The Red Pill

Kosovo. Remember the war in Kosovo?

I guess all we participated in was air bombing (no boots on the ground?) so all the anti-war, not-in-my-name activists give it a pass.

Or maybe they give it a pass because the sitting President at the time had a (D) rather than an (R) next to his name.

Or could it be that since the U.N. was involved it was a justified war? We must try and let the U.N. take the lead on these matters, or so I've heard.

Let's see, that was 1999. Hmm, that would be 5 years ago. And the violence is still there. And the U.N. is still there. And the people of Kosovo do not yet have their own government.

But let's forget all that. We must criticize the U.S. and what it has and has not done in Iraq in just 1 years time.

Yea, right.

From the Economist

Up to 150 American troops and 80 Italian police were dispatched to Kosovo on Thursday. France, Germany and Britain are also each sending hundreds of extra troops.

Kosovo has been under United Nations control since 1999, ... Kosovo now has around 18,500 NATO-led troops and 9,000 UN and local police keeping the peace.

Though the UN has been resolutely insisting that things are getting better in Kosovo, and has devolved some of its powers to a multi-ethnic government of Albanians and a few Serbs, progress has been extremely slow. Now, says Daut Dauti, a Kosovo analyst, “it’s back to the old days.” According to Mr Dauti, the rage that has exploded in Kosovo has been building because, since 1999, “nothing has really happened.” Kosovo has not become independent, which is what the Albanians want. And its economy is dire, with unemployment as high as 70%.

The following quotes are from the New York Times article, "Amid Natural Splendor in Idaho, a Weary Kerry Gets Away From It All".

So John Kerry has taken a vacation that "could not have come too soon", according to a friend.

Interesting timing, though, isn't it? During the anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. Being on vacation means he doesn't have to make any statements about it. Think about that. What would he say? That he's against the war - even though he voted for it - but somehow supports the troops even though he voted against funding them? He would appear weak on Defense, at least in comparison to Bush. He dare not come straight out against the war unconditionally - again, he voted for it and look what happened to the anti-war Dean. And he cannot outright cheer the troops since that would be vindicating Bush. Better to shut up and hide in Idaho.

The other interesting timing issue is the military action taking place in Pakistan that has the potential to capture - or kill - Al Queda's number two man. Does Kerry really want to be around when the War on Terror is having success? What could he reasonably do? Cheer it on? No, that makes Bush look good. But he can't criticize it either since he's taken the position that the War in Iraq has been a distraction from the more important War on Terror.

No, I think Kerry is happy to be on vacation this week. He gets to take a pass on having to confront two losing issues for him.

The other Kerry topic that seems to have legs is the issue of which foreign leaders are endorsing him.

In addition to the Prime Minister elect of Spain, a far left Socialist, openly endorsing Kerry, we have the following endorsement:

Mr. Kerry's staff back in Washington was working in overdrive, meanwhile, marshaling surrogates to defend him and punch back at Mr. Bush. They were also compelled, however, to reject an endorsement from one foreign leader: Mahathir Mohamad, former Malaysian prime minister — "an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable," Rand Beers, a foreign policy adviser, said in a statement.

But Mr. Beers added that Mr. Kerry would shun as inappropriate the endorsement of any foreign leader at all.

So after bragging about the "other leaders" who are rooting for him to win he is not only embarrassed by the public endorsements he does get, but ends up publicly saying he doesn't want any endorsements. Sweet.

Here's some nice quotes from people who could become the President and first lady of our country

His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis — just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over."

Swearing at the Secret Service guys their to protect you. Nice. I guess if it wasn't so arrogant sounding it might make him seem somehow like a regular guy. We also have this:

Ms. Heinz Kerry, for her part, stuck to a pair of skis and was taking her time down the slope, accompanied by two old friends, one a former Olympian, the other a ski school instructor.

"I'm going tentatively, but prettily," she said, wearing tight black pants and a flaming red jacket.

Can you see the first lady of the U.S. as a person wearing "tight" pants and referring to her manner as "prettily"? Ack.

Stay on vacation, John Kerry. Please.

Kerry is indecisive, noncommittal, nuanced. See if you can make head or tail of his explanation, in a Time magazine interview, of his Iraq position:

Time: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?

Kerry: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to--because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament. . . .

Time: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank?

Kerry: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively.

Time: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?

Kerry: I didn't say that.

Time: I'm asking.

Kerry: I can't tell you. . . .

Time: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?

Kerry: If there are no weapons of mass destruction--and we may yet find some--then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

Time: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?

Kerry: No, I think you can still--wait, no. You can't--that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

More from Kerry unleashed:

"These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

It's scary alright. That is, Kerry and the Democrats are scary.

