John Kerry lives in a fantasy world. He continually holds up the United Nations as a place of virtue rather than corruption. His demeaning and insulting attitude toward the new Iraqi Prime Minister and our ‘bribed and coerced’ allies in Iraq has been disgraceful and yet he claims that he is going to bring the world together.
France, Russia and Germany choose corruption over cooperation, they viewed Saddam Hussein’s regime not as a threat to global security in a post 9/11 world, they saw it as a profit center. The suffering of the Iraqi’s and the instability in the region was the price of doing business. Only now are the layers of corruption being unpeeled. Kerry wants the American people to believe he is going to get these governments to send troops and money to this ‘disaster’ in Iraq, this ‘catastrophe’ this ‘wrong war at the wrong time’ this ‘diversion from the war on terror’.
What does it say about Kerry’s judgement? He would never act in our defense if he didn’t have enough cover from his friends in the capitals of Europe.
Here are some Kerry comments from the first debate,
“First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was
going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the
United Nations and go through the inspections”“He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those
words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. “Last
resort.” You’ve got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to
those parents, “I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your
son and daughter.” I don’t believe the United States did that. And
we pushed our allies aside. ““But this president hasn’t even held the kind of statesman-like summits that
pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he’s
done the opposite. He pushed them away. When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, “No, no, we’ll go do this alone.”
And here is what these allies have been saying recently,
A French official said Saturday that even if Sen. John Kerry defeats
President Bush in November’s election, his country won’t provide troops to help the U.S. in Iraq – the same policy France has under President Bush.”If Kerry is elected, we wouldn’t send troops either,” the unnamed official told the New York Daily News.No German troops for Iraq, says Schroeder
BERLIN – German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Wednesday again ruled out sending troops to Iraq prior to the arrival of Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawr for high level talks in Berlin. “What I have said remains valid: we are not sending troops there,” said Schroeder in a speech to parliament greeted with strong applause from government benches.No troops is one thing. Surely they would help with debt relief?
(AP, 10/4) On Iraq, the United States tried to rally support for wiping out up to 90 percent of the Arab nation’s $120 billion in foreign debt. However, France and Germany say they are only willing to provide 50 percent debt relief for Iraq this year.
Here is Kerry on Iran,
In response to a question about whether sanctions and diplomacy can curb North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Massachusetts senator said:
“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.”
Iran’s response,
New York Sun – The regime in Iran is rejecting Senator Kerry’s proposal, floated last week in his debate with President Bush, to provide the mullahs with nuclear fuel in exchange for dismantling their atomic fuel cycle. The spokesman for the foreign ministry in Tehran told reporters yesterday,
“We have the technology and there is no need for us to beg from others.”
Entering such an agreement, the spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, said, would be irrational. What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?”Here is what Kerry is ignoring when he speaks so highly of the U.N.,
Sunday Times
A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United
Nationsâ?? oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and
companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from
it.The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein
targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq
war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.The report says oil was given to key countries: â??The regime gave
priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent
members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN
Security Council. The regime . . . allocated â??private oilâ?? to individuals or
political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.â?ÂThe report also details how the regime benefited by arranging illegal
â??kickbacksâ? from oil sales.
April 18, 2004, Oil-for-Terror? There appears to be much worse news to uncover in the Oil-for-Food scandal. By Claudia Rosett
If there is a silver lining to all this, it is that those contract lists and
bank records could be a treasure trove of information â?? an insider tour of what
Saddam’s regime knew about the dark side of global finance. There are plenty of
signs that the secret U.N. lists became, in effect, Saddam’s little black book
(papered over with a blue U.N. label). Though perhaps “little” is not the
correct word. The labyrinth was vast. The wisest move by the U.N., the U.S., or
any other authority with full access to these records, would be to make them
fully public â?? thus recruiting help from observers worldwide, not least the
media, in digging through the hazardous waste left by Oil-for-Food. The issue is
not simply how much Saddam pilfered, or even whether he bought up half the
governments of Russia and France â?? but whether, under the U.N. charade of
supervision, he availed himself of the huge opportunities to fund carnage under
the cover of U.N. sanctions and humanitarian relief. We are way overdue to pick
up that trail.
