They Call Him Flipper
 

Sounds to me like Kerry and Bush are evenly matched in being utterly uninformed.

Is this the October Surprise?
 

Huh? He said he met with all the members of the security council pre-war. Many are on record saying they did not meet with him. How is the truth consistent with the lie?

Is this the October Surprise?
 

I think I've figured this out.

When Bush makes a prediction, and is wrong, it's a lie.

When Kerry tells an untruth about past happenings of which he has personal knowledge, it's a mistaken past prediction.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Just posted in the Corner:

“The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Looks like El Baradei failed the Global Test.

Shades of Joe Biden
 

Every misstatement or error by Hank is intentional, whether it was at the time he made it or not. Hank is the king of "I meant to do that."

Shades of Joe Biden
 

Has W ever written anything? For that matter, has he ever read anything?

Is this the October Surprise?
 

If you strip the story and the quote of everything but the one point you wish to make, you're absolutely right. Its inconsistent.

OK. Kerry met with "some" instead of "all". You got him. He invented the Internet. Call Zogby and tell him its over.

S_A_M

Shades of Joe Biden
 

Sure. "A Charge To Keep" and "My Pet Goat," respectively.

As for the alleged plagiarism* of Kerry, I think that it's a long way from using similar language to describe Russian Mob activities to stealing the exact lines of a speech. But whatever.

*Is that really the best they can do? Seems pretty weak to me. Hardly comparable to the recent kerfluffles surrounding Stephen Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Has the Iraqi interim government said this?

I don't see it as being in the best interests of the IAEA staff, or consistent with its past behavior, to concoct information and publicly lie in an effort to embarass the single most powerful member of the U.N. Security Council to which it reports.

Think about it.

S_A_M

P.S. Or, it is more likely that right-wing bloggers are making shit up, or at best, getting ahead of themselves?

Sorry, I have to do all my posting for the day fast
 

The Axis of Evil Endorsement
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 22, 2004

“You shall judge of a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” – Joseph Conrad in the novel Lord Jim.

Months after John Kerry boasted of having received secret endorsements from anonymous foreign leaders around the world, many of the gaps have been filled in. The leaders of the world have weighed in on the 2004 presidential election. Let’s run down the list of nations supporting each candidate:

John Kerry
North Korea: Although north Asia’s gulag archipelago has not formally endorsed a candidate, official Communist organs have shown a pronounced affinity for John Kerry. In March, the Financial Times noted, “John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang.” North Korean radio has aired several of Kerry’s anti-Bush speeches, and the Korean Central News Agency has given the Democratic candidate “glowing” coverage. Kerry has publicly called for bilateral discussions with North Korea, such as those conducted by Jimmy Carter on behalf of the Clinton administration in 1994, although analysts agree these would be counterproductive.

Iran: A June editorial in the Tehran Times stated, “Kerry is exactly what the U.S. needs right now.” It is undisputed that Kerry has promised to give Iran exactly what it needs right now: nuclear fuel. Kerry pledged to supply Iran with nuclear fuel, just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did to North Korea as it revved up its nuclear program during the 1990s.

Communist China: The state-controlled People’s Daily “news” website formally endorsed John Kerry in July. An unsigned editorial averred:

Comparatively speaking, Kerry is noted for being friendly with China. He was once firmly against linking the most-favored-nation status to China with human rights. From a long-term view, a Democratic administration, which stresses international cooperation, pursues “multilateralism” and stands for a policy of contacts, will be better for both world peace and Sino-U.S. relations.

The editorial also noted John Kerry opposes “containment of China.”

Palestinian Authority: PA foreign minister Nabil Shaath has said in a Kerry presidency, “it would be likely that several staff members during Clinton's administration would return,” adding, “that would be a good thing.” Kerry has vowed to name Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as Middle East envoy. The state-controlled Palestine Media Center bashed “Bush's refusal to deal with Arafat.” President Bush has said Yasser Arafat is not a worthy “partner” working for Mideast peace. Conversely, in his 1997 book The New War, John Kerry referred to Yasser Arafat as a “statesman.”

