Via Glenn Reynolds, who suggests that John Kerry (Kerry quotes form the foundation for the piece) should read it – today’s Lileks:

We stopped pretending we would ratify Kyoto. We only spent $15 billion on AIDS in Africa. We did not take dictation from Paris. If we had done these things, it would minimize the world’s anger.
Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?
Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women�s rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC program?
Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?
Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?
…
But even if you admit that the world is angry at America – so angry that the poorest of them can�t wait to come here and stake a claim � you have to stand in awe at the sheer political idiocy of Kerry�s conclusion. Boiled down:
“There are countless numbers of things that we could be do minimize the kind of anger and … almost recruitment that has taken place in terrorist organizations as a result of the way the administration has behaved.
By toppling the fascists in Baghdad without French seal of approval, we have encouraged recruitment in terrorist organizations. It�s not the invasion that ticked off the Man in the Arab Street, it�s the lack of a 17th UN resolution on Iraq. Right now in a caf� in Beirut an educated man, a chemist by trade, schooled in the ways of the West, is reading an article about how the US will only spent $15 billion on AIDS and probably won�t reduce its carbon emissions to 1817 levels, and he throws down the paper in disgust: bastards! I must join Al Qaeda, move to Iraq and kill the contractors who are upgrading their outmoded infrastructure!

Chr�tien sent our representatives to the Kyoto negotiations with a decree – not to protect the western based resource industries – not to fight for recognition that a thinly spread population in one of the most hostile environments in the world may just need to heat their homes – but to “beat the US by 1%”.
So today, tax dollars are funding home improvement projects to continue the charade that is still known as “meeting our obligations under Kyoto”, while the media ignores the fact that Kyoto is dead.
Kofi Annan visits Ottawa and Paul Martin cuts him a check. The bad guys in Iraq are the Americans, didn’t you know? Ipsos-Reid polls confirm that Canadians are convinced that “Bush lied” and the media outlets report it as fact. Polls tell us that Canadians believe the Iraq invasion a failure and the Canadian position not to back the US to be the right one. No surprise there. Public perception as reality, public opinion as a substitute for foreign policy – it’s the Canadian way. You won’t see the Fifth Estate visit the Saddam Hussein – TotalFinaElf – Power Corporation – Paul Desmarias – Jean Chr�tien connections. Not a peep about the Annan/UN Oil-For-Blood scandal. How can they? There hasn’t been a poll.
John Kerry receives much ridicule for being “French looking”. I can understand why the comparison is tempting – but I’m not sure it’s an entirely accurate.
Internationalist, UN-friendly, Kyoto defender, poll driven? That’s not France. The French aren’t “internationalists”, for one thing. There’s no such thing as French altruism – the UN is used to secure French interests, not world interests. Most importantly, the French don’t care if others are angry with France. Or if others like them.
No, John Kerry isn’t French.
The Liberal Party of Canada would fit him like a glove. He’d thrill in Montreal. Or Quebec City. My God – how he would love multi-cultural Toronto. And the Liberal Party of Canada. How proud he would be of a reputation for personal politeness and international peace-keeping. Of our health care system. Kyoto – why, Canada signed Kyoto, and meant it. Gay marriage would be much easier to understand in Canada, once the pollsters tell us we like the idea. One can almost picture him standing in the backbenches behind Carolyn Parrish and echoing her refrain about those “bastards” south of the border.
John Kerry is Canadian.
(Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam)

New York Times

In a move that might help muffle criticism of a Socialist pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, Spain’s incoming prime minister is considering increasing the number of Spanish soldiers guarding the fragile peace in Afghanistan, sources in his party said today.
Less than two weeks after the deadly train bombings in Madrid, the incoming prime minister, Jos� Luis Rodr�guez Zapatero, wants to signal his commitment to fight terrorism and show the United States that Spain remains a loyal ally, said one of the sources, a high- ranking party official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
He added that the new government wants “to send a message that the Socialists do not believe in appeasement.”
Since Mr. Zapatero’s election victory on March 14, he has faced two tasks: responding to overwhelming opposition to the American- led war in Iraq among his backers and staying on the good side of the United States administration as its seeks international cooperation in its war on terror.
Mr. Zapatero has confirmed a campaign pledge to pull Spain’s 1,300 troops out of Iraq unless the United Nations assumes greater control by June 30. Critics, notably in the United States, accused Mr. Zapatero of handing a victory to terrorists.

