Please Read this Message from A Real American

Recipe for Disaster

by Oliver North

http://www.townhall.com/

You go, Ollie.

Christmas Greetings

I saw this and couldn't resist posting it. I only wish I'd written it. Thanks to William Brabant, moderator of Buffalo Chips on Yahoo Groups.

Christmas Greetings for Liberals / Democrats:

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

Christmas Greetings for Republicans / Conservatives:

Here's wishing all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

A Little Late, But . . .

I'd like to personally thank the American people for using their brains back in November, and not subjecting us to four years of a John Kerry presidency.

rr

Some Modern French History

A friend writes:

I’ve written before about how John Kerry and his liberal co-conspirators continue to lie about our foreign policy – claiming President Bush has no allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I’ve highlighted the Democrat plan to encourage anti-American opposition abroad so that our efforts in Iraq especially, appear to be wrong, isolated, and in trouble.

On Iraq, Kerry’s position boils down to his belief that America should have followed France and Germany’s advice about handling Saddam. After all, John Kerry and French President Chirac espouse the same views on the war, post-war efforts, and our Coalition.

So, Kerry trusts French judgment on Iraq more than President Bush’s. (Note that some fellow Democratic Senators like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Evan Bayh [just to name three] still support our Iraq policy.)

However, all Americans should have heard by now that the investigation of the UN sanctions program for Iraq has uncovered billions in bribes paid by Saddam and his murderous thugs, especially to French companies and individuals close to French leaders.

Skeptical? Then those who might vote Kerry should know some facts about how close Kerry’s French friends were to Saddam.

1). France sold a top-of-the-line nuclear reactor in 1975 that Saddam used to try and develop nuclear weapons.

This was the reactor that the Israelis (thankfully) destroyed in 1981; otherwise Saddam would almost certainly have had nuclear weapons in the 1980s or not long after.

Saddam himself conducted negotiations with the French in the early 1970s, making the nuclear deal with then French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac. Yes, that’s right; Chirac who today as French president hates George W. Bush and opposed the war.

2.) Saddam’s most capable combat jet was the French Mirage F-1. France sold several dozen to Saddam’s air force in the 1980s. Iraq was readying its French-supplied F-1s to deliver biological weapons against US forces and our allies as we prepared for DESERT STORM.

Iraq admitted to the UN it tested BW delivery by Mirage F-1s using modified drop tanks in December 1990 and January 1991. Photos and a film clip of the testing are on-line

3.) France supplied Saddam’s Iraq with its most advanced anti-ship missiles in the 1980s.

On 17 May 1987, Iraq attacked the US Navy frigate the USS Stark with French-made Exocet missiles - an attack that killed 37 American sailors and seriously wounded 11 others. The attack was so effective because France sold Saddam top technology.

4.) In 1996, France abandoned the UN-sanctioned No-Fly Zones protecting the Kurds in northern Iraq and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the south.

Paris left the US Air Force and our British allies to shoulder this burden alone from 1996 up to the March 2003 start of the Iraq war.

Iraqi air defenses regularly shot at British and American pilots patrolling the zones almost daily from 1999 to 2003 – four years of Americans (and Brits) at risk upholding UN restrictions against Saddam with no French help.

4a.) Worse, why did France favor Saddam and abandon the US and UK in 1996?

In August 1996, Saddam violated UN resolutions and brutally attacked Kurds and others opposed to his dictatorship in northern Iraq. President Clinton responded with an ineffective cruise missile attack (Operation DESERT STRIKE) and expanded the southern no-fly zone; a more effective measure. France quit, protesting our “harsh” policy.

Lo and behold, France then pushed the UN to allow Saddam to sell oil. Saddam began selling oil, France began earning billions in oil contracts, and France completely quit the No Fly zone enforcement mission all in the same month - December 1996. Coincidence? Yeah, right. So much for relying on French help containing Saddam then, or after 9-11.

It is a FACT that Saddam used his oil money for such humanitarian pursuits as:

• funding suicide terrorist bombers in Israel (some killing Americans)


• building prohibited missile systems (some launched at Kuwait and US forces during our recent Iraq war)


• rearming and expanding his murderous internal security forces (Saddam Fedayeen, Republican Guards, and foreign jihadists supplied with thousands of cars, motorcycles and trucks – the latter modified to carry heavy weapons


• building palaces where his psychopath sons and other family members could rape, torture, and kill randomly chosen women.

5.) France sold Iraq the sophisticated air defense command and control system – named KARI (Iraq in French spelled backwards… cute huh?) – we destroyed in DESERT STORM.

