor 39% 52%

All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?
Yes, worth it 64% 45%
No, not worth it 32% 51%

Has the war in Iraq reduced the risk of terrorism against the United States or increased the risk of terrorism against the United States?
Reduced the risk of terrorism 47% 34%
Increased the risk of terrorism 42% 53%
Made no difference 9% 8%

Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?
Has a clear plan 47% 38%
Does not have a clear plan 48% 56%

Do you think John Kerry has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?
Has a clear plan 18% 34%
Does not have a clear plan 72% 54%

As a result of the George W. Bush presidency, in general, how well regarded is the United States by countries around the world?
Better than before he came into office 19% 16%
Worse than before he came into office 42% 52%
No different than before he came into office 35% 28%

Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military: George W.Bush or John Kerry?
George W. Bush 69% 50%
John Kerry 24% 41%

Think about this folks, these are some serious numbers in support of Bush. There has to be a reason why. Since these folks know what's going on in the world, I think it would be wise to take the time and read this entire study.

The draft

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has renewed charges that the Bush administration plans to reinstate the military draft, beginning what his campaign calls the "closing argument" in his case against re-electing President Bush.
"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft," Mr. Kerry told reporters and editors of the Des Moines Register, which published his remarks yesterday.
Mr. Kerry told the Register that he can't imagine how the administration can continue "with the current overextension" of troops in Iraq without instituting the draft.

This is funny coming from a man who, when asked if he reinstitute the draft,during the second debate, he said
Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military, and I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our military, and not overextended, because I'm going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan did, President Eisenhower did, and others.

And these 40,000 people are just going to join because you are such a wonderful man? That's two divisions folks. And he says he won't reinstate the draft?

Let's look at something else. From his website.
John Kerry will make a new deal with hundreds of thousands of young people: If you will serve America for two years-working in a school, a health center, or strengthening America's security-we will make sure you can attend four years of college tuition-free.

Um, what is this? It sounds kind of like a draft. Of course, every soldier who serves already gets help when it comes to schooling, the G.I. Bill. So, tell me Senator, just what do you call this other than a draft?

Both candidates have said they don't support the draft, only one, has shown, in the above two examples, that they would actually use the draft.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Doctors office etiquette

Yes, I know, it's the political season but, I'm taking the day off from it, unless something big happens. I was at the doctors office the other day and found that there are some REALLY rude people there so, I came up with some rules for when you go to the doctors office.

1. Do not tell me your life story and the THOUSANDS of things you think are wrong with you. I am not there to make friends. I am there because I have problems of my own. Light conversation,(weather, local news, gardening), are acceptable forms of conversation. The problems you are having with your hemroids aren't.

2. If you have a cold or the flu, for God's sake, bring a handkerchief. Sneezing into you hands, LOOKING at what you sneezed, and wiping your hands on your pants is not acceptable in polite society,

3. Trying to figure out what is wrong with the other people in the office just isn't done. I don't care what is wrong with them. Thier problems are their own.

4. Yelling because it is taking too long is stupid. You are in a DOCTORs office. Doctors have to actually examine their patients. They also have to sometimes give bad news, this takes time. All your whining does is piss everyone else off in the office, not at the doctor, AT YOU. Moron

5. If you have a bandage on, do NOT open it to look at it. Someone else will see it. They do NOT want to look at your nasty injury.

6. Men, calling the female office workers, nurses and so on, toots, hot stuff, sweetie and such names is a no-no. Also, commenting on their butts, breasts or other body parts, WHEN THEY CAN HEAR YOU, is kind of stupid. Remember, they are the ones who use the needles.

If you can think of any others put them in the comment section.

By the way, all of the above happened while I visited my doctor on Monday.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Debate # 3

I was planning on live blogging but, changed my mind. I'll give you my notes to each question asked.

will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?

Okay, this is the most idiotic question asked at any of the debates. Does Schieffer not remember the constant threat of nuclear war over the last 60 years?

Kerry: Bush made it worse, cargo holds aren't x-rayed, container ships aren't inspected. I'll go kill all the terrorists.

Bush: Keep going after the terrorists. I signed Homeland security.

We are talking about protecting ourselves from the unexpected, but the flu season is suddenly upon us. Flu kills thousands of people every year.

Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?

Bush: It's Englands fault. If you're young and healthy, don't get a flu shot

Kerry: It's all Bush's fault. It's insurance companies fault.

Why the hell was this even asked?

