It used to be that if you wanted a good conspiracy theory, you would just walk into your local ultra-right-wing John Birch Society bookstore and pull one off the shelf.
Conspiracies were the dark domain of the political Right. Isolationists like the Birchers saw internationalist cabals like the Trilateral Commission everywhere, all of them pulling the puppet strings of conveniently docile world leaders, including those of the United States.
But times have changed. It is the political Left’s turn to burn with rage at the manipulations of dark forces no one can control.
It’s what drove Hillary Clinton to simmer over a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It’s what makes Teresa Heinz Kerry suggest that the Bushies already have Osama bin Laden collared somewhere in the hills of Afghanistan.
Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, we have been told by various protesters that Gitmoe was an illegal detention camp and the prisoners were being held for political reasons, not because of any danger to Americans. Protesters have admonished the rest of us to release the prisoners. In some cases, they got their wish.
International > Asia Pacific > Taliban Fighter Who Was Freed From Guantánamo Prison Is Killed” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/international/asia/27kabul.html”>Taliban Fighter Who Was Freed From Guantánamo Prison Is Killed
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 26 – A senior Taliban commander who had been released from the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was killed Saturday in Uruzgan Province, Afghan officials reported Sunday.
The commander, Maulavi Ghaffar, had spent eight months in the Guantánamo prison, said the Interior Minister, Ali Jalali. He had been captured after fighting for the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, Mr. Jalali said.
The governor said Mr. Ghaffar had carried out attacks against American Special Forces soldiers and an attack on a district chief in Helmand in which three Afghan soldiers were killed.
However, the protesters that supported his release will be quick to tell you that dissent is patriotic.
They’re not patriotic, they’re just on the other side.
Seismic activity at Mount St. Helens has changed significantly during the past 24 hours and the changes make us believe that there is an increased likelihood of a hazardous event, which warrants release of this Notice of Volcanic Unrest.
Hmm. Seismic activity from an active volcano? Let me see how I can put this best.
For some reason this has been one of the top stories on the radio news here in the Northwest. Why?
Not content with putting out false stories such as the “booing” of President Clinton at a Bush rally, the AP is just using reporters who support Kerry.
We have noted before that the Associated Press has become a part of the John Kerry campaign. This morning, many readers have directed our attention to this astonishing AP story titled “Bush Twists Kerry’s Words on Iraq“.
Yes, you read that right. This is not a Kerry campaign press release; it is an Associated Press story that will be reprinted in hundreds, maybe thousands, of American newspapers.
UN troops opened fire with smoke grenades on crowds of Haitians trying to get relief supplies in Gonaives. The Catholic charity was restricting their supplies to women and children because of the shortage of supplies.
The UN has so far been unable to cope with the disaster caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne.
UN troops control Haiti since the overthrow of the U.S. installed President Aristide. Their efforts to restore some semblance of order on the island has been largely ineffective. The storm just exacerbated the problems.
Kerry told an audience at Temple University that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists, and he drew a sharp distinction between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq to differentiate his policies from those of the president.
“The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy — al Qaeda,” Kerry said. “The president’s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement . . . all make the war on terror harder to win. George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority.”
Right off the bat, Kerry shows that he has an understanding of the problem of Islamic Terrorism that is sorely lacking. He thinks that the terrorist problem stems from one man, Osama bin Laden, and that with his death or capture Islamic Terrorists will just go away. He thinks that the battle should have been confined to the mountains of Afghanistan instead of expanding into the rest of the Middle East.
His thinking is so skewed that to call it naive would be like calling Hurricane Jeanne a rain shower.
The Democratic nominee promised to destroy terrorist networks by going after their arms and financing; to revamp and enhance the intelligence apparatus to ferret them out; to build up an overstretched military by 40,000 troops; to support Middle Eastern democracies; and to increase funding for homeland security and for more intense cargo inspections at ports and other points of entry.
I think that if Senator Kerry paid more attention to what efforts are ongoing he might know of the efforts to cut off the funding for terrorist networks. The funds that terrorist networks need to survive are comparatively small and are easily provided by the various networks collecting money as “charities” in the U.S. and other countries. Is Kerry suggesting something beyond the measures already taken? Is he suggesting enlisting the banks to report on all their customers a la “know your customer?” Is he suggesting measures beyond that? How does this square with his statements that the Patriot Act goes too far?
Go after their arms? Is he going to outlaw box knives or is he under the impression that the terrorists in Bali, Madrid and Beslan got their arms from American gun shows? If Bush had continued Clinton’s sanctions against Pakistan, would Khan still be selling nuclear technology? What arms is he talking about? Arms don’t make terrorists, terrorists use arms. Or boxcutters.