Saddam depended on the French to help him protect what was then – in 1990-91 – the largest nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs in the Third World and the world’s fourth largest army. Does Kerry recall he used the latter to invade and rape Kuwait and just prior to that, threatened to use his chemical weapons to – Saddam’s words – “burn half of Israel?”

Yes it is true that when Saddam fought Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1980s we wanted to help him win, but France went way over the top - selling Saddam some of the deadliest technology available at that time. Paris went too far. Also, the point is to show that the French were cozy with Saddam in a way America never was.

Indeed, anyone can search the internet and find that French oil companies were gaining lucrative contracts in Iraq. Thus, the ridiculous liberal claim that the United States of America was for war against Saddam’s regime just for oil is obviously less true than the fact that the French opposed war against Saddam’s regime for oil.

So, in conclusion, what does all this say about John Kerry?

John Kerry tears down his own country but supports French views, though France was the country most-responsible for Saddam’s nearly getting nuclear weapons before 1991.

John Kerry blames President Bush for failing to enlist Paris’ support, but France abandoned our military trying to contain Saddam in 1996 – five years before George W. Bush became President and 7 years before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

What this says about John Kerry is that he depends on ignorant voters to get elected. Iraq’s recent history is complex, but learning the facts sheds light on why President Bush’s plan to aggressively protect America beats John Kerry’s desire to please anti-American European socialists any day.

God bless President Bush, our armed forces, our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement, and brave Americans from all walks of life who grapple with a complex world in the fight to protect our democracy and freedom, as well as that of our allies. Yes, even those ungrateful, conniving French bastards. What’s more, because of President Bush’s get tough policies post 9-11, fellows like John Kerry will remain free to kiss French ass for the foreseeable future.

Kerry Praises Clinton Security Record

John Kerry has claimed that Bill Clinton made our country safe while President Bush – during his 8 months in office prior to 9-11 – didn’t do enough to stop terrorism.

The fact is Bill Clinton and his top advisors mishandled our national security for eight years, especially regarding terrorism and Iraq.

Expect the same from Kerry.

Bin Laden openly declared war against America on Clinton watch, but this threat was not enough for Clinton to take pre-emptive and protective actions.

Do you remember any homeland defense measures in the 1990s? No you don’t, because the Democrats never took bin Laden’s threat seriously. Do you recall Clinton and Senate liberals like Kerry:

• Making passenger airplanes more secure? Where were those hundreds of new air marshals, secure cockpit doors, new rules on permitted carry-on items?


• Improving airport screening?


• Passing a Patriot Act?


• Creating a Department of Homeland Security?


• Establishing an alert and warning system for the American people?


• Increasing border patrols?


• Knocking down the “firewalls” established by liberals to keep intelligence and law enforcement apart?


• Rapidly expanding funding and training for local authorities so they could learn to handle chemical or biological attacks?


• Requiring background checks for all foreigners applying for flight training in the US?


• Arresting or expelling Arab terrorists raising money here in the US (like the professor at USF)?


• Preparing our national air defenses to handle 9-11-like hijack contingencies; issuing clear policies and guidance?


• Warning countries like Saudi Arabia to crack down vs. terrorists? Both countries took President Bush seriously, having killed or arrested HUNDREDS of Al Qaeda terrorists and jihadists to date.

No, contrary to the latest Kerry lie, Clinton did none of these things even as bin Laden plotted and prepared the 9-11 attacks, even after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, even after the massive attacks against our embassies in Africa, even after three major terror attacks against our US military forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, even after the Millenium bomb plot against Los Angeles was uncovered, and even after bin Laden attacked the USS Cole.

Hey folks. Here’s the facts on Clinton and the Democrats. There were some 929 anti-US terrorist attacks from 1993-2000 that killed 90 American citizens and wounded almost 1,700 others. These figures were published by Clinton’s own State Department!!!! The casualties do not include non-US dead or wounded, such as the 5,400 casualties in the 1998 Africa embassy attacks.

The final report of the commission investigating the October 2000 USS Cole attack found that after eight years under Clinton, the Defense Department had not allocated sufficient resources or intelligence analysis and collection assets in support of combating terrorism.

According to recently published accounts, our single best chance to kill Usama bin Laden before 9-11 was rejected by the Clinton team who feared we might kill some of his hunting companions, a ridiculous collateral damage calculus in light of bin Laden’s attacks on our African embassies just a few months earlier, which caused almost 5,400 Kenyan and Tanzanian civilian casualties!!!!