Malaysia: In a letter dated last Friday, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad exhorted fellow Muslims to vote for John F. Kerry “in the name of Islam.” Mohamad said his co-religionists “have a duty to ensure that Bush will not be able to determine our fate for four more years…There is an obvious connection between the sufferings of the Muslims and the policies and thinking of Bush.” This is not Mohamad’s first foray into international controversy. As he prepared to step down from his 22-year-long reign as prime minister last year, he famously told the 10th Islamic Summit in Kuala Lumpur, “Jews rule the world by proxy.” (To counteract this, he has instructed Muslims to vote for John Kerry, the only ethnically Jewish candidate in the presidential race.)

Socialist Spain: As early as March, Spain’s appeasenik prime minister and Socialist Party member Jose Luis Zapatero said, “I want Kerry to win.” Zapatero told the International Herald Tribune Spain’s Socialists – the party of unilateral surrender elected after the Madrid train bombing on March 11 – were “aligning ourselves with Kerry” to build an “alliance” for “peace, against war. Zapatero, who said he favors “a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration,” vowed the Kerry-Socialist axis would assure there will be “no more deaths for oil.”

France: According to all reports, John Kerry is wildly popular in the land of Gaul. A recent Le Monde poll found the Francs backing John Kerry over President Bush by more than three-to-one (72 percent to 19 percent). The Financial Times quotes an unnamed “French government official” pining for the return of the Democrats to Washington and the Ba’athists to Baghdad, saying, “A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then it's possible we would re-examine our position.” (Emphasis added.) The chairman of Democrats Abroad gave the “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech of the 2004 campaign, gushing Kerry “is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician.”

Germany: The Financial Times quotes Gert Weisskirchen, the foreign policy expert for Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party, as analyzing the presidential race thus:

I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president. That said, Mr. Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr. Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters.

Vietnam: An unnamed “Vietnamese diplomat” told the international press, “I think Vietnam would support Kerry because he has travelled many times to Vietnam and he understands better the situation here than Bush, who is a war-mongering president.” Why not? Kerry has 30 years experience negotiating with Vietnamese Communists and is immortalized in Ho Chi Minh City’s War Remnants Museum.

Others: International polls indicate the vast majority of Pakistanis, Jordanians, and Moroccans disapprove of President Bush and may be assumed to support Sen. Kerry by default.

George W. Bush

Russia: On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Russia’s RIA news agency Iraqi terrorism “aims at causing maximum damage to President Bush and to forestall his second term re-election.” He warned, “If they succeed, they would celebrate a victory against America and the anti-terror coalition, and this could lead to more acts of international terrorism.” Although Putin pledged to “respect any choice of the American people,” his comments were seen as a muted endorsement of President Bush. It seems, since mourning the tragedy of Beslan, he has discovered the wisdom of pre-emption.

Israel: Although Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority favors John Kerry, the Israelis favor George W. Bush. Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major-General Aharon Ze’evi told the Israeli Cabinet he feared, “Arafat is now waiting for the month of November in the hope that President Bush will be defeated in the presidential election and turned out of his office.” Israeli citizens seem to agree. In a poll taken by the newspaper Haaretz, Israelis preferred Bush over Kerry by two-to-one. (In all, one may expect an improvement in domestic Jewish support for the president, but many American Jews remain steadfastly loyal to the Democratic Party.)

Japan: Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi divulged his support for the president last week. “I don't want to interfere in another country's election,” he said, “but I am close to President Bush so I want him to do well.” The Secretary-General of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, Tsutomu Takebe, told the media, “I think there would be trouble if it's not President Bush.” Takebe said Kerry’s plan for bilateral U.S.-North Korean negotiations “would be exactly what North Korea wants.”

The Philippines: Filipinos also support President Bush. “Filipinos...have a frontline appreciation of the threat posed by international terrorism,” according to political science professor Alex Magno, an adviser to President Gloria Arroyo. Over the past two decades, hundreds of Filipinos – and some Americans – have died at the hands of such al-Qaeda affiliates as Abu Sayyaf and Jamaaat Islamiya. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Magno states, “If Filipinos were voting for the American president, George W. Bush would have this election in the bag.”

South Korea: South Koreans, who have been tending toward anti-Americanism for years, remain split on the election. However, polls show the most anti-Communist segments of South Korea favor President Bush.

Two More Important Endorsements
Finally, two non-state actors have made their preferences known: al-Jazeera Television and the Communist Party USA.