Well, to be fair, Zapatero had Spanish troop withdrawal on the table prior to the bombings – which cast his pledge in a new light, transforming a foreign policy position into a surrender. The decision was made by the Spanish electorate. Rock, hard place?
If there is palatable solution for the political dilemma, I suppose this is a defensible one. Though, the blustering rhetoric he indulged in after the election doesn’t incline one to think he realized a dilemma existed. Maybe it hadn’t quite sunk in.

The party official close to Mr. Zapatero said the war in Iraq might have made the world a less secure place.
“Our disagreements are not with the United States itself, but with a specific doctrine of preventative strike, which we believe creates more insecurity in the world,” he said.

I guess this means Spain won’t be having any 3-11 commission.

It didn’t take long for the national media to reboot their rhetoric about Stephen Harper. Elected overwhelmingly to the new Conservative party leadership, and winning the vote in every region of Canada, the sun hadn’t risen on his new leadership term and the Toronto Star is pulling out the hatchets : Harper = Alliance = Reform = Western = Alberta = RightWing = Extremist = Rednecks = Bigots = Run For The Safety Of Your Liberal Mamas! “
You get the idea.
Let It Bleed is all over the Toronto Star editorials today.

If it’s Sunday, it must be time for the Toronto Star to let out its stable of barking moonbats. This week’s theme is that conservatives are just too damn crazy to form a government in Canada. Strangely, Haroon Siddiqui and Antonia Zerbisias are missing in action this week, but never fear: to replace them the Star has drafted… wait for it… Senator Ted Kennedy. I kid you not.
…
Linda McQuaig proves incapable of coming up an original idea for her column, so she just parrots what her bosses say. Too radical. Too “mean-spirited”. Too, you know, non- Liberal. Now, to be fair, Linda does bare her soul and reveals something about herself which, probably, no one suspected. At least, I know I wasn’t prepared for it. Are you ready for it? Make sure you’re sitting down; make sure you’ve got a phone next to you, in case you need to call for medical help. Ready? Okay, here we go… don’t say I didn’t warn you:
“I’ll confess that conservatism has never been my cup of tea…”

Here’s something else that I know no one suspected – there are no true “right leaning conservative” political parties in Canada
None. Not a single party espouses dismantling universal health care. Not a single party is campaigning on a platform of adding property rights to the Constitution. None are suggesting that First Nation treaties be renegotiated to eliminate entitlements to individuals on the basis of racial pedigree. No party is advocating the elimination of our “affirmative action” like hiring programs in government. None of the parties are suggesting the CBC or Via Rail be sold.
The Canadian Conservative Party is ideologically positioned somewhat to the left of the US Democrats on the majority of fundamental issues. There are no parties of the “right of center” in Canadian politics.

In Geneva, The U.N.’s Successor May Be Testing Its Wings

Imagine a better Washington. Imagine a conservative Republican administration working hand in glove with liberal congressional Democrats on a foreign-policy initiative designed to strengthen the United Nations while simultaneously increasing America’s clout there. Imagine both parties and both branches bringing this initiative to fruition smoothly and unfussily, during an election year. Say, this year. Say, right now.

I know I live under a rock, but I’m surprised this hasn’t recieved a little more attention.

In 1945, when the U.N. was born, most of the world was non-democratic, and so a “league of democracies” would have been a rump group. Today, however, more than 60 percent of the world’s countries are electoral democracies. Today it is absurd for Burma to vote as the moral and legal equivalent of Belgium; more absurd for Cuba and Zimbabwe to be members in good standing of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; and more absurd still for Libya to chair that commission, as it did last year.
To add injury to insult, democracies at the U.N. are disproportionately weak. The U.N. is dominated by a cluster of regional and ideological caucuses. African countries, for example, are pressured to vote together, with undemocratic governments often calling the shots and democracies going along to get along. Tyrants thus routinely exempt themselves from human-rights resolutions, while log-rolling ensures that condemnations of Israel sail through.
In 1996, a private group called the United Nations Association of the United States of America floated the idea of a caucus solely for democracies. With 120 or so nations (out of 191 U.N. members), such a caucus could serve as a powerful counterweight to the traditional caucuses.