John Kerry talks of adding two divisions to our Army, but doesn’t want to tell Americans that Bill Clinton cut eight – that’s eight divisions during his watch.

President Bush will continue to provide the kind of stalwart and bold leadership needed to defeat global terrorism. Americans can trust him to do his level best on our behalf. President Bush and his team acted boldly and took all the homeland security measures noted above after 9-11, some of which liberals like Kerry continue to oppose, notably the Patriot Act!

John Kerry? Weak against terrorism. Simple.

Pre-war Declassified Imagery Proves Kerry Lies

As Ronald Reagan used to say when the liberals lied about his policies, 'There they go again." John Kerry is lying about the missing explosives. It was well publicized in the 1990s and right before this war that Saddam's standard practice was to move equipment and ammunition out of military storage sites and into or near civilian locations. SEE THE DECLASSIFIED IMAGERY AND TEXT BELOW. (go to http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_human_shields/#08 for the full report.)

Everyone remembers that once we invaded Iraq, soldiers and media proved that Saddam had dispersed thousands of tons of ammunition and military equipment in schools, hospitals, clinics, farm fields, and in many cases, private homes and apartment buildings - literally just about anywhere and everywhere in Iraq. Yet, John Kerry wants Americans to believe that President Bush must have "lost" the munitions, rather than admit that Saddam had a well-established program to hide such assets and thus quite probably moved the stockpiles after the UN inspectors left the country before the war started. Once again, liberals like to blame a US President rather than hold a brutal dictator like Saddam accountable.

Who should we believe - John Kerry? Believe the commander of the US troops who fought for and captured the storage site. He said it was highly unlikely such large amounts of explosives were moved after the war. US troops were all around this particular area. Neither our troops or media spotted UN markings or these stored explosives at the particular site in question.

I would also point out that one of the reasons President Bush clearly stated that Saddam represented a gathering threat to the US and its allies is because Saddam retained such large amounts of military equipment -including these explosives. Anytime Saddam wanted, he could have used the explosives to create car bombs or other terrorist devices, as he did in 1993 when he decided he wanted to kill former President Bush and Kuwaiti leaders. Fortunately, that terrorist plot was foiled. Of course, in John Kerry's world, Saddam's never had anything to do with terrorism...

*********************************

Putting Iraqi Civilians and Civilian Facilities at Risk

In another "lower-cost" approach, Saddam has regularly imposed involuntary service as human shields on Iraqi citizens by authorizing the placement of high-value military units and equipment in heavily populated civilian neighborhoods and near civilian facilities,

Click Image to Enlarge

such as mosques, markets, schools, and cultural sites. The tactic is designed to conceal these military assets but also to deter—or, failing that, to capitalize on—Coalition attacks on them through the high likelihood of collateral civilian casualties.

• Over the past decade, Baghdad has positioned SAMs and air defense equipment near dozens of mosques and other civilian facilities in the no-fly zones.

Click Image to Enlarge

• Iraq's military often uses such civilian installations as residences and schools as alternate command and control facilities during periods of heightened tensions, and Saddam frequently commandeers private apartments or homes in densely populated areas for his personal use during a crisis. Although it is unclear whether civilians are permitted to remain in commandeered facilities, Saddam presumably uses this tactic because he believes that Coalition forces would not target such facilities for attack.


• In 1996, Iraq admitted to UNSCOM officials that it had concealed bacterial growth media purchased for its BW program in the Asma School in Hindiyah in 1991. Growth media from the BW program also was found in a warehouse and store used to distribute pharmaceuticals and medical supplies to both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi military.

Click Image to Enlarge

Wake Up America? Wake Up John Kerry!

Kerry thinks that America needs waking up. He's chosen this theme for his campaign's closing speeches. But he's the one who's been sleepwalking in La-La- land while the rest of us have been fighting - and winning - the war on terror.

President Bush's bold leadership and aggressive tactics against terrorism have led to many great successes; the defeatism offered by the likes of John Kerry, Howard Dean, and French President Chirac notwithstanding.

Topping the list of successes?

• Al Qaeda has been unable to attack us here at home since 9-11; just over three years and counting - a fact Kerry cannot whitewash with lies. Hopefully, ya'all noticed this!! :-) Tell a liberal! :-)


• 75% of the top Al Qaeda leaders are either dead or in prison.


• The Taliban terrorists have lost Afghanistan and could not stop free elections there.


• A terrorist chemical and biological weapons lab in Iraq was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom.