At least now he wants to revamp and expand the intelligence services, something that he always voted against before. But does he want to reestablish the “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement that existed prior to 9/11 or the restrictions on using sources who were not nice people? Welcome Senator, it’s about time.
He promises to increase the military by 40,000 troops, but also promised that they would not be sent to the Middle East. What does he want to do with them, have them march in parades? The short-sighted military cuts during the Clinton years have come home to roost, but promising to increase troop levels but pledging to keep them at home, doesn’t accomplish anything.
Support Middle East democracies…oh, that sounds good. Who would qualify to be supported? Syria? No, that’s Ba’athist dictatorship. Iran? No, that’s a vicious theocracy. Lebanon? No, they’re occupied by Syria. Jordan? Well, maybe. Egypt? Hardly a democracy. Saudi Arabia? A monarchy. Kuwait? Some signs of democracy, but not much. The Palestinians? Arafat is hardly the model. Israel? Why, yes. They have quite a vibrant democracy in Israel.
So John Kerry is going to fight terrorism by supporting Israel? I thought that was part of the problem the Islamic terrorists had with us, that we support Israel. I don’t know what other Middle Eastern democracies he might be thinking of.
And increase funding for Homeland Security and increase inspection of material entering the U.S.? A jobs program, that’s the ticket.
No matter how good your defense, you can’t defend everywhere. No matter how good your inspections, you can’t inspect everything. Is Kerry suggesting raising Homeland Security inspections to a police state level? That’s encouraging.
I don’t think Kerry has a clue. He just mouths the words his “advisers” put in front of him and hopes that Dan Rather can find some better fake documents.
Take a look.
COLUMBUS, Ohio Sept. 23, 2004 — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq’s Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the “best face” on a Bush administration policy that has gone wrong.
Shortly after Allawi, the interim government’s prime minister, gave a rosy portrayal of progress toward peace in Iraq, Kerry said the assessment contradicted Allawi’s own statements as well as the reality on the ground.
But what does Kerry really know about the “reality on the ground” in Iraq?
One of the abiding criticisms of Bush is that he went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence. That there were no WMD, even though the CIA, foreign intelligence agencies and Iraqi commanders all believed there was. So any information from any of those sources can be discounted. After all, I’m sure that Kerry wouldn’t depend on them after they were so badly wrong about 9/11, Iraq and just about every other issue in the past twenty years. Scratch the intelligence services.
Another source would be the press. But there is danger there. Surely he doesn’t fall for the premise that the reporting in Iraq is unbiased. It is dangerous to start believing your own press releases. Comparing the reporting from Iraq with the statements of soldiers returning from Iraq show that there is a disconnect there. Scratch the press, unless the Kerry campaign is incredibly stupid.
What does that leave? Once the Intelligence community and the press are eliminated, what is left? Well, the military. But the military is part of the intelligence community too, so they can’t be trusted. Who’s left.
It would have to be someone with better knowledge of the situation than either the U.S. forces or the Iraqi government.
To Kerry’s thinking the only ones with a clear view of the Iraq situation are the “insurgents.” So, if Kerry is saying he knows the situation in Iraq better than the actual Iraq Prime Minister, he must be getting his information from the other side.
Not a new thing for Kerry.
John Kerry is flailing madly to find some way to damage the Bush campaign. His latest is to talk about the draft. In fact, the only people in Washington D.C. that have encouraged the reintroduction of the draft are Democrats.
But, it scares the gullible, especially the college students, who don’t know any better, and that is the purpose.
Neal Boortz has come up with some other phony issues that Kerry might come up with in the next few weeks.
At Cesar Chavez’s funeral, his grandchildren placed on the altar a 12-inch tool known as el cortito, a relic of Chavez’s crusade to ease the pain of farmworkers who stooped for hours as they yanked out weeds with the short-handled hoe.
California banned the tool in 1975, citing evidence that it caused debilitating back injuries. But by the time Chavez was buried in 1993, farmworkers in some fields were bending at even more unhealthy angles: The ban applied only to tools, so growers told workers to weed by hand instead.
I’m sure this will have some interesting consequences and not necessarily the ones envisioned by the bans supporters.
Faced with an increased expense in a flat market, the California farmers will have to adapt. This being a free country and all, I’m sure they will and I’m equally sure that the supporters of the ban are not going to like how they do it.
I think this will lead to some crop changes and some alteration in farming practices that will allow weeding to be done by machines. Along with that will be the increased use of herbicides and more GM crops.
Organic farms and plants grown in tubs would be exempt.
Oh, why is that? Would it be because the “Organic” food industry is owned and operated by the counterculture or is it just because they donate a lot of money to Democrats?