Outside the Perimeter

Interesting Documentary

I reactivated HBO tonight, just in time to catch part of a "Diary of a Political Tourist" (I'll watch the rest later in the week) by Alexandra Pelosi. Alexandra is the daughter of House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. (Nancy, if you don't know, is much in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Also, whenever I see Nancy, I always suspect she has a Dalmatian puppy fur coat hidden away in a closet somewhere.)

Alexandra had previously made "Journeys with George" about George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential run. "Diary" is a behind the scenes look at the Democratic candidates seeking this year's Democratic Presidential Nomination.

Pelosi the younger provides her own commentary for the documentary, and some of it is pretty funny. The video by itself is funny also. For example, she goes from a scene where John Kerry is campaigning on a pig farm. While looking a pen full of pigs, his question to the farmer - "How many head are in there?. Pelosi's voiceover says, "It's a looooong way to Pennsylvania Avenue".

She moves next to "check out the competition" at the 2003 White House BBQ. Pelosi the younger has her camera and is standing next to her Mom and who I think are her brothers. The President is working the line and eventually makes his way to the Pelosi clan. He is having his picture taken with the Pelosi the younger brothers. He is the transcript of that part:

George W. Bush: Let me say hello to your mother, boys. Thank you for coming, Nancy. Nancy Pelosi: Mr. President. My pleasure. You see Alexandra. Alexandra Pelosi: Hello, Mr. President. George W. Bush (jokingly): Alexandra. Would you please get rid of the camera? Once and for all. I made you famous once. I'm not going to make you famous again. Alexandra: Don't you miss me and the camera. (Bush takes the camera away from Alexandra and turns it around on her.) Alexandra: Don't you miss your old friend? Your old friend. Don't you miss it? George W. Bush: I do miss you. And furthermore, how much money did you make off of me. Alexandra: Well, that tax ... I am going to be a real beneficiary of your tax cut. Bush: That's good. Tell you mother that.

Bush came off as charming and quick witted. I have only seen part of the movie, but it looks like Pelosi the Younger made an interesting documentary. I also understand from watching her on Hannity and Colmes tonight that the Dems are not happy with her movie.

In other words, I'll probably enjoy watching the rest of it as soon as I have time.

Back to Work

I was in a cubicle farm day for the first time in a bunch of years. Commuting kind of sucks. But considering the alternative, the ever shrinking bank account, I think I'll deal with it.

The other good news, for an early riser such as myself, is that I can work 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. That way I can miss traffic and spend more time with the piglets in the afternoon.

The other part that sucks is that I don't have too much time to surf the net to feed my political junkie habit. I'll have to make due with Special Report with Brit Hume for the the major stuff, and fill in later in the night with Instapundit and The Corner On National Review Online. I'll still read the AJC in the morning, if only to know what the other side is thinking.

Speaking of the crappy local paper, I think I have their rule sorted out for which news they print and in what order: The likelyhood of a story making the front page is in inverse proportion to the degree to which it will help President Bush. Two examples: First, I don't remember reading anything about John Howard's election victory in Australia. Howard is a stanch supporter of Bush and his victory at the polls is a good omen for the President. Sure, there might have been an article, but it was probably buried somewhere and I missed it.

Compare that to the banner headline on the front of Sunday's paper: "Afghan election in turmoil." Bush's plan to spread democracy is working, and these weiners are making a tempest in a teapot.

But, it pretty much goes along with the inverse proportion rule of the AJC. If it were not for the Sports page, I am pretty sure I would not bother.

Darn!

I was offered a contract yesterday for a technical writer position, which my wife told me I had to take. (Tip: The true secret to a long lasting marriage is doing what your wife says). Reluctantly, I will be giving up the carefree life of an unemployed technical writer to live the life in the cubicle fast lane.

The upside is that we will be able to revert to the lifestyle to which we had become accustomed. Which in essence means we will be able to reactivate HBO so I can watch The Wire and hopefully catch up with Six Feet Under.

The downside is that my touch-typing skills will now be devoted more to something that pays. That will probably mean less blogging.

There are a few upcoming events that I am going to be sure to cover. First, the PWers in Atlanta are getting together again to watch the next Presidential debate. If I can have WIFI access, I am thinking about liveblogging our reaction. I'll also be watching the VP debate tonight, if only to see Edwards proposal for a class action suit against of Al Queda. Next up will be election eve.

Later in November, PW will be attending the big protest at Fort Benning at the School of the Americas. Once again, I'll be covering that event and should be able to come up with some interesting video and stills.

Of course, I'll still be posting as the muse requires, but I am not sure how often that is going to work out with my rejoining of the rat race.

Kerry Fails the Global Pop Quiz

I watched the debate last night with some of the Atlanta Protest Warriors. We loved how President Bush nailed Kerry on the "Global Test" thing. I thought this analogy by Kerry was a little odd:

The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.