• Saddam is no longer able to fund suicide bombers that killed and wounded hundreds of Israelis, some American citizens, and destabilized the Middle East.


• Saddam is no longer harboring terrorists in Iraq that had killed or wounded hundreds in the 1970s and 1980s.


• Immediately after 9-11, President Bush made it plain to governments like Pakistan's that they must joint the fight against terrorism or be counted among our enemies. At the same time, President Bush's team massively expanded our anti-terrorism cooperation abroad.

The results? Thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Indonesia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, the UK, France, Spain, Italy, and the Philippines - in some cases, aided by US forces. (For example, remember how our nifty Predator UAV strike on that car in Yemen that killed the top Al Qaeda planner?) Many planned Al Qaeda attacks in these countries and elsewhere have been foiled.

Saddam can no longer choose to cause a crisis, threaten war, launch terror attacks, or provide any weapons or money to terrorists as he did in the THIRTEEN YEARS after Desert Storm.

We had to launch large-scale strikes or NEARLY WENT TO WAR against Saddam EIGHT times in the 1990s after DESERT STORM. Saddam can no longer threaten American lives or destabilize the region.

No, we have not stopped all terrorism (neither has Israel who has fought for many years longer than we) and there is much work to be done - especially in Iraq. OUR HOMELAND REMAINS ENDANGERED BY A DETERMINED AND RUTHLESS ENEMY. However, given the facts above, it is obvious that President Bush's policy is working.

President Bush and his team have said to us repeatedly that this would be a long war; a hard effort requiring patience and perseverance, but a fight that we must take to the enemy in order to keep them off balance.

And what of John Kerry? Defeatism and lies. Perhaps the most egregious example is how Kerry denounced the new Iraqi authorities as "US puppets." These brave Iraqis are working with us to field anti-terror police and military units and are today fighting alongside us. These Iraqis need our help not our scorn to achieve the elections and economic rebuilding that will allow us to someday leave Iraq.

Moreover, John Kerry is supported by the likes of film-maker Michael Moore, who proclaimed that there is no terrorist threat to the US. He is supported by Howard Dean and boatloads of liberals who think the same way.

Take this to the bank: a John Kerry win will be celebrated by terrorists and terrorist regimes because they see President Bush's strategy as the greater threat.

What bin Laden's Video Says to One Fine American

A friend writes:

John Kerry is telling the world that Osama bin Laden's latest video proves President Bush has failed, exactly the kind of words that encourage terrorists to believe we are weak and that Osama is successful. Don't kid yourself. Our enemies know it is a false distinction to say the President failed, but somehow our troops did not.

I reject Kerry's defeatism. I see things differently. Osama bin Laden's video instead shows that he is weak and desperate and has failed on many fronts:

• One video in three years proves we put him on the run.


• He appears by himself, not with his terrorist entourage as he did on camera after 9-11 because we have killed or captured 75% of his top people. Thousands of his terrorist operatives are also dead or in jail.


• He has been unable to attack our homeland for over three years. Instead of massively attacking America as on 9-11, he sends us a video - the best he can do to influence our elections.
  

Within three months after 9-11, thanks to President Bush's leadership, Osama lost his safe haven in Afghanistan, where he had established huge terrorist training camps, chemical labs, ammunition stockpiles, and where he had access to the Taliban's radio and TV stations, as well as huge bank accounts.

Moreover, Osama attacks President Bush so vociferously because we have defeated him on many other fronts:

• Terrorists failed to prevent elections in Afghanistan.


• Bin Laden's global jihad failed to stop us in Iraq.


• Saddam recruited jihadist fighters to help him, but our quick capture of Baghdad not only destroyed the Iraqi dictatorship, but showed jihadists as weak.


• Osama wants to assassinate Muslim leaders supporting President Bush against terrorism but has so far failed in every attempt.


• President Bush's leadership has enhanced our counter-terrorism cooperation around the globe, including with Muslim countries.


• Osama sees the Middle East as his home ground and his goal is to force the US and our allies out of the area. Instead, President Bush is fighting terrorism on Osama's "home ground," including in Iraq and Afghanistan.


• With determined US support, the peace treaties between Jordan and Israel and Egypt and Israel remain strong. Al Qaeda hoped for an Arab-Israeli war after 9-11.
  

Of course we would be happier and better off if Osama was dead or captured. The fact he was able to make a video is bad, but bad things happen in war. Bad things do not mean we are losing or have failed, as John Kerry says. Kerry is so desperate to be elected, he will say anything, even if it makes terrorists believe they have a chance of winning; even if his words undermine US strength and credibility abroad.

