BROADSIDES

July 30, 2004

General George S. Kerry
Fresh from being ignored all week at the Democratic National Convention, John Kerry showed up last night to remind delegates that he is their presidential nominee.

Kerry's acceptance speech was written (very poorly, by the way) to convince voters that because he served in the Vietnam War for a little over a month, he's more qualified than President Bush to direct the war on terrorism. So there John Kerry stood last night looking more like a desperate contestant on The Gong Show doing a bad George C. Scott-as-Patton impression than a viable commander-in-chief.

Even that salute he delivered from the podium was sloppy. (On this, I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was just sore from that noodle-arm pitch he sissied only half-way to the catcher at Fenway last Monday.)

Consider these excerpts from Kerry's dud of a speech:

Here is the reality: that [bringing the troops home] won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership — so we don't have to go it alone in the world.
Translation: America's leadership can only be restored by doing what French and German leftists want us to do. Um--yeah. So a President Kerry would abandon America's best interests if it meant going "it alone in the world." I'm curious: would a President Kerry stand for what's right even if every other country thought he was wrong? How can a president lead when he prefers to follow?

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
This will come as a surprise to the slew of nations working with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. If anything, America's alliances have never been more widespread; hell, most of the former Soviet bloc countries and even Mongolia are allied with us. Again, what Kerry is really calling for is appeasement of French and German leftists.

Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.
These sentences are full of outs. Kerry's intention here is to sound like a saber-rattling, bloodthirsty warrior. However, he's not threatening to unleash America's military might against the enemy. Rather, he speaks of force and a swift response in a generic context. This is hardly reassuring. To most post-McGovern Democrats, force and a swift response take the form of punishing Americans for causing so many problems in the world -- like when really awful President Jimmy Carter made American Olympic athletes pay the price for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.
But, but, but...Senator Kerry, that could possibly mean having "to go it alone in the world." Right?

And I will build a stronger American military ... To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way.
Considering that shortly after Kerry returned from Vietnam, he launched his political career by (knowingly) falsely accusing other servicemembers of war crimes and spent much of his Senate career attempting to gut the Department of Defense, I'm sure that our armed forces would rather not have his kind of help.

In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words.
This may be the most stunning portion of the speech. Kerry is accusing Bush of being all talk and no action. I'm sure the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, a parade of dead and captured Islamist terrorists and millions of liberated Afghans and Iraqis would strongly disagree.

That is the kind of America I will lead as President: an America where we are all in the same boat.
Stuck in the same boat with Teresa and John Kerry ...

Oh, swell.

Now we know how everyone on the S.S. Minnow felt when the Howells came aboard.

B. Sides @ 9:26 AM

July 27, 2004

When Prune Juice Isn't Enough
Despite this extraordinary medical procedure, John Kerry remains full of shit.

B. Sides @ 10:10 PM

July 22, 2004

Homely Has-Beens For Kerry
There's at least one voting demographic among which President Bush has no support -- butt-ugly, washed-up female celebrities.

First, Whoopie Goldberg slammed him; then Linda Ronstadt. And the bleeding continues with Bonnie Raitt, who dedicated her song "About to End" to the president while performing for an audience of obvious masochists in Zurich.

(Pssst...hey, Bonnie...the Swiss don't vote in U.S. presidential elections. And for godssakes, quit dressing like Endora and fire the undertaker who applies your make-up.)

B. Sides @ 8:34 AM

July 21, 2004

That's Quite A Knee-Slapper!
Thousands of Americans have been murdered by state-sponsored terrorists. Our troops are spread across the globe risking their lives fighting terrorism. And there is intelligence to suggest that terrorists will attempt a major strike against the United States before the presidential election.

So when the Clinton Administration's national security advisor steals and destroys very sensitive classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, what's his former boss' reaction?

"We were all laughing about it on the way over here," Clinton told the Denver Post.

Hahahahahaha! Our national security compromised by a traitorous former national security advisor! Ain't that just fuckin' hilarious???? Oh, mercy! It's so difficult to type with tears of laughter dripping on the keyboard!

Interesting how quickly Bill Clinton reacted to news of this investigation. Why is he so seemingly anxious to laugh it off as no big deal?