The concept is being floated at a meeting of the UN Commission For Human Rights that began Monday in Geneva.
hat tip – Jack’s Newswatch

Just in case anyone was still trying to guess to state the blatantly obvious.

Murray Wood hosts an afternoon phone in show on Saskatoon’s talk radio station, 650 CKOM (980 CJME in Regina). Today, he had a few choice words for some of our least favorite Liberals. I had been planning to dedicate a few words to Sheila Copps… saved me a lot of typing, Murray Wood did…
I emailed him to see if the piece was available online (it isn’t), but he sent me the raw text.
Heh. Nothing like a good rant to finish off a lazy Monday afternoon.

The Way I See It
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then self-righteous outrage is surely the final sanctuary for Liberal hacks and flacks facing their oh-so-deserved comeuppance.
I love the headline “Copps Cries Foul!!!” After losing the Liberal nomination in her Hamilton riding, the queen of the undeclared expense account suddenly wants a full accounting of the vote… and demands to know why some of her supporters were challenged.
Hey Sheila – here’s how the math breaks down; two plus two equals zero when it comes to you. That’s the number of positives you bring to any political party.
From the days of painfully shrill screeching on the opposition benches to her less than stellar time in cabinet, (remember free flags for all?) and unanswered questions about expense accounts, Sheila Copps has been a noisy, empty suit. No substance and not much style. Just sharp political claws and elbows.
Too bad for she doesn’t have better political instincts. Like a paunchy fighter who doesn’t know when to retire, Copps should have grabbed the patronage plum offered to her and ran. Of course, she could always run for the NDP.and aren’t the other parties all hoping she does?

And he was just getting started…

Continue reading →

Inspired by Drudge.
I swear to God, I did not “photoshop” this.

Via Drudge Report, the first post-nomination poll is out showing Kerry and Bush in a virtual dead heat.
The speculation is that Nader is the spoiler, bleeding off Democrat supporters.

Bush and the four-term Massachusetts senator, who emerged as the nominee Tuesday after a string of primary race wins over several rivals, have been running close or Kerry has been ahead in most recent polls that did not include Nader.
Since Nader entered the race Feb. 22, campaign strategists and political analysts have been trying to assess the impact of another presidential bid by the consumer activist whom Democrats blame for Al Gore’s loss in 2000.

Well, maybe. But if this proves to be a genuine signal that the enthusiasm for Kerry is already waning, it suspect it’s due to Edwards supporters moving to Bush. No doubt Nader may have skimmed off a few from Kerry’s left, but more likely he’d motivate the type who would refuse to commit to either Bush or a Kerry, the previously “undecided” who needs a third option to even want to vote.
Admittedly, I haven’t seen much of either on TV, and none of the debates. But it’s been my impression that hawkish Democrats were more comfortable with Edwards than with Kerry, and with Edwards out of the race, they can’t bring themselves to wobble over in his direction.
disclaimer: I reserve the right to be full of shit.

A poll result obtained under access to information reveals that the feds really don’t like to have these types of polls made public;
Globe and Mail

Ottawa – The federal government was told Western alienation had reached disturbing levels just after Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol, with almost a quarter of one Prairie province saying it wouldn’t care if they joined the United States
…
Twenty-three per cent of Saskatchewan residents said they would not be too concerned if their province joined the United States, more than in either Alberta or Quebec, where 19 per cent expressed that view.
The poll may help explain why Prime Minister Paul Martin has made Western concerns a key priority while moving cautiously on the Kyoto file. Although he criticized his predecessor for lacking an implementation plan, Mr. Martin himself has not introduced one.

No suprise there. That’s the price of political expediency. Kyoto sells in the greater metropolitan Toronto area. When east-west interests are in conflict, the west is politically expendible. But things get trickier when energy and resources are on the table.
Unlike Quebec, if the western provinces did choose sovereignty, we exit with the bulk of Canada’s energy resources. Screw with our energy based economy at your peril – Peter Lougheed demonstrated that during the National Energy Program crisis of the early 1980’s.

