Friday, March 05, 2004
And the North Korean vote goes to... John Kerry!
posted by Geraldine |
The Financial Times reports:
In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's communist regime.
If that doesn't convince you to vote for Bush, nothing will.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Ted "9/11 Widows" Rall -- No Longer Just An Asshole Cartoonist; Now Also a Foreign Policy Expert
posted by Geraldine |
Ted Rall --in a column entitled "In Defense of Radicalism," which sounds like something a college sophomore would come up with for a Poli Sci term paper--has some foreign policy advice for John Kerry:
The problem with the Bush Administration is that its focuses were completely wrongheaded: going after Afghanistan instead of Pakistan, Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, hunting Al Qaeda instead of the Islamic Jihad leaders who carried out the attacks, spying on Americans instead of improving airline security, blaming cave-dwelling "evildoers" rather than reexamining longstanding U.S. relationships with hated puppet regimes. Their actions created new problems while those related to 9-11 remain unaddressed. . . . Should Kerry prevail in the general election, radical solutions will be required to fix Bush's radical mistakes. To stem the bleeding of men and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, he'll need to withdraw our forces as quickly as possible. To get the federal budget back on track, he'll have to eliminate Bush's tax cuts. To restore our international reputation, he'll be forced to release the Guant?namo and other detainees, and apologize to the world for our post-9-11 excesses. Anything less--anything moderate--would be too radical to contemplate.
Okay, where to start:
(1) Pakistan: they have the Bomb, Ted. "Going after" a country with a nuclear arsenal isn't "radical" so much as "radically stupid."
(2) Saudi Arabia: they are our main source of energy and the guardians of the two holiest sites in Islam. So, "going after" them militarily (a) would flush our economy down the toilet, and (b) arouse the righteous anger of virtually every pious Muslim in the world as infidel troops defiled the birthplace of Mohammed. There's no doubt that Saudi Arabia needs a lot of reformation, but fostering democracy next door seems like a much smarter idea than riling up a billion Muslims while simultaneously reliving the glory days of the 1970s energy crises.
(3) "hunting Al Qaeda instead of the Islamic Jihad leaders who carried out the attacks" Two problems: One, WTF are you talking about? Two, the people who carried out the attacks are DEAD. Remember those fiery plane crashes on 9/11/01, Ted?
(4) "reexamining longstanding U.S. relationships with hated puppet regimes" I'd say that Gulf War II was a pretty strong reexamination of our longstanding relationships with several hated puppet regimes and a pretty strong message to boot.
(5) Retreat. Well, I guess that qualifies as "radical." It's also cowardly and would result in two outlaw nations, largely overrun by Al Qaeda and their ilk. So it's also grossly irresponsible, too.
(6) Eliminating tax cuts. Left wingers want to take more of my money and "invest" it in socialized medicine: this is a radical idea? Seems par for the course to me.
(7) Releasing the Gitmo detainees and "apologizing" to the world. Dear World, we're sorry that we rounded up these murderous scumbags. As a symbol of our regret, please allow us to fly these fine young gentlemen back to Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Marseilles, and Sheffield.
You know, it's funny, but the more the radical left talks, the more they sound like Pat Buchanan.
posted by Geraldine |
Okay, first things first, there's no new blog. I, and maybe we, am sticking with WMI. As you might have heard, Warmongering Illustrated accomplished its primary goal of unseating the nasty Mr. Hussein. Yet, we know that the war on terror--or, more properly, the war on thugocracies that breed terror--is far from over. Our next objective, among others, is to ensure the reelection of President Bush, the only candidate who seems to understand that America is the only nation strong enough, and well-intentioned enough, to change this world for the better. Take heart, left-wing friends, for the sooner President Bush accomplishes his goal of promoting peace and freedom around the world, the sooner you can get back to electing crooked-dicked weasels from Arkansas and making a fortune off of technological breakthroughs that would've never been possible had we taken your standard advice and "invested" in even more wealth transfers to old farts, trial lawyers, and the teachers' unions.
Second, check out the opening line from The Independent's (a left wing British newspaper whose subscriber base consists of 37 college professors) lead story on John Kerry:
If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, [sic] [Is that near Bogota? - Ed.] could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide.
And the funny thing is, I don't think that The Independent realizes that, from any objective viewpoint, this statement is an indictment of John Kerry's candidacy. After all, the vast majority of the human race has made, as the Brits would say, "a dog's breakfast" out of their countries. Thus, even if you (naively) assumed that the rest of the human race would make a good faith effort to vote for the best presidential candidate, would polling your average Third Worlder (who would, statistically speaking, represent the average member of the "human race") actually prove persuasive as to the proper policies for the United States and, indeed, the world?
Second, and more importantly, much of the "human race" either (a) hates us--e.g., the Middle East; or (b) merely envies us and would like to take us down a peg or two--e.g., France. In either case, the fact that John Kerry seems to be much more palatable to the "human race" than George Bush strikes me as a HUGE reason NOT to vote for Kerry.