Anti-W Web Sites Are Plentiful
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
I already finished my column for the week when the Bin Laden tape came out Friday afternoon.
But I simply couldn't resist a couple quick observations.
1. What is this? Terrorists for Kerry? Do you suppose Kerry was cringing when Bin Laden was going on about how bad W is?
2. It was a tape. Not a bomb. You know Bin Laden would much rather use a bomb, like he did before the elections in Spain. But he didn't. Why? Because he can't. W's homeland security appears to be working.
3. Next to capturing Bin Laden, this is the best thing that could have happened to W's campaign.
*****
Last week I wrote about how John Kerry says stuff that he knows is demonstrably untrue.
Basically, the guy appears devoid of character and integrity. I am willing to concede that the W camp does its fair share of exaggerating the obfuscating. But Kerry takes it to a new level.
Kerry makes Bill Clinton, the President Prevaricator, look like Honest Abe.
After my column last week, a couple readers pointed me to a place on the Internet called factcheck.org
I would like to thank them for that, even though I already knew about that site. It's a very fine Web site, by the way. But come on. It's milquetoast.
If you W haters are looking for the really good stuff, you need to go to bushwatch.com, bushlies.com, whodies.com, misleader.org or anti-bush.com. Those sites ought to get you going.
If that's not enough, you absolutely have to visit www.linkcrusader.com/ anti-bush.htm. There you will find, and I'm not kidding, 3,000 anti-W links. That's right. That's not a typo - 3,000 anti-W links.
I bored through a couple hundred one lazy afternoon. Good fun.
So it's not like I am unaware or under-advised or anything. I'm making a distinction here.
I think W gets bad advice. I think W makes bad decisions. I don't agree with W's fiscal policy at all. I mean really, this guy is aÊconservative? Non-military discretionary spending is increasing at an 8.2 percent annual clip. Huge new entitlements - prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, USA PATRIOT Act - huge new deficits.
We've got a Republican-led Congress and a Republican in the White House and the government is spending money like a drunken sailor on a Bangkok shore leave. This stuff bugs me.
But through it all, I don't get the idea that W is deliberately misleading me. I get the idea that he believes what he says - misguided or mistaken as it may be, he believes what he says.
That's the distinction. Kerry can't believe what he says.
This week's campaign drove home that point for me again.
Obviously tipped off that a New York Times story about 377 tons of missing explosives from the al-Qaqaa military base in Iraq would be running Monday, Kerry went on the offensive.
He said W was responsible for failing to safeguard the explosives, which, by theÊway, could be used to trigger a nuclear weapon.
He continued to hammer on this point all week.
Does Kerry believe that there are explosives missing?
Well, I can't say for sure, but I can say what one of his top advisers, Richard Holbrooke, believes. Holbrook said in a TV interview that the explosives may have disappeared after the U.S. invaded Iraq, as the Times said, or the explosives may have been moved before the the invasion began. He didn't know.
Well if he doesn't know, I'm pretty confident Kerry doesn't know either. Regardless, Kerry says something to voters that he knows is questionable at best.
By Tuesday, we have the following developments:
• John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of Defense for international technology security, says a military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, 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. "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
And this:
The Iraqi interim government told U.S. and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives were missing from Al-Qaqaa.
But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than that.
The 377 tons information was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, IAEA inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility - a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that explosives were removed from the facility long before the U.S. launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
There is nothing conclusive here. Maybe explosives were moved after the invasion, maybe they weren't. But the veracity of the initial report is certainly in doubt, isn't it? Sure it is. That's why Kerry adviser Holbrook says he doesn't know if the explosives were removed after the invasion.
Kerry knows all this. I mean, come on, he's got to be at least as enlightened as a dumb Hoosier writing a column in Warsaw. But this doesn't deter him from continuing all week telling voters that W is responsible for allowing all those tons of explosives to fall into the hands of terrorists. (By the way, if the explosives are "missing," how does Kerry know they're in the hands of terrorists?)
Just like he tells voters W will reinstate the draft. Just like he tells voters W will cut Social Security by 47 percent.
It's bunk.
And sorry, W haters, I just don't see that level of deceit in W.
It's like this.
Say I went out and used the family grocery money to buy a cool guitar that I knew we couldn't afford.
Later, while playing the guitar, I am confronted by my wife. She asks how we could afford a new guitar. If I was W, I would say, "Groceries are over-rated and anyway, we can get more food next week." If I was Kerry I would say, "What guitar?" [[In-content Ad]]
I already finished my column for the week when the Bin Laden tape came out Friday afternoon.