Kojo & Kofi: Unbelievable U.N. stories. By Claudia Rosett
Not only was Kofi Annan the boss, but he was directly involved
from thebeginning. Kofi Annan’s official U.N. biography notes that shortly
beforehis promotion to Secretary-General “he led the first United Nations
teamnegotiating with Iraq on the sale of oil to fund purchases of
humanitarianaid.”It was Annan, who in October 1997 brought in as Oil-for-Food’s
executive director Benon Sevan, reporting directly to the Secretary-General,
toconsolidate Oil-for-Food’s operations into the Office of Iraq Program. Andit
was shortly after Sevan took charge that Oil-for-Food, set up by KofiAnnan’s
predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, with at least some transparencyon individual
deals, began treating as confidential such vital informationas the names of
specific contractors, quantities of goods, and prices paid.
Benon Swvan,“Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received
9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a
profit of £670,000. Sevan has always denied any improper conduct.”
The Heritage Foundation, April 2004
The links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and leading European
companies and politicians were extensive. The Pentagon was correct to bar
companies from countries that had opposed regime change in Iraq, such as France
and Russia, from bidding for U.S.-funded contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Russian and French companies, in particular, benefited from the exploitation of
the Oil-for-Food program.The Oil-for-Food fiasco reinforces President Bush’s point that the
U.N. is in danger of becoming an irrelevance on the world stage. The United
Nations continues to decline as a credible international force and will go the
way of the League of Nations unless it is radically reformed and
restructured.The U.N.’s reputation has been heavily scarred by its handling of
the Oil-for-Food program and its failure to support Saddam Hussein’s removal
from power. The United Nations as an organization will have to work extremely
hard in the coming years to mend its battered image and restore the faith of
both the Iraqi and American peoples, as well as that of the wider international
community.The UN Let Him Do It, New York Times, August 2004
Multiple investigations now under way in Washington and Iraq and at the UN all center on one question: How did Saddam amass so much money while under international sanctions? An examination of the program, the largest in the UN’s history, suggests a straightforward answer: The United Nations let him do it.
My TV was apparently showing a different debate in my home last evening. I thought that Bush won the debate, easily. I think I have a pretty good ‘Middle America Meter’ and I think Bush’s principled, determined, strong and clear message resonated with ‘the folks’ as Bill O’Reilly would say.
Kerry was able to talk within the time limits and that seems to be enough for the old media establishement to declare victory. I don’t get it. He still sees the cures to world’s ills at the United Nations, he held up Koffi Annan on multiple occassions as someone who wants to help the United States (please), he scoffs at Bush’s alleged unilateral apprach to Iraq and then criticzes his multi-lateral approach in North Korea.
Kerry’s claim that Bush has hurt ‘first responders’ here in the states because of the war in Iraq strikes me as a big loser politically. According to Kerry, we have to strengthen first responders so when we get attacked again they have the resources they need, to do this we should bring our troops home from abroad because we are wasting $$ over there that could be spent here, we stay home and wait…wait…wait for that next attack. Essentially, he is asking us to drop into the fetal position and wait to be kicked in the balls again. Doesn’t sound very appealing to me.
The big media want a tight race. John Kerry did not hurt himself last night so he has been declared the winner. I don’t see the polls moving much at all over this.
I really enjoyed listening to the debate and then reading the liveblogging at Powerline (where they got 70K hits during the debate!) Vodka Pundit , Captain’s Quarters and BlogsforBush.
Speaking of Powerline, don’t miss Scott Johnson, aka Big Trunk, on Pundit Review Radio this Saturday at noon. You can stream the show at www.wbix.com and call us with questions for Scott at 877-711-1060. We will also have Dean Esmay from Dean’s World.
VodkaPundit offered some great insight and agreed with us that the debate won’t change much, outside of the media fawning all over themselves talking about the new comeback kid.
Neither guy scored any big hits, although Kerry landed more jabs. That’s
disconcerting (although not very surprising) since Kerry left himself wide
open for three or four knockout uppercuts.Kerry annoyed me more than Bush did – and that’s saying something.
Kerry won on points, which probably was enough to shore up his weakened support in New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But I doubt it was enough to make much (if any) headway in former Blue States like Wisconsin or Iowa. In national polls, the race will probably tighten, but electorally we probably won’t see much
difference.
SCORING THE FIGHT: I have Bush by 107-103, with no knockdowns. But, candidly, I don’t think it went that well for the President. I think Kerry helped himself tonight. He came across as a credible candidate, and he was usually on the
offensive. Bush’s demeanor while Kerry was talking wasn’t good; anything but
commanding. Kerry’s was better, in an odd reversal of what happened four
years ago. I think Kerry made headway, and there is plenty of material there
for the mainstream media to proclaim the beginning of Kerry’s comeback. An
unknown is how Kerry’s pompous style will strike people who haven’t had to
listen to him for more than a few seconds at a time, until now.On the whole, though, I think Kerry helped himself tonight.
