Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

The other day the New York Times featured an exclusive article that said that a massive weapons cache had gone missing in Iraq. John Kerry used this information to insist that Bush was incompetent and that this was simply more proof. In fact, the Kerry campaign has created a new ad about this outrage. The problem is this cache was gone before U.S. troops even arrived on the scene in April of 2003.

CNN and an embedded journalist with NBC are reporting that this cache was gone even before U.S. soldiers arrived. The New York Times, and now it appears that CBS too, wanted to create the impression that this cache had gone missing this past weekend or at least recently. CBS was going to drop this bomb just a couple of days before the election so as to try to effect the outcome in John Kerry's favor.

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that the New York Times tried to mislead people? Does anyone doubt that it was NBC's embedded reporter that kept this from becoming a major last minute campaign issue? It chills me to the bone to know what the New York Times and CBS had in store. I mean, the cold blooded nature of this dirty trick is unforgiveable. Furthermore, the NY Times and CBS will both probably be like, "What? What did we do that was so bad?" They have conspired to deceive the American people with the illusion that it was Bush's mismanagement of the post war occupation that allowed this massive cache of weapons to simply vanish from under the noses of the coalition forces when the fact is that it was gone before we even got there.

Thank God NBC's embedded reporter was able to completely refute the accusation or else the NY Times and CBS would have gotten away with it.

It really does chill me to think what the Time and CBS tried to do. Honestly, I really can't believe the whole story. It's just too unbelievable to be real. But it is. The New York Times and CBS were going to try change the course of history with a horrible outright deceit. Thank God they didn't get away with it. Thank God.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Oh this is priceless. Via Instapundit.

This is an actual opening line from a New York Times article:
To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.
Hahahaha. Priceless.

Wow. John Edwards' wife told a supporter that there won't be any riots as long as Kerry/Edwards wins the election.

Drudge is reporting that C-Span caught the exchange between Elizabeth Edwards and a supporter:
Supporter: Kerry's going to take PA.

Liz Edwards: I know that.

Supporter: I'm just worried there's going to be riots afterwards.

Liz Edwards: Uh.....well...not if we win.
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. They've been shooting up Republican campaign headquarters, attacking campaign workers, and generally engaging in such unbelievable intimidation that riots are almost a certainty when Democrats lose on November 3rd.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Ah, those tolerant, peace-lving, and nuanced Democrats have once again attacked a local Republican campaign headquarters.

Victor Davis Hanson lists the reasons why he thinks Bush will win in November.

I don't think Bush can lose either, but to have a historian that I admire list the subconcious reasons is deeply reassuring.

I think most people don't understand their visceral dislike for the Democrats this time around; they just don't. They can't put their finger on it, but Hanson does a good job of expressing his personal views and I find myself saying, "THAT is right. That's exactly how I feel."

What is the opposite of outsourcing? Why insourcing of course:
Some of the large international companies with U.S. subsidiaries in the Show-Me State are ABB Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, DaimlerChrysler, GKN Aerospace Services, Nestle USA Inc., Reed Elsevier, Reuters America, Toyota Motor North America and Unilever.

Nationally, there are 5.4 million "insourced" jobs in the United States, making up about 5 percent of total private sector employment and bringing in more than $307 billion in compensation. The average compensation at insourcing companies was $56,667, more than 31 percent over the annual compensation in the rest of the U.S. private sector.

California has the most "insourced" jobs with more than 616,000, followed by New York and Texas.
People love to scare others with the whole outsourcing boogey man, but the fact is that outsourcing is part of the whole idea of free trade and free trade is best for the consumer. An added bonus to outsourcing is that it increases the standard of living for people abroad so that they can afford high quality U.S. goods and services.

Also, any company that grows large enough will eventually seek a U.S. presence. Many companies that we outsource to today eventually grow large enough to return to the U.S. and build factories.

Outsourcing is good for the economy.

Charles Krauthammer has a chilling idea of how John Kerry would rebuild our alliances with France, Germany, and Russia:
What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.
From what I see a significant wing of the Democratic party would love to see the U.S. abandon Israel and an even larger wing of the party would love to see a return of the "peace process" of the 1990's.

I missed it, but John Leo cites an August Pew poll that says, "51 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of liberal Democrats believe that America might have motivated the 9/11 attacks by doing something wrong or unfair in dealings with other nations."

Wonder why people say many, if not most, Democrats hate this country? Hmmm. Could it be because the majority of Democrats believe that the U.S. was to blame for the attacks of 9/11? Could it be because the majority of Democrats view America as the problem and not the Islamofacists who actually killed those innocent people? Could be.

Or could it be because of the anti-war protests? Leo makes the point:
The anti-Iraq-war demonstrations were a grab bag of contradictory constituencies, many of which had nothing to do with war and peace. But they held out the promise that the hard and soft left, by refusing to criticize each other, could form a powerful alliance. So ordinary Democrats raised almost no objection to the many hate-America themes at these marches.
No they didn't. Wonder why people say most Democrats hate this country? It's a real mystery.