They have the absolute nerve to accuse Republicans of playing dirty politics, yet the Democratic Presidential candidate himself makes that kind of comment? And what about Democrats calling Bush "a deserter" and "a awol" and "a liar"?

As far as I can tell, the Democrats have absolutely nothing to say about the issues and instead continue to rely on these type of attacks.

And Kerry is unapologetic about his remarks. Here's what his campaign had to say in defence:

Spokesman David Wade offered no apologies for his candidate's slicing rhetoric and said Kerry was referring to Republicans' "hardball, gutter politics."

Right. Who has been playing hardball, gutter politics? All together now - Democrats. I would seriously like someone to point out one thing the Bush campaign has done or said that could be considered "hardball, gutter politics".

Here's what Kerry thinks Bush has done - take note that NONE of these things were done by Bush, his administration, or campaign.

Wade said Kerry used the word "crooked" to describe the personal attacks he has endured. Those attacks, he said, included doctored photos of Kerry falsely showing him protesting the Vietnam War with Jane Fonda and wrongly portraying him shooting a prisoner during his stint in the Navy.

And where did these photos come from? Certainly not the Bush campaign. And what about the doctored photos of Bush that have been flying around the internet for the past three years? Can we take those as personal attacks by Kerry?

He also cited a report in the Tribune about a Bush political appointee, John Thomas Burch, who attacked McCain's credentials as a veteran in 2000, and said he appears poised to do the same to Kerry.

What the hell is this? Someone appointed by Bush says something about McCain and they are worried he "appears poised" to do the same to Kerry? This is an example of "hardball, gutter" politics? And what about Kerry's comment above? Hardball, gutter?

Unbelievable.

I hope Liberals think again about what they are doing when they say "anyone but Bush".

In fairness, I am starting "Anyone But Kerry".

Source for the above quotes are from a Chicago Tribune piece.

How are we to make sense of Kerry's position on gay marriage - he is against it personally, but prefers each State to decide the matter itself.

The only way this statement can make sense, it seems to me, is if you make the assumption that the 1998 (?) Defense of Marriage Act - and it's provision that forms of marriage other than man/woman allowed by one State need not be recognized by other States - will trump the Full Faith and Credit Act of the Constitution. I am no Constitutional lawyer, but common sense would tell you that only an Amendment to the Constitution itself can trump the Constitution - a mere Federal Law cannot.

Even more damaging, I think, is that through this statement Kerry seems to be (become?) a proponent of States rights. Isn't that something Republicans usually champion?

And how does/can Kerry distinguish his position on Gay Marriage from that of Abortion? E.g. Given his position that Gay Marriage should be decided by States, should not Abortion also be decided by States?

In the case of abortion it doesn't matter anymore - the Supreme Court has already decided that the U.S. Constitution itself protects the right for an abortion. Individual State laws would have no meaning.

And isn't it likely the same will happen in the case of Gay Marriage? Won't someone eventually appeal to the U.S. Supreme court that gay marriage is protected under equal rights of the consitution? And if that happens, then State laws will again be trumped.

Don't be fooled for a minute in thinking that Democrats, especially Kerry, won't immediately raise taxes if elected. Look at what the Democrats and their supporters tried to pull in California.

Prop 56 billed itself as a budget accountability law - forcing the legistlature, which is compeltely Democrat controlled by the way, to pass a balanced budget. What they didn't tell you is that Prop 56 also would've made it much easier to raise taxes, requiring only 55% of the vote rather than the current 2/3's needed. This was a blantant political move on the part of Democrats to try and directly battle with Governor Arnold.

Prop 56 went down in flames on election day by a 2-1 margain. Even in CA, we do not want our taxes raised!

One more thing I learned - the League of Women Voters is clearly a liberal, Democrat organization just like the labor unions.

From an article "California Vote Is a Red Flag for Kerry" in the LA Times

The state Democratic establishment, which backed and advises Kerry, also put its full weight behind Proposition 56, which would have reduced the vote required for the Legislature to pass the budget and taxes from two-thirds to 55%. The TV spots for it cleverly labeled the measure an initiative to force the Legislature to come up with a budget on time or forgo pay, and to reduce the stalemate in Sacramento by lowering the threshold to "pass a budget" to 55%. "Fiscal Accountability, Legislative Responsibility," heralded the tag line. The heavy campaign, which swamped the opponents' ads, was paid for not only by supposed nonpartisan groups like the League of Women Voters but also by the usual Democratic-machine suspects, the labor unions.

The voters were not fooled. Proposition 56 was crushed 65% to 35%. It lost by well over a million votes. The message is clear, both for Kerry and George W. Bush: California voters — like voters nationwide — are overwhelmingly against tax increases