Osama bin Laden’s chosen media outlet, al-Jazeera – which regularly refers to suicide bombers as “martyrs” and may have direct ties to terrorism – now hopes to refer to John Kerry as “Mr. President.” The pro-terror Mideastern network referred to John Kerry as “a popular mainstream Democrat with liberal tendencies” and noted the junior senator from Massachusetts “has suggested Bush's handling of [Iraq] is ‘f****ed up.’” Although the National Journal named Kerry the Senate’s most liberal member, al-Jazeera claimed “Kerry is well placed politically between his party's radical left and arch conservatives.” (“Arch-conservative” Democrats?) After all, the Democratic Party gave al-Jazeera a skybox at its national convention this summer.

The Communist Party USA is not foreign, although it illegally received Soviet money for decades. It, too, has cast its lot with John Kerry. The CPUSA lists as election priority number one that Communists do their “utmost to help defeat Bush.” The communist website dedicates an entire page of internal articles to anti-Bush propaganda. Echoing John Kerry (or is it the other way around?), the Communist Party USA decries the “well-financed campaign to weaken and destroy the impact of the African American vote.” Similarly, on September 11th of this year, Kerry told the Congressional Black Caucus, “We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election.” The rhetorical similarities no doubt account for the CPUSA’s silent endorsement.

Conclusions
In all, it appears those nations most opposed to the War on Terrorism – including the remaining two members of the Axis of Evil – endorse the foreign policies of the Left, which they see embodied in the person of John Kerry. On the other hand, those nations historically friendly to the United States back President George W. Bush. It is significant that those nations under the greatest terrorist threat – Russia, the Philippines, Israel and (if one counts nuclear threats from North Korea) Japan – all favor the aggressive policy of taking the war to the terrorists pursued by the Bush administration. If we do not wish to share their peril, we would do well to heed their advice to reject the discredited, defeatist foreign policies of the Left.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Seven days before our election? You don't see it?

Shades of Joe Biden
 

Although Bush may not be the most literate president we've ever had, I am confident that he could copy well.

Is this the October Surprise?
 

So you are saying he misspoke? Or was this another one of his exagerations?

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

This is rich. The NYT rushes with a false story a week before the election, which is then picked up by the rest of the left leaning liberal media, and the right wing bloggers are getting ahead of themselves?

Sorry, I have to do all my posting for the day fast
 

Looks like the Axis of Evil is falling in line with world opinion, which overwhelmingly favors Kerry.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...hneider.world/

Over the summer, University of Maryland researchers asked citizens of 35 countries how they would vote between Bush and Kerry. The result? 30 of the 35 voted for Kerry.

Kerry won all but one European country polled.

A Bush campaign official once said Kerry "looks French." Apparently, the French were impressed. They gave Kerry a 59-point lead. Only 5 percent of the French voted for Bush.

What about the Bush administration's closest ally, Britain? Not even close. The British favored Kerry by over 30 points.

The exception was Poland, which Bush carried by a narrow margin.

How about America's neighbors? Canadians went for Kerry by 45 points. Mexicans by 20.

In Asia, Kerry carried China, Japan and Indonesia. Only the Philippines, a former American colony fighting its own Muslim insurrection, went for Bush. In India and Thailand, the race was close. Swing countries?

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

See, even though this comprised the bulk of Kerry's speeches yesterday, it should now be carefully thought through, and sources should be vetted, and the ultimate truth should be found.

Next Wednesday.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

He's merely trying to get a jump on the competition for the 2005 Nobel Prize.

Shades of Joe Biden
 

I'm not sure about that, but I'm sure he could stay inside the lines and possibly even use all 64 colors.

Shades of Joe Biden
 

While I've been gone, you guys didn't talk about the "Bush's IQ is higher than Kerry's" article?

Sorry, I have to do all my posting for the day fast
 

If you asked me, I would vote against the current administration in - off the top of my head - France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands.

I'm not sure that the people there care either.

Sorry, I have to do all my posting for the day fast
 

Let's just put them all in the Axis of Evil and be done with it. (Except Poland.*)

TM

*Thought I would forget, didn't you?

Shades of Joe Biden
 

Didn't see it. Sounds like some of that Warshington fuzzy math to me. I suppose next you'll say that Quayle was actually a pretty smart guy?