After hearing Osama's attacks against President Bush, is there any question who he would like to see in the White House? Voters should think about why this is the case. Will we be like Spain and give the terrorists what they want and fail to see why terrorists want to change our government?

Kerry vs. Death Penalty for Terrorists

In 1989, "a bill [(S.1798)] to impose the death penalty for the terrorist murder of United States nationals abroad" was introduced to the 101st Congress by Senator Specter (R-PA). This bill passed 79-20, and JOHN KERRY (D-MA) was among those AGAINST THE DEATH PENATLY FOR TERRORISTS.

Click here to see for yourself.

Who do you think Usama Bin Laden (al Qaeda), Zarqawi are rooting for?

John Kerry Resume

I have obtained John Kerry's resume. I hope you'll find it illuminating.

Name

John Kerry

Residence

7 mansions, including one in Washington DC, worth multi-millions.
I served in Vietnam (four months).

Law Enforcement

In my career as a U.S. Senator, I've voted to cut every law enforcement, CIA, and Defense bill.
I ordered the city of Boston to remove a fire hydrant in front of my mansion, thereby endangering my neighbors in the event of fire.
I served in Vietnam (four months).

Military

I served in Vietnam (four months).
I used three minor injuries to get an early discharge from the military and service in Vietnam (as documented by the attending doctor).
I served in Vietnam (four months).
I then returned to the U.S., joined Jane Fonda in protesting the war, and insulted returning Vietnam vets, claiming they committed atrocities and were baby killers.
I served in Vietnam (four months).
I threw my medals, ribbons, or something away in protest. Or did I?
My book "Vietnam Veterans Against the War: The New Soldier", shows how I truly feel about the military.
I served in Vietnam (four months).

College

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
Unlike my counterpart George Bush, I have no higher education and did not get admitted to Harvard nor graduate with an M.B.A.

Past Work Experience

After College and Vietnam, I ran for the U.S. Congress and have been there ever since.
I have no real world experience except marrying very rich women and running their companies vicariously through them.
I served in Vietnam (four months).

Accomplishments

As a U.S. Senator I set the record for the most liberal voting record, exceeding even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
I have consistently failed to support our military and CIA by voting against their budgets, thus gutting our country's ability to defend itself.
Although I voted for the Iraq War, now I am against it and refuse to admit that I voted for it.
I voted for every liberal piece of legislation.
I have no plan to help this country but I intend to raise taxes significantly if I am elected.
I served in Vietnam (four months).
My wealth so far exceeds that of my counterpart, George Bush, that he will never catch up. I make little or no charitable contributions and have never agreed to pay any voluntary excess taxes in Massachusetts, despite family wealth in excess of $700 million.
I served in Vietnam (four months).
I (we) own 28 manufacturing plants (Heinz) outside of the U.S. in places like Asia, Mexico and Europe. We can make more profit from the cheaper cost of labor in those Countries, although I blame George Bush for sending all of the other jobs out of the Country.
I served in Vietnam (four months).
Although I claim to be in favor of alternative energy sources, Ted Kennedy and I oppose windmills off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as it might spoil our view of the ocean as we cruise on our yachts.
I served in Vietnam (four months).

Records and References

None.
However, I served in Vietnam (four months).

Personal

I practice my Catholic faith whenever cameras are present.
I ride a Serotta Bike.
I love to ski/snowboard.
I call my Gulfstream V Jet the "Flying Squirrel".
I call my $850,000 42-foot Hinckley twin diesel yacht the "Scarmouche".
I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop and feel it reflects our real culture.
I own several "Large" SUVs, including one parked at my Nantucket summer mansion; though I am against large, polluting, inefficient vehicles and blame George Bush for our energy problems.
I served in Vietnam (four months).

Please consider my experience when voting in 2004.

Mysterious Events

Liberals will squeal, but the sad fact is Kerry did meet with North Vietnamese communist government officials while we were at war in Vietnam. What business does a junior naval reserve officer have in meeting with an enemy delegation in a foreign capital? Should an Army captain deployed in Korea today cross the DMZ and negotiate on our behalf with the North Koreans about their nuclear weapons? Well if you're a liberal, I guess trhe answer is "sure, why not" because they've no problem with Kerry. My guess is, this may be what's behind the mystery, as the reporter laid out below in this story from the New York Sun.

Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

17% Medicare Increase

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase - the biggest in history"?

That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration.

President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his mendacity.

Thought For the Day

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged!"

- President Abraham Lincoln