B. Sides @ 11:38 AM

Are Those Classified Documents In Your Pocket Or Did You Just Meet Monica?
Former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger is the subject of a criminal investigation after he admitted to -- WHOOPS! -- "inadvertently" shoving highly classified terrorism-related documents in his pants and socks.

Fox News reports:

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement.

Sandy's explanation is as contorted as Rosemary Woods' body when she explained how she managed to -- WHOOPS! -- erase 18 1/2 minutes from one of Nixon's tapes.

How one manages to "inadvertently" drop highly classified papers into one's trousers and socks and jacket pockets, Sandy did not say. The Bergermeister's excuse is a variation of a Steve Martin bit from years ago. Steve dispensed some legal advice to the audience; whenever you're arrested, just tell the judge, "I forgot. I forgot armed robbery was a crime." With Sandy, it's "I inadvertently stole classified documents." That tack could work for anyone:

Jack the Ripper: I inadvertently disemboweled five prostitutes.
Ed Gein: I inadvertently made lampshades from the skin of a few women.
Aldrich Aames: I inadvertently sold America's secrets to the Ruskies.
Jeffrey Dahmer: I inadvertently cannibalized several men.
Saddam Hussein: I inadvertently gassed thousands of Kurds.

Well, in that case, it's ok. Now you kids run along and play nice!

Please.

There was nothing inadvertent about what Sandy Berger did that day at the National Archives. He stole several classified documents and destroyed some of them. Something in those Clinton-era terrorism documents was so explosive that Berger was willing to risk something akin to treason to destroy them.

The question is, who instructed Berger to do it. And you don't have to be Columbo to figure that one out.

Morally, there's no difference between what Berger has done (destroying classified documents) and what Aldrich Aames did (selling classified information to the Soviets.) In each case, the end result is the same: classified information is compromised and American lives are endangered.

Let's face it. If you or I walked into the National Archives and stole documents of any kind, we'd be in the hoosegow by now. Yet Sandy Berger, after all this time, is merely under investigation.

If Berger manages to get away with this, then take it as proof that there are two sets of legal standards in this country -- one for the ruling class and one for the ruled.

B. Sides @ 9:56 AM

July 20, 2004

Suicide And The Constitution
The son of Senator Gordon Smith committed suicide last September and it may end up costing taxpayers $82 million.

On the Senate floor earlier this month, Senator Smith, a Republican from Oregon, tearfully urged his colleagues to support the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. If enacted, the AP reports, Senator Smith's proposed bill "would authorize $82 million over three years as grants to states, American Indian tribes, colleges and universities to develop youth suicide prevention and intervention programs."

After Smith's emotional plea, two other senators--Republican Don Nickles of Oklahoma and Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada--explained how their fathers committed suicide and why it was important for the Senate to pass Smith's bill.

The Senate passed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act overwhelmingly on July 8. The bill now goes onto the House for consideration.

It should go without saying that suicide, particularly among the young, is an awful thing and a devastating blow to surviving family and friends. And preventing suicide is a good idea and a noble goal. However just because something is a good idea doesn't automatically give Congress the legal authority to fund it. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted jurisdiction to fund such things.

Had Garrett Smith not committed suicide last year, there'd probably be no anti-suicide legislation making its way through Congress right now. That means that just because a senator from Oregon experienced a terrible family tragedy, the Senate believes it's justified in using other people's money to buy him an $82 million sympathy card.

The Constitution was written to prevent such whimsical and subjective exercises of governmental power.

Even the process by which Senator Smith's bill is being considered is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution declares, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, however, originated in the Senate.

Though Senator Smith's intentions are laudable, his methods are unconstitutional. Taxpayers can't be legally required to provide grief therapy for members of Congress. If Senator Smith wants to effectively fight suicide among young people, he should persuade people--not force them--to donate money to the cause.

B. Sides @ 9:24 AM

July 09, 2004

Headline of the Day
From the Rapid City Journal: "Daschle denies hugging Moore"

Daschle is reacting to Michael Moore's claim that Daschle hugged him. (Moore lied? Imagine that!)