Senator Kerry, a new question. Let's talk about economic security. You pledged during the last debate that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. But the price of everything is going up, and we all know it. Health care costs, as you all talking about, is skyrocketing, the cost of the war.

My question is, how can you or any president, whoever is elected next time, keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we're running up to our children?

Kerry: Tax those rich bastards. They make too much money.

Bush: Rhetoric, Rhetoric. He's stupid and doesn't have a viable plan.

You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.

Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

Bush: We're working hard. It's hard work. Less taxes. Go to school.

Kerry: Surplus is gone. Everything costs more. Wages are down.

He has a plan though. Oh, he didn't share it.
You know, many experts say that a president really doesn't have much control over jobs. For example, if someone invents a machine that does the work of five people, that's progress. That's not the president's fault.

So I ask you, is it fair to blame the administration entirely for this loss of jobs?

Kerry: Job hiring credits, manufacturing credits, fair trade.

Bush: You have more money because of tax rductions. Government should stand side by side with citizens, not tell them what to do.

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Bush: I dunno. Everyone should be treated equal. Marriage should be protected.

Kerry: No it isn't a choice, ask Cheney's daughter. Everyone should be treated equal. Protect marriage.

The next question was about the Catholic church saying people shouldn't vote for Kerry because of his stance on abortion and stem cell research. Quite frankly, the Catholic church should stay out of politics.
Health insurance costs have risen over 36 percent over the last four years according to The Washington Post. We're paying more. We're getting less.

I would like to ask you: Who bears responsibility for this? Is it the government? Is it the insurance companies? Is it the lawyers? Is it the doctors? Is it the administration?

Bush:Consumers should be involved in decision making. I like Health saving accounts. Law suits are outta control. Better tech.

Kerry: It's Bush's fault. Get drugs from Canada.
You have, as you have proposed and as the president has commented on tonight, proposed a massive plan to extend health-care coverage to children. You're also talking about the government picking up a big part of the catastrophic bills that people get at the hospital.

And you have said that you can pay for this by rolling back the president's tax cut on the upper 2 percent.

You heard the president say earlier tonight that it's going to cost a whole lot more money than that.

I'd just ask you, where are you going to get the money?

Kerry: We dump a lot of money into medicaid and you don't have to use it if you don't wanna.

Bush: He's full of crap.

We all know that Social Security is running out of money, and it has to be fixed. You have proposed to fix it by letting people put some of the money collected to pay benefits into private savings accounts. But the critics are saying that's going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up.

So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?

Bush: Let people put maoney into private accounts

Kerry:You can't do that, SS will become undefunded.
I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.

How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?

Bush: All of the above. More border guards. Temporary work cards.

Kerry: Work cards. Crack down on hiring illegals. Earned legalisation for thos who've been her a long time.

That last one is cute. Yes, let's reward people for breaking the law for years.

There were a few questions that bored me so, I ain't telling you what they said.

Affirmative action: Do you see a need for affirmative action programs, or have we moved far enough along that we no longer need to use race and gender as a factor in school admissions and federal and state contracts and so on?

Are you frigging kidding me? Dumb ass question.

Another question about religion. Who cares?
Senator Kerry, after 9/11 -- and this is a new question for you -- it seemed to me that the country came together as I've never seen it come together since World War II. But some of that seems to have melted away. I think it's fair to say we've become pretty polarized, perhaps because of thet would be your attitude on that?

Kerry:It's all Bush's fault.

Bush: It's all the Democrats fault.

I mean, come on, how else are they going to answer?

Last question was about the women in the candidates lives. What are they going to say? Yeah, I'm married to a bitch.

The questions in this debate were, to be honest, stupid. They were all softballs and you got the standard, blah, blah, blah answers.

Score. Even


More can be found here, here and here.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Some good things

Followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr trickled in to police stations in Baghdad's Sadr City district to hand in weapons Monday under a deal with the government that is seen as a key step toward ending weeks of fighting with U.S. and Iraqi forces in the Shiite militant stronghold.

And then there is this
Syrian President Bashar Assad is offering to make peace with Israel and says he is ready to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing Iraq, a former senior State Department official said Wednesday.

These are both great news. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the violence will stop but, both are moves in the right direction.

Although Sharon has "rebuffed" Syria's overtures thus far, and I can't blame him, at least Syria is making a move.

It does seem that something is working over there. I wonder what it is?


Go read this. I'll wait, it's very long but worth reading.

