Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

From the Fox News website:

Kerry accuses the president of flip-flopping on the reasons for war and lacking a plan for its aftermath. But Kerry's been accused of flip-flopping for opposing the war that he originally voted to authorize. He said on ABC's Good Morning America his position is clear.

“Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple,” Kerry said.

But before and after Kerry voted in favor of war authorization, he repeatedly called Saddam a threat based on intelligence. Later, he opposed $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. Kerry knows he must better explain this gaffe.

“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” Kerry said in Huntington, W.Va., on March 16.

To GMA, he said: “I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly.”

Except it wasn't a late-night rally, it was 1:20 in the afternoon.

Hey, Kerry! Time for a new career!

Never Green

It always perplexes me that "celebrities" read leftist talking points in either the L.A. Times, the New York Times, or hear them from leading Deomcrats, without taking time to do any actual research, reading just one article and believing it to be gospel.

Such is the case with Barbra Streisand on her website. Here are some of her nuggets of "fact":

#1 ...if you choose to air a story about George Bush's military service, or lack thereof, like CBS did last week, you and your award winning news anchor, get investigated by the FCC.

#2 Never mind that CBS's story included substantive and uncontested evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a required physical that grounded him from flying, and that he mysteriously received an honorable discharge.

#3 Ben Barnes, former lieutenant governor of Texas, admitted that he pulled strings to get Bush into the National Air Guard.

#4 And in contrast to Senator John Kerry, who said "send me" when given the option to go to Vietnam, according to the LA Times, when asked the same question, Bush checked the box stating "do not volunteer for overseas."

#5 Bush... continued his fishing vacation on the day he received a briefing about the impending attack, and was completely inactive and indecisive for a full 7 minutes the morning of 9/11 when informed of the attack on the World Trade Center.

#6 It is difficult for the country to stay properly informed when we are constantly being fed half truths and lies of omission by the current administration. Every time they send a representative out to speak to the public, he is armed with the same set of message points and catch phrases creating an echo effect. After hearing the same message over and over again, the public begins to believe their words, whether they are true or not.

Let's address these:

#1: The documents are forgeries. Get over it.

#2: Bush showed up, earned 942 points out of a needed 300 for his six-year run; didn't need a physical since he wasn't going to be flying; mysteriously received an honorable discharge? Oliver Stone would be proud.

#3: Barnes later recanted, and told his family the exact opposite.

#4: According to the book Unfit For Command, Kerry asked for 4 deferrments.

#5: The briefing was just that, a Presidential Daily Brief, not a Threat Assessment. And what did Kerry do? According to him, he was "unable to think" for 40 minutes.

#6: Sound like she just described the Democrats.

Screw celebrities. And the liberals they rode in on.

Soros Spelled Backwards is Soros

Wow. It's amazing what George Soros has done. A billionaire with nothing to do but bash Bush. His full "speech" is here, but I'd like to respond to some highlights:

September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction.

If people would actually take the time and check, Bush said that to other countries, not to the people of America.

But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society.

Um, yes it does. What are we supposed to use, harsh language? This is not about offering the other cheek. This is about showing that if you push, we push back.

There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq.

I'd like Soros, along with the other lefties, to explain why we haven't been hit in 3 years. It does not seem possible to them that, maybe, just maybe, our Homeland Security is working, that alleged al-Qaida cells in the U.S. may have disbanded. And I'll keep repeating this until it sticks: after 9/11, we could not afford the chance that another country would hit us.

President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are - a freedom loving people - not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.

And how, exactly, does Soros think we achieved our freedom? We're free, they're not, end of story. Soros believes that it's policy to torture prisoners. First of all, there was no torture. Underwear on the head is different than cutting off heads. It's psychological. God forbid we should actually make the terrorists feel bad.

(Bush's) campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war.

Well, look at the Democrats. They continuously repeat false allegations, and the public, hearing it day in and day out from the media, begin to regurgitate it. How else to explain letters to the L.A. Times with every other anti-war individual calling Iraq a "quagmire", a word they've maybe