Daschle is obviously telling the truth: human arms will require another ten million years of evolution before they're long enough to hug Michael Moore.

B. Sides @ 12:33 PM

Moore Gets Bleated
In yesterday's Bleat, James Lileks performs a well-deserved liposuction on Hollywood's favorite traitor, Michael Moore. Be sure to read it.

B. Sides @ 12:20 PM

July 08, 2004

Hey, You Two, Get A Room!
Let me guess: their campaign theme is a Barry White song.

Memo to Teresa Heinz: you'd better hope that John Edwards isn't richer than you.

B. Sides @ 1:14 PM

July 06, 2004

Yawn
So John Kerry has chosen a runnin......

Oops..sorry...I dozed off.

So Kerry has chosen a runningmate. His fellow senator, John...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Dammit. Sorry.

John Edwards.

Not exactly a surprise. For weeks now, the Kerry campaign has all but shouted from the mountain top that Edwards was the likely choice. So the announcement itself is pretty much a non-event. It's like being forced to watch Psycho knowing from the beginning that Anthony Perkins is his own mother. Consequently, Kerry can expect little (if any) political boost from the announcement and is now heading into a national convention void of any drama.

If I were advising John Kerry (hmmm...I just shuddered), my advice would have been to keep his VP choice a closely guarded secret and announce it at the Democratic National Convention. In other words, Kerry could have added some suspense to his otherwise predictable, dull campaign and given people a reason to watch the convention.

As far as Kerry's choice goes, well, what's it say about the Democratic Party when their presidential nominee, who is a U.S. senator, can't find a worthy runningmate outside of Congress? For some reason, Kerry was determined to pick a fellow congresscritter. His leading runningmate contenders were Senator John McCain, Senator John Edwards, Senator Hillary Clinton and Congressman Dick Gephardt. The Dems' talent pool must be mighty shallow.

Kerry and Edwards--two east coast U.S. senators with the same first name.

And here I always thought the Democrats were worried about diversity.

B. Sides @ 10:10 AM

July 04, 2004

Choosing "Between Submission Or The Sword"
At 83 years of age and in ill health, Thomas Jefferson had lost none of his eloquence.

Writing from Monticello on June 24 1826, the principal author of Declaration of Independence regretfully declined an invitation from Roger Weightman to attend ceremonies in Washington marking America's 50th birthday.

The contents of the letter reveal why John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and other colonial leaders chose Jefferson to compose the instrument which notified King George III that His Britannic Majesty no longer reigned over America:

The kind invitation I receive from you, on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of American Independence, as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. It adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. But acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to control. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

I will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which I should have met my ancient neighbors of the city of Washington and its vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing social intercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of the public cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections, as never to be forgotten. With my regret that ill health forbids me the gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself, and those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect and friendly attachments.

Thomas Jefferson died ten days later--on July 4, 1826.

B. Sides @ 6:30 PM

July 02, 2004

Aborting Democrats
When I first read James Taranto's description of his "Roe Effect" theory last year, I had a good laugh. Then I realized that it made sense!

The Roe Effect states that since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, America is steadily becoming more conservative because liberal women are more likely to abort their babies than conservative women. And since most children share their parents' political outlook, the consequence is fewer future liberals.

Or, as Taranto puts it, "If a woman aborts her child, he can't very well grow up to be pro-choice."

When you're done laughing, read Larry Eastland's AmSpec column which is reprinted in OpinionJournal. An excerpt:

More than 40 million legal abortions have been performed and documented in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion legal. The debate remains focused on the legality and morality of abortion. What's largely ignored is a factual analysis of the political consequences of 40 million abortions. Consider:

• There were 12,274,368 in the Voting Age Population of 205,815,000 missing from the 2000 presidential election, because of abortions from 1973-82.

• In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576 in the Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972 and 1986.

• In the 2008 election, 24,408,960 in the Voting Age Population will be missing because of abortions between 1973-90.

These numbers will not change. They are based on individual choices made--aggregated nationally--as long as 30 years ago. Look inside these numbers at where the political impact is felt most. Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the margin of victory in 2000?

Finally! A valid reason to support NARAL!

B. Sides @ 12:06 PM