But I simply couldn't resist a couple quick observations.
1. What is this? Terrorists for Kerry? Do you suppose Kerry was cringing when Bin Laden was going on about how bad W is?
2. It was a tape. Not a bomb. You know Bin Laden would much rather use a bomb, like he did before the elections in Spain. But he didn't. Why? Because he can't. W's homeland security appears to be working.
3. Next to capturing Bin Laden, this is the best thing that could have happened to W's campaign.
*****
Last week I wrote about how John Kerry says stuff that he knows is demonstrably untrue.
Basically, the guy appears devoid of character and integrity. I am willing to concede that the W camp does its fair share of exaggerating the obfuscating. But Kerry takes it to a new level.
Kerry makes Bill Clinton, the President Prevaricator, look like Honest Abe.
After my column last week, a couple readers pointed me to a place on the Internet called factcheck.org
I would like to thank them for that, even though I already knew about that site. It's a very fine Web site, by the way. But come on. It's milquetoast.
If you W haters are looking for the really good stuff, you need to go to bushwatch.com, bushlies.com, whodies.com, misleader.org or anti-bush.com. Those sites ought to get you going.
If that's not enough, you absolutely have to visit www.linkcrusader.com/ anti-bush.htm. There you will find, and I'm not kidding, 3,000 anti-W links. That's right. That's not a typo - 3,000 anti-W links.
I bored through a couple hundred one lazy afternoon. Good fun.
So it's not like I am unaware or under-advised or anything. I'm making a distinction here.
I think W gets bad advice. I think W makes bad decisions. I don't agree with W's fiscal policy at all. I mean really, this guy is aÊconservative? Non-military discretionary spending is increasing at an 8.2 percent annual clip. Huge new entitlements - prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, USA PATRIOT Act - huge new deficits.
We've got a Republican-led Congress and a Republican in the White House and the government is spending money like a drunken sailor on a Bangkok shore leave. This stuff bugs me.
But through it all, I don't get the idea that W is deliberately misleading me. I get the idea that he believes what he says - misguided or mistaken as it may be, he believes what he says.
That's the distinction. Kerry can't believe what he says.
This week's campaign drove home that point for me again.
Obviously tipped off that a New York Times story about 377 tons of missing explosives from the al-Qaqaa military base in Iraq would be running Monday, Kerry went on the offensive.
He said W was responsible for failing to safeguard the explosives, which, by theÊway, could be used to trigger a nuclear weapon.
He continued to hammer on this point all week.
Does Kerry believe that there are explosives missing?
Well, I can't say for sure, but I can say what one of his top advisers, Richard Holbrooke, believes. Holbrook said in a TV interview that the explosives may have disappeared after the U.S. invaded Iraq, as the Times said, or the explosives may have been moved before the the invasion began. He didn't know.
Well if he doesn't know, I'm pretty confident Kerry doesn't know either. Regardless, Kerry says something to voters that he knows is questionable at best.
By Tuesday, we have the following developments:
• John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of Defense for international technology security, says a military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, 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. "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
And this:
The Iraqi interim government told U.S. and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives were missing from Al-Qaqaa.
But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than that.
The 377 tons information was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, IAEA inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility - a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that explosives were removed from the facility long before the U.S. launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
There is nothing conclusive here. Maybe explosives were moved after the invasion, maybe they weren't. But the veracity of the initial report is certainly in doubt, isn't it? Sure it is. That's why Kerry adviser Holbrook says he doesn't know if the explosives were removed after the invasion.
Kerry knows all this. I mean, come on, he's got to be at least as enlightened as a dumb Hoosier writing a column in Warsaw. But this doesn't deter him from continuing all week telling voters that W is responsible for allowing all those tons of explosives to fall into the hands of terrorists. (By the way, if the explosives are "missing," how does Kerry know they're in the hands of terrorists?)
Just like he tells voters W will reinstate the draft. Just like he tells voters W will cut Social Security by 47 percent.
It's bunk.
And sorry, W haters, I just don't see that level of deceit in W.
It's like this.
Say I went out and used the family grocery money to buy a cool guitar that I knew we couldn't afford.
Later, while playing the guitar, I am confronted by my wife. She asks how we could afford a new guitar. If I was W, I would say, "Groceries are over-rated and anyway, we can get more food next week." If I was Kerry I would say, "What guitar?" [[In-content Ad]]