BlogsforBush has a great day after coverage and Matt Margolis came to this conclusion after liveblogging,
John Kerry showed us who is really is: a 9/10 Democrat lost in a post 9/11
world. He wants to protect America if it “passes the global test.” Bush on the
other hand has the attitude that “you take preemptive action in order to protect
the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.”Bush won the debate with that line alone.
Captain’s Quarters was liveblogging and said this,
Another thought — one of Kerry’s problems is that Bush has a number of home
runs he can hit, thanks to Kerry’s vacillations over the past nine months, and
Bush hammered on Kerry for his policy flip-flops all debate long. Kerry’s
counter is that Bush is too resolute, which hardly damages a leader during
wartime. …I missed the Republican spinmeister, but Joe Lockhart claims that the debate
will be all about the “annoyed smirk”. Eh? Actually, I think that sells this
debate short. It actually produced substantive policy statements and differences
between the candidates, and they both behaved in respectful and professional
manner. Is Lockhart really that desperate? …Last thought from the Fox panel – Bush may have edged Kerry, but the polls
will narrow slightly, and Kerry lives to fight another day. About what I’d say,
too. But I think Poland will continue to dog Kerry, and now that I think about
it, he forgot Australia, too. Kerry still has the same problems that he had
going in, and expect Bush to hammer on those more in the next couple of
weeks.
Mickey Kaus says, “Man-tan works!” and gives the debate to Kerry
Hugh Hewitt says nonsense,
Overall: Bush gets a big win, by hitting all his messages over and over
again. He wins on substance. Biggest mistake by Kerry: “The Global Test.”
Sorry, the American voters aren’t interested in passing any global tests. Bush
stresses steadfastness and resolve. Kerry firmed up the hard-left vote,
but you can’t win on this.
They’re no longer called “limousine liberals” they’re now called “private jet” liberals. Don’t let the left fool you. They may drive around in hybrid cars, but they’re all flying around in private jets.
Democrats assert that they are the party of the little guy. The truth however, is that they are the party of the rich no matter how much they’d like you to believe otherwise.This site is devoted to exposing Democrats for the hypocrites they are and showing the world how the party of the RICH is the Democrat party.
Make sure to check out the photos! Enjoy.
First, we want to thank the blogsphere for their support linking to and promoting the show. We also want to thank our incredible line-up of guests for joining us and helping spread the word about the different ways the blogsphere is challenging big media.
Pundit Review Radio is on live every Saturday at noon EST and is streamed live at www.wbix.com. The call in number is 877-711-1060. The show is archived right here on this site.
Saturday, October 2
- Dean Esmay from Dean’s World will be to tell us about the latest important project from the blogger driven chartity, OperationGive.
- Scott Johnson of PowerlineBlog will be on to talk about the fallout from the Dan Rather controversy, what it was like to be caught up in a media firestorm, the debate, election and the impact blogs are having on politics and the media.
Saturday, October 9
- Don Luskin from SmartMoney, National Review and the excellent blog PoorandStupid will be on to talk about the election, the economy, the Krugman Truth Squad and the impact bloggers are having on big media.
- Hugh Hewitt, best selling author, nationally syndicated talk show host and blogger extrodinairre will be on to talk about his new book, If It’s Not Close They Can’t Cheat, the election and the army of ankle biters tat are driving the big media batty.
Is this orange skin a ploy to impress voters in Florida?
Did he get free tanning after his 10th botox treatment?
Did he fall asleep on his tanning bed?
Yea, this just reinforces the fact that Kerry is just a regular guy. All working stiffs use spray on tan, go windsurfing and use expressions such as “would it were”.
Can’t wait to see him standing next to W. Bush should put on shades as he gets close.
There is nothing better than Chris Hitchens when he’s really angry. He sums up my feelings pretty accurately. The modern day Democrat Party, led by Terry McAuliffe, has come off its hinges, disgraced itself and forfitted any legitamate right to govern during such a serious time as we live in now.
I hate to sound like Bob Dole, but, where is the outrage? Being a regular blue collar Democrat today is like being a moderate Muslim. They must be asking themselves, what has happened, how did we go so wrong and how can we get our party back. The Democrat leadership is a complete disgrace and have hijacked the party much the same way Islamo fascists have hijacked Islam. When are the average Democrats going to take a stand and wrestle the party away from the Clintons and their cronies? How many elections will it take? Every indication is that the country is increasingly turning more conservative. If the Democrats stay on their present course, they may be making a fatal mistake.
Flirting With Disaster
The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Christopher Hitchens
How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where
they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would
in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden
would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?