Done? Good. Did you happen to catch this part of the article, John Kerry said

We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

Huh? He can't be serious. Nuisance? Does he mean we should go back to the time when we were attacked with impunity and nothing was done? Does he mean that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement problem? He is joking, right?

Well, I guess not
As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

Tell that to the 3000 people who died on 9/11 Senator. Jeebus, are you for real? George Bush is right. Kerry does have a 9/10 mindset. He wants to put terrorism in the same box as illegal gambling. Dear God, I pray this man never becomes my President.

A sad loss

"Superman" actor Christopher Reeve, who turned personal tragedy into a public crusade and from his wheelchair became the nation's most recognizable spokesman for spinal cord research, has died. He was 52.

Reeve went into cardiac arrest Saturday while at his Pound Ridge home, then fell into a coma and died Sunday at a hospital surrounded by his family, his publicist said. He was 52.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.


I'm sure you've heard of the demonstrations that happened last week. John Fund has an opinion piece out today that discusses them.

One of the most interesting things in the article was the response from AFL-CIO spokesperson Esmerelda Aguilar, she says,

Republicans are "trying to politicize [the Orlando incident] and exaggerate the event." She maintains that all of the demonstrations "were peaceful protests" designed to call attention to new Bush administration regulations on overtime pay.

"peaceful protests"? Old people being shoved about, a mans wrist being broken, windows being shot out and people breaking in and stealing computer hard drives. Does that sound peaceful to you?

These people are not helping their cause. If anything, they will scare off potential voters. Can anyone say disenfranchisement?

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Holy Smoke

Jonah Goldberg is just a touch upset. If you haven't read it go now.

Jonah nails every argument the liberals can come up with about Iraq.

Go. NOW.

John Howard wins

SYDNEY, Australia - Prime Minister John Howard scored a convincing victory in Australia's federal election Saturday, winning a historic fourth term in a vote ensuring the staunch U.S. ally keeps its troops in Iraq

Good news for Australia and good news for the Bush administration. Not only is it a win for Howard but it is expected that his party will pick up seats in the Parliment.
With about 77 percent of votes counted, official figures showed Howard's coalition had 52.4 percent to Labor's 47.6 percent, giving the conservatives a clear lead in the race for a majority in parliament's 150-seat lower house, where government is formed.

While to those outside of Australia it seemed that this election hinged on the situation in Iraq, Australians seemed to vote for there wallet.
Australia's economy has grown during every year of Howard's administration has been in office. Unemployment is close to all-time lows and inflation is just 2 percent.

Nothing bad about that at all.

While the situation in Iraq is important and many in Australia disagree with Howard on going in with Bush and Blair, Australians see a booming economy, and a stable country. Good on them.

Friday, October 08, 2004

Debate #2

Bush did much better. He seemed confident and in control. No verbal blunders that I can recall.

Kerry also did good.

Rating 55% to 45% Bush wins.

Again there really were no surprises. Both hit their talking points. Both attacked at the proper time. The only problem I saw was that Kerry wouldn't stay on topic. Bush get's points for hitting Kerry's Senate record. Kerry get's points for his abortion stance.

A question for each candidate

Senator Kerry, if you aren't going to reinstitute the draft, how do you plan on adding 40,000 new troops?

President Bush, you danced around the issue of you not vetoing one piece of legislation, will you EVER use the veto?

Paul at Wizbang has a unique view of the debate.

Something to think about

Don't you find it amazing that John Kerry is still touting that he'd go to the U.N. with Iraq? Even when the Duelfer Report shows that 3 of the member countries of the Security Council were on the take with Saddam Hussien?

Why do you think that is?

Pretty simple really, without the U.N., Kerry has no Foriegn Policy.

Just a thought

Why the job numbers don't mean anything

The job numbers for september are out and they don't look good

U.S. businesses added 96,000 jobs to payrolls in September, the government reported on Friday, a weaker-than-expected total that was expected to sharpen a presidential debate later in the day over the economy's direction.

The Labor Department report, showing the unemployment rate in September held steady at 5.4 percent, will provide fodder for the second debate between President Bush and Democratic Presidential contender Sen. John Kerry , the first one in which the candidates are expected to discuss economic policy

I know I'm going to get booed and hissed at but, there numbers mean nothing. Bare with me for a second. Do you know how these numbers are collected? The government calls companies and asks them how many people they hire and fire or layoff. Good way to go about it. The problem, they only call a certain few, it's a couple of hundred, I can't remember the exact number, very large corporations. I didn't know that until recently.