First, I don't think we had tens of thousands of troops stationed to keep an eye on Mexico during WWII. I certainly know that Mexico was not trying to actively shoot down our airplanes.

More to the point, Kerry's comment betrays a certain lack of knowledge about WWII. True, we were attacked by the Japanese and that led to our entry into the war. Subsequently, Adolph Hitler declared war on the United States.

President Roosevelt made the decision to concentrate our efforts on the defeat of Germany, to the detriment of our effort to avenge Pearl Harbor. The de-prioritization of the Pacific theater also led to some of our worst defeats of the war. Troops that could have been used to defend the Philippines were diverted to the European theater. Ships, airplanes, and Marines were on their way to assist with the defense of Wake Island . They were turned around and Wake was lost, despite the valor of the American troops on the island.

So while it is true that we did not avenge Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico, we did respond by invading North Africa. And Sicily. And Italy. And France.

President Roosevelt realized that we were fighting a global war to make the world safe for the United States of America. That being the case, we had to fight the war not just in a passionate way, but also in a smart way. We had to be able to engage against several enemies at once to achieve the final victory. We did.

President Bush has the same type of global vision. He knows that the war will not end when Osama Bin Lauden is caught (assuming that UBL is still alive). Bush knows the only way to a final victory is to not only confront terrorists, but to call those nations who assist with terror to account:

And not only will we find the terrorists, we will enforce the doctrine that says if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, if you fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist.

John Kerry's argument seems to be that he is upset that the President did what he said he was going to do. I can see how the President not advocating the expedient thing would confuse John Kerry, master of the politically expedient.

There is another two things that Kerry said that demonstrated his lack of understanding of the military. In the first case, Kerry was complaining that we used indigenous troops to attack Tora Bora. In the second, Kerry said he was going to increase the number of Special Forces troops.

It is obvious that Kerry does not understand that one of the major roles of Special Forces is to command indigenous troops. This was done to brilliant effect in our effort in Afghanistan. To quote from "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks:

"Tiger 02, the Special Forces team supporting General Abdul Rashid Dostum (a Northern Alliance commander) - led by a young captain, a seasoned master sergeant, and a lanky sergeant first class, whose noms de guerre were Mark, Paul, and Mike - fought one of the most tactically skillful and courageous small-unit actions in American military history. Facing determined enemy resistance, terrible weather, and mounting casualties among their indigenous troops, these Green Berets used maneuver and air power to destroy an army the Soviets had failed to dislodge with more than half a million men."

You caught the right?

The number of Soviet Troops required to fight an army in Afghanistan and lose: 500,000.

The number of American troops required to fight an army in Afghanistan and win: 3.

The cost of the ignorance of John Kerry on military matters outside the environs of a little boat: Not a price we can afford.

Orange You a Little Vain?

Botox injection gone bad? Did he fall asleep under a tanning lamp? Perhaps the ever in search of nuance Kerry is making the case that the political issues of the day are not black and white, they are shades of orange. Whatever the case, Kerry's campaign has taken on a different tone.

In tribute, I wrote my own lyrics, to the tune of the Oompa-Loompa song for John Kerry:

Oompa Loompa doompadee doo.
I've got another puzzle for you.

Oompa Loompa doompadah dee.
If you are wise you'll listen to me.

What do you get with the orange on your face?
Looking like that in a na-tio-nal race?

If you don't know, then it's time you have heard.
Don't waste your time trying to polish a turd.

Your van-i-ty will look absurd.

Oompa Loompa Doompadee Dah,
November Second is not very far.
You will live in obscurity then,
Like the Oompa,
Oompa Loompa doompadee do.

Now That's a Salute

From the Army web site (orginal link from The Corner at National Review Online):

Seven-year-old Phillip Shriver has a new guardian angel -- a little bear angel with red, white and blue wings, wearing a helmet.

Shriver who has a life threatening illness, leukemia, received the memento during his visit to Fort Riley Sept. 20, from Command Sgt. Maj. James Savitski, 4th Battalion, 1st Field Artillery command sergeant major.

I have kids and one of my daughter's best friends died at age seven from cancer. So I understand the tragedy of childhood cancer and the tough battle these kids fight.

That being said, there is still something humorous in this article, and that is the picture:

The humourous thing? This kid is only seven-years old and still has a better salute than John Kerry.

Scare Tactics

On the front page of today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is a story with the headline "Aerial cameras keep eye on U.S.":

Bethesda, Md. --- In the name of homeland security, America's spy imagery agency is keeping a close eye, close to home. It's watching America.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, about 100 employees of a little-known branch of the Defense Department called the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency --- and some of the country's most sophisticated aerial imaging equipment --- have focused on observing what's going on in the United States.