The sense of belonging to Canada among Westerners has dropped sharply in the past decade, the Ekos study notes.

No shit, Sherlock. And in typical fed fashion, the Liberal government commissioned a poll. As if the the Reform-Alliance near sweep of the west in the past two federal elections weren’t a clue.

Washington Post has a piece on the former Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean that is certain to deflate the idealism of the “grassroots” behind his campaign. It seems that when he urged his supporters to help him “take back your country”, he wasn’t quite sure he wanted it all that much.

The feuding and backbiting that plagued the Howard Dean campaign had turned utterly poisonous. Behind the facade of a successful political operation, senior officials plotted against each other, complained about the candidate and developed one searing doubt.
Dean, they concluded, did not really want to be president.
In different conversations and in different ways, according to several people who worked with him, Dean said at the peak of his popularity late last year that he never expected to rise so high, that he didn’t like the intense scrutiny, that he had just wanted to make a difference. “I don’t care about being president,” he said. Months earlier, as his candidacy was taking off, he told a colleague: “The problem is, I’m now afraid I might win.”

A lot of people were afraid you might win, Howard Dean. They had the right instincts, and to your credit, so did you.
The WaPo piece tells a story of a campaign of internal distrust. For example, The Al Gore endorsement was kept secret from Dean’s campaign manager, Joe Trippi.

It was, instead, a dysfunctional political family, filled with tales of blocking access to the candidate, neutralizing internal rivals, trying to penalize reporters deemed unfriendly. And some of its members just plain despised each other.

I wonder what the chick who sold her bike to give the money to your campaign is thinking right now – and how many disillusioned young “Deaniacs” may turn their backs on politics altogether. That would be the greater shame.

Maybe, we could get it right on this try, but if we did (and I say we did) it wasn’t with the help of people like Jane Fonda, and John Kerry. It wasn’t enough to slime people like Charlie and other veterans with accusations of wall to wall atrocities, it wasn’t enough to render further assistance to South Vietnam politically untouchable after 1972, when it came to taking responsibility for the people whom their actions drove into the refugee camps (or the re-education camps, or the killing fields), they were nowhere to be seen. They had moved on, leaving other people to sort out the wreckage and the misery. People, you can make bad decisions— god knows, I’ve made a few— but the people I respect take responsibility when the bad decision has bad consequences.

Go read it all.
via Instapundit

Well, nobody ever accused Al Queda of political sophistication…

“Bush, fortify your targets, tighten your defense, intensify your security measures,” the voice warned, “because the fighting Islamic community – which sent you New York and Washington battalions – has decided to send you one battalion after the other, carrying death and seeking heaven.”

Brought to you by

His problem;

I saw someone wearing an “Anyone But Bush 2004” sweatshirt today, with the Democratic Underground logo underneath.
As is usually the case in situations like that, I didn’t have a chance to say anything. Still, I’m sure I’ll see those shirts more as we get closer to November. Anybody have a good line to use in that situation?

Here’s mine.

Is John Kerry channelling Howard Dean?

John Kerry Challenges George W. Bush to Debate on War

Upon his arrival in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday, John Kerry issued a statement and sent a letter to George W. Bush challenging him to a debate on the Vietnam era and the impact of their experiences on their approaches to presidential leadership. The challenge was issued in light of Bush campaign attacks on John Kerry’s service in Vietnam, and his commitment to the defense of our nation.

Kerry: “John Kerry went to Vietnam. John Kerry served with honor. John Kerry knows what it means to pick up a weapon and take a bullet for his country.”
Bush: “I respect that, Senator Kerry – and here’s what I’m going to do. I am going to sit right here and listen quietly while you tell the American people about your timetable for sending American forces back to Southeast Asia to win this war!
Kerry: “Don’t be absurd… Vietnam was over 30… er… I mean ….”
Bush: “Well I’m in if you are. Let’s go. Lemme talk to Rummy. I’ll put in a good word for you. What’ya need there, VietnamMan, a coupla divisions? Nimitz is ready and waiting off Hawaii….”
Heh.