Now, if the above is true, and you can check the Labor Department website, then the numbers mean nothing. Why? Because most of the businesses in the country are small businesses, I think it's around 21 million, and most people work for small businesses, not large corparations. So, these numbers are meaningless.

Until the government starts asking the companies that acurate hire and fire most of the people in the country, we will never have an actual guage of how well the country is doing.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Saddam and the French

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

Oh, you mean it wasn't because they disagreed with the language the U.S. used? It wasn't because George Bush is an insufferable pratt? It's all about the oil.
But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

Maybe since he BRIBED French, German and Chinese officials, he thought he could get sanctions dropped?
Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

No, no, that isn't true, the French are just more moral than we are. At least that's what they say.
Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, last night said again that he was wrong to suggest Saddam had WMD - but asked the British public to accept that Iraq would probably have acquired such weapons if he had not acted.

However, the ISG uncovered millions of pages of documents and, after interviewing scores of captured Iraqis - including Mr Aziz - the report lays out what it says is were plans to end the United Nations sanctions then start to acquire weapons.

Saddam, it says, even fooled his own military chiefs into believing that he had WMD. This was designed to deter uprising from rebel Iraqis, on whom he deployed mustard gas in 1988, and aggressors in the Middle East.

So, he fooled his own military leaders but, the left thinks we should have known?
Speaking during his trip to Ethiopia last night, the Prime Minister referred to his speech last week where he admitted being "wrong" in the main part of his case for war but right to see a gathering threat in Iraq.

"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working," he said

Of course they weren't working. When you have three members of the Security Council working to make sure they fail for financial gains.


Too much speed?

Though I haven't talked about it much I have been paying attention to Congress's attempts to reform our intelligence community. I came across this piece in today's Opinion Journal, and have to say, I can't find anything to disagree with.

Our expectations for Congress are always low, and in the case of intelligence reform the Members are once again meeting them. On second thought, that's too generous. The solons are rushing to accomplish the most extensive reform of U.S. intelligence in 50 years in a few pre-election weeks, and they're doing it without a clue about the consequences.

Or, to be precise, without a clue about the substantive impact on intelligence collection and use. About the political consequences they are certain, since the driving force here is electoral self-preservation and media credit. The idea seems to be to pass something--anything--so no one can blame them if there's a terror attack before the election, and then clean up any bureaucratic mess later. It's bad enough that Congress does this to the tax code, but this is national security.

Perfect, isn't it? To protect THEIR backsides, Congress has put aside YOUR safety. Instead of taking the time to really study what the 9/11 report had to say and what, let's say, Henry Kissinger had to say, they want to rush the most important job they have to do, to show that they are doing SOMETHING.

On the topic of a intelligence csar,
Leave aside the wisdom of disrupting our war-fighting institutions in the middle of a not-so-cold terror war. As Henry Kissinger told the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 21, the danger of an all-powerful intelligence czar is that you will get more intelligence conformity, not less. One reason policy makers can get different intelligence perspectives now is because the services are divided into different bureaucracies. If everyone suddenly reports to one master, the bureaucratic incentives are for everyone to want to please him.

The "kiss ass" syndrome. It happens in business all the time. Instead of trying to do what is best for you're store, you do, what you think is best, for the stores in your region, to show the regional VP that you're a team player. The problem, in doing so, your store gets closed down because you aren't catering to the people in your neighborhood. Silly analogy but, it fits.

I've thought the idea of an intelligence csar was bad from the begining and Kissinger shows exactly why it is. Congress, in it's rush to make it SEEM like they are doing something, will, of course, do exactly the opposite of what the experts say. CYA baby.

Read the rest of the article, it's eye opening.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

World Government

I just came across this site.

A "Declaration of the Value of Global Governance"?

If you look through the site, you come across a summary of the Integral World Government.

Integral world government is defined as a global federation of nations united under a constitution of laws guided by the insights and principles of integral philosophy. An integral world government would be instituted to provide democratic oversight of the global economy, protect the world's environment, establish a universal bill of human rights, preserve cultural diversity, and bring an eventual end to war, disease, and poverty. And an integral world government would provide for a system of global justice which would reduce the incentives for terrorism.

These people are the most naive people I have ever seen. Do they at all understand the world that they live in? From reading the site, no, they don't.

Do they really think that the leaders of the world will jsut hand over the reigns of their country for the sake of the "Integral Consciousness"?