Oh my God, they could be watching me right now. I wonder to what nefarious purposes these spies have been using their technology? The article gives examples:

For instance, the agency has modified basic maps of the nation's capital to highlight the location of hospitals, linking them to data on the number of beds or the burn unit in each. To secure the Ronald Reagan funeral procession, the agency married aerial photographs and 3D images, allowing security planners to virtually walk, drive or fly through the Simi Valley, Calif., route.

I see, those evil guys are making maps! How dare they use satellites to take pictures to make maps. Where will it end? Privacy of geographical information is not a privilege, it is a right.

Gee, I wonder who we have to thank for bringing this important information to me and the readers of the AJC?:

Steven Aftergood, who oversees a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit watchdog of the impact of politics on science.

The Federation of America Scientists? Oh yes, the liberal group. I guess that explains the front page article on the danger of maps. Apparently, the Steven Aftergood suckered some sympathetic AP reporter into legitimizing another left-wing conspiracy theory.

In other words, never mind.

The Rationalization of John Kerry

The sheer stupidity of John Kerry in justifying his vote to authorize the war in Iraq is an amazing thing to behold:

The reason so many people are confused about his position, Kerry says, is because they interpret his vote, incorrectly, as "a vote to go to war." "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through a process," to give the president leverage at the United Nations and to get the inspectors back into Iraq.

Maybe Kerry was confused by the title of the resolution for which he voted: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". He must have thought the resolution for which he voted was titled "Authorization for the Present to go Through a Process to Give the President Leverage at the United Nations and to get Inspectors Back into Iraq."

If the title confused Kerry, then perhaps he should have read the resolution before he voted for it. Here is one part he should have read (emphasis mine):

a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution also spelled out that if the President went to war, he should report to Congress how he made that determination. What factors should the President use in that report? The President must determine that (emphasis mine):

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

"What about diplomacy?", you say. Here is what the resolution had to say about that:

"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions."

The resolution is very clear: Either Saddam Hussein complies with U.N. Security Council resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 687, 688, and 949 or the President is authorized to go to war. (Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of "all necessary means" to enforce those security council resolutions. So much for the war being "illegal" in terms of international law, by the way). One could even credibly argue, with the compelling conditions for action laid out in the resolution, that President Bush was required to go to war if Saddam Hussein did not comply. Certainly one could see that Congress (and John Kerry) wanted "prompt and decisive action" by the United Nations Security Council.

That was something that the French made clear was never going to happen.

Notice that one never hears or reads of John Kerry or any other liberal mentioning the words "Saddam Hussein" when discussing the authorization of war. The war resolution put the burden of proof on Hussein to demonstrate that he had complied with all of those resolutions. The only way Kerry could argue that the President was not authorized would be to argue that Saddam Hussein had fully complied.

And that would be a even less credible argument than that John Kerry voted only to “go through a process”, not to enforce the multitude of United Nations Security Council Resolutions by going to war.

Kerry's Consistent Iraq Position

Yesterday, Kerry assured reporters of his consistent position on Iraq:

"The vote for authorization is interpreted by a lot of people as a vote to go to war," Mr. Kerry said. "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through the process of going to the U.N., building the allies and then making a judgment of whether we had to go. ... I believe there was a better judgment to make, and I said so all along."

In a dramatic news conference this morning, John Kerry appeared with running mate John Edwards to visually demonstrate Kerry's "consistent" position on Iraq.

The two remained in the pose while fielding questions from reporters.

"Let's see Bush and Cheney top this," said Edwards during the news conference. "George Bush may be able to fly a fighter jet, but John Kerry is very bendy."

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said, "I can hold this position for a long time without breaking a sweat. As I carry the burden of John Edwards, so shall I be able to carry the difficult chore of cleaning up President Bush's mess in Iraq."

"I am both disciplined, flexible, and a Master of the Manchurian art of contortion," said Kerry.

Asked to comment, a senior White House Official privately admits to worry. "Kerry and Edwards have raised the bar for election-year news conferences. The President and Vice President had been practicing a couple of knock-knock jokes, but nothing like this."

The Official further said, "I blame reality shows like American Idol. Americans have gotten used to being entertained in order to earn their vote. Kerry and Edwards might have found a way to tap into that sentiment, and unless the President figures out a way to respond ... I think this election could start swinging the other way."

Hastert Hits The Nail on the Head

Dennis Hastert, Republican Speaker of The House, said this recently about the possibility of Al Queda launching an attack before the election in an attempt to help John Kerry win the Presidential election:

"I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, (but) I would think they would be more apt to go (for) somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops,'' Hastert said of Kerry.

John Edwards, Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate, said this in reply:

"Let me say this in the simplest possible terms: When John Kerry is President of the United States, we will find al-Queda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people,'' Edwards said.

I think both of them are right. Kerry plans to crush Al Queda by filing a class action lawsuit in the World Court against Al Queda. Otherwise, what was the point of the selection of the lightweight trial lawyer as his running mate?