Target Centermass

Day: October 6, 2004

  • Da Man is Back!

    The first blog that made me consider the life of the blogosphere is back from hiatus.

    Go. Read.

    Thanks to Scott for catching the resurrection.

  • VP Debate Postmortem

    I promised it so here it is.

    After reviewing the transcript, Cheney won. Simple as that, and not surprising at all. Cheney edged on the domestic latter half and dominated on the security issues.

    I’ll keep this post brief because my timing sucks. In retrospect, I probably should’ve gone with the nom de keyboard of the DelayedPundit.

    The reason I give the VP a decided victory is simple: Kerry and Edwards are wrong about the war against Islamist terror. When they talk about the centrality of bin Laden, when they show their blinders allowing nothing but a focus on bin Laden, when they condemn any other effort in the war that does not expressly address bin Laden, they are wrong. Yes, Osama bin Laden attacked us. All parties are interested in busting his ass. Apparently only Bush-Cheney are interested in stopping other reiterations of bin Laden by attacking the Islamist culture and offering the alternative of freedom and democracy. Do Kerry and Edwards honestly think we would be magically safe from the Islamist bastards if Osama’s head was stuck atop a star-spangled pike? If so, they are wrong and American lives could be the cost. That is the reality of a post-9/11 world.

  • House Shreds Draft Legislation

    In a maneuver to quash the current draft rumors, the GOP leaders in the House of Representatives forced the proposed draft legislation to face a crushing vote.

    With the Internet abuzz with rumors that a military draft would be reinstated after the November election, House Republicans yesterday forced a surprise vote on the issue and blamed Democrats for scaring young people.

    “We’ll … see who trusts the volunteer military and who is practicing the dishonest politics of fear,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in moving to get lawmakers on record on a bill by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. to revive the draft.

    ….

    The final vote was two “yeas” and 402 “nays”, with 29 members not voting.

    Even the primary sponsor of the legislation rallied against it.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.

    Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.

    Rangel’s bill, which the leadership had placed on the suspension calendar, would create a national-service draft under which all 18- to 26-year-olds would serve in the military or perform two years of national service as determined by the president. Rangel has been advocating a draft for several years, but he argued yesterday that the bill was too important for the suspension calendar, “which is reserved for non-controversial items,” he said in a statement.

    Bills on the suspension calendar cannot be amended on the floor and require two-thirds of the House to clear the chamber.

    Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

    He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

    “I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

    Rangel is wrong and his crap does not deserve even light-hearted consideration. His support for a draft is based exclusively on class politics, and he gave absolutely zero consideration to the best interests of the military when he proposed this legislation.

    As I pointed out when the Kerry-Edwards campaign first co-opted the internet draft rumors as part of their anti-Bush innuendo, the draft may well be needed again one day, possibly even in the war against the Islamist bastards. However, it is not needed now and there is never a justification for using fear tactics to politicize the military or our national defense interests. Rangel, Kerry and Edwards have been equally disgusting in this affair.

  • Kerry Says Franco-German Troops Unlikely

    John Kerry has finally admitted what should’ve already been known — despite all of his global support, diplomatic skills and internationalistic stances, he simply would not be able to get French and German boots dusty in Iraq.

    Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.

    The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won’t trade their soldiers’ lives for those of U.S. troops.

    “Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that,” he said.

    Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, “When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained.”

    “Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities,” he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.

    Let’s briefly review. The Kerry campaign insults the sacrifices of the friendly Iraqi troops and police by not counting their losses with those of the coalition. Kerry cannot deliver the in-country aid of our French and German “allies.” Kerry personally has insulted our current allies, calling them the coerced and the bribed.

    Given this track record, how would Kerry get more allies? His plan apparently is to actually coerce and bribe them. Here, from the opening Bush-Kerry debate, is what he said should have been done:

    If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, “What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?” we’d be in a stronger place today.

    There you have it, Kerry’s diplomatic magic — do what he has accused Bush of doing. And it ain’t going to be good enouch for Germany or France.

  • Cheney Convicts Kerry And Edwards

    I’m not quite sure, but it seems that David Frum is at least a slight lean towards Dick Cheney’s debate performance over John Edwards.

    Ok, just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards’s performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore’s error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry — not to mention Edwards’s moist good looks — you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do. It would all have been very impressive — if Cheney’s scalpel had not so swiftly and mercilessly sliced Edwards’s living liver out of his body, impaled it quivering on a stick, and paraded it before Edwards’ soulful eyes before the poor man expired.

    Ouch!