And then there is this,
But regardless of whether the evolution of human political organization results from coercion or cooperation, the real benefits of political consolidation result from the implementation of effective laws.
So, they'll use coercion to get you to do as they want? Hmmmm, maybe not as naive as I thought.

One bone to pick

There is only one thing that was said last night that upset me. It was said by Senator Edwards in his closing statement.

Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America. But that light is flickering today.

No Senator, it isn't. It's people like you who continually talk about two Americas that will make that light flicker.

We live, and yes, this is the patriot in me speaking, the greatest country on earth. The oppurtunity has been and will always be there for people willing to try. That "bright light on a hill" is still there, you and your running mate may try to block that light with the rhetoric you speak but, you will not put it out.

You spoke of your father,
You know, when I was young and growing up, I remember coming down the steps into the kitchen, early in the morning, and I would see the glow of the television.

And I'd see my father sitting at a table. He wasn't paying bills, and he wasn't doing paperwork from work.

What he was doing was learning math on television.

Now, he didn't have a college education, but he was doing what he could do to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud of him. I'm still proud of him.

You should be proud of him Senator, he worked to make his, and your, life better. The only problem Senator is, you don't tell the whole story. Your father got tired of working in a place where he couldn't advance. What did he do Senator? Did he sit back and live in drudgery? No, he didn't. What he did was go to some friends, raise the money and start his own mill.

THAT is the American story you seem to forget Senator. That is what MY America is all about. I don't know what America you live in Senator but maybe you should start remembering just what your father had to teach you.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Yawn fest

That was the most uninteresting thing I have ever watched. If you don't know what I'm talking about, thank God you don't. Yes, I know debates aren't supposed to be exciting but, God, that was bad.

Best quote of the night.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Most telling comments
EDWARDS: Thank you.

The vice president suggests that we have the same number of countries involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost the American people $5 billion.

Um, senator, in the Gulf War, we were only kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, this time it's just a tad different.

And regardless of what the vice president says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President?

CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...

CHENEY: ... as beyond...

EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...

CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...

EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...

CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.

I think this was the single most important thing said tonight. Kerry/Edwards does not want to count the Iraqi government as part of the coalition. Sorry for them but, they most certainly are. The Iraqi government, and more importantly, the Iraqi people are making more and more sacrifices. For them to discount, and that is what they were doing, is unbelievable.

The whole debate was nothing more than we've heard all along. I won't go into detail because, it just isn't worth it. If I had to call this one, I'd give it to the Vice President by a small margin.

The transcript can be found here.

UPDATE: More can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Clearly these folks thought more of this debate than I did.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Debate reflux

Okay, it's morning and we've all had a chance to digest what we heard last night. I'd like to deal with some of the more, shall we say, fanciful, things we heard.

The first is rather funny.

The question was, how would Kerry improve Homland Security. One of the, fanciful, things he said was

That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn't done the work that ought to be done.

Um, no, the subway never closed and as a matter of fact, during the RNC's convention, crime in the subway went up.
Subway crime soared in the outer boroughs during the Republican convention when scores of transit police were shifted to Manhattan, police statistics show.

Underground felonies in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn increased by 37% during the week ending Sept. 5, compared with the same week last year.

At the same time, crime in heavily patrolled Manhattan trains and stations went down by almost the same amount - 35%.

In the same question Senator Kerry also said.
First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?

Well, actually Senator, you're wrong.
President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants – a 400 percent increase over funding levels when he came into office. Indeed, President Bush has already awarded over $1.1 billion in firefighter grants in the last three years, providing 900 percent more firefighter grant funds than Clinton budgets did. (President's FY 2005 Budget Appendix, pg. 471; United States Fire Administration, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Awards FY 2001, at

Also, for the FY 2005 Bush has allocates $3.561 billion to first responders. That can be found on page 163 of the Presidents budget for 2005. Oh that's an increase of 680% over President Clintons last FY budget for them which was $456 million.

On the Iran issue, Kerry said something that I think blew eveyones mind.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.

This man wants to be President? He would have put nuclear fuel in the hands of religious fanatics? Okay.

Another rather funny thing Kerry said was
Well, let me just say quickly that I've had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation. And I was probably one of the first senators, along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former senator, go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them.

The only thing wrong with that statement is the Treblinka Square was a Nazi Extermination Camp. That's kind of a bad misstep.

That's just a few things I found. I still say the debates were a draw and that if you were undecided before you probably still are. Hopefully the next debate will offer us some better material.