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

I'll give it to you if you concede that the announcement of Rehnquist's thyroid cancer was a Dred Scott-style signal to the base.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Nope. In fact, the idea is absurd and I'm surprised that you would sign onto it.

As to the timing -- do you have blog cites to refute the reports that the Administration leaned on both the Iraqi government (for months) and the IAEA to delay reporting the loss and/or not do so at all?

Again, has the Interim Iraqi government said that it DID NOT send that report letter to the IAEA? Simple question, and you know Allawi would say it for Bush if it were so. What has McClellan said about this? Has anyone from the Adminsitration gone on record to say its a fake? it would not be hard for them to find out.

Plus, to make what you're proposing even remotely plausible, and even asuming El Baradei would ever do such a thing, the election would have to be far more heavily tilted in Kerry's favor and this "lie" would have to be far more important than 350 tons of high explosives.**

The reason that the IAEA functions reasonably well, and provides a reasonably effective framework for monitoring and/or disarming states of nuclear weapons is that its staff is composed of well-regarded neutral professionals. it is also a cooperative effort by its members. Credibility is its stock in trade.

I have never seen any reason to justify the antipathy of many of those on the right towards el Baradei or the IAEA. While they did not parrot the U.S. line on Iraq, it turns out they were right. We're working with them on Iran and North Korea, as well as the multitude of less prominent disarmament issues. Come on!

Not all foreign officials who fail to suck our collective dick are enemies of the Nation.


S_A_M

**After all, on the scale of alleged administration incompetencies in Iraq this is pretty minor, and everyone has known for a long time that the U.S. did not secure even key nuclear facilities promptly during the invasion.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

I'm sorry to be late to the party, but how do we know the NYT story is false? Because someone on NRO said so?

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Listen up, you motherfucking jackass.

I'm talking about the assertion/claim that the IAEA made up the report about the loss from the Iraqi Interim government in order to embarrass the U.S. and influence the elections. Nonsense.

Don't you pay attention?

S_A_M

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

I think that would only work had it been O'Connor making the announcement.

Sorry, I have to do all my posting for the day fast
 

Uh huh. Yet Iran has provided its endorsement to George W. Bush. Weird, dat.

• Associated Press
  October 20, 2004
  
  
  TEHRAN, Iran -- The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's "axis of evil" label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions for the country's nuclear ambitions.
  
  Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
  
  "We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

link

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Pathetic.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

I've been gone. Is this now "civil"?

;)

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

This question can only be answered by saying "go read the news sites."

(The alternate answer, of course, is "it's in the NYT", but that would be snarky.)

to the anal....
 

Whoops. They didn't find anything because they didn't look. Here's what the embedded NBC producer said about the "search" (emphasis added):

Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. Um, as a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. Almost, we stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or was, did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?

LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was – at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate it.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

You know better. You know that, at this stage of the election process, a shrill screaming lie that might connect with many ill-informed and poorly-read voters is priceless. Look how fast Kerry glommed onto this report yesterday - he understands its value. And, unless those same poorly-informed voters get the real news now, it will have worked.

So, yes, pathetic, but not in the way I think you meant.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

Who are you, and what have you done with Secret Agent Man?

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

I don't know about the rest of yas, but I'm going to try keeping it civil for hear on out. Please don't tempt me to return to my dark ways.

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

It will be a shooting-free week? Woo hoo!

Why haven't you posted about FBI's report about the decrease in violent crime (following a decade-long trend)?

So, does this mean the NYT is helping a foreign entity overthrow our government?
 

In the interim, I see that Josh has some description of the different stories that ran yesterday, and some effort to sort them out, and that SS is now doing God's work by quoting Josh here. It sounds like different people at the Pentagon are saying different things (e.g., Josh links to an AP story cited to a Pentagon official who says that U.S. troops searched the site after the war and confirmed that the explosives were there). Josh's effort to sort this stuff out -- the only one I've seen, since I've been out of the loop -- seems reasonable to me, so maybe you can point me to what he's missing or gotten wrong.

to the anal....
 

Quelle coincidence!

Your posts in defense of the Bush Administration here on the PB remind me of a pumkin movie as well.

http://spythis.com/ebay/dvd/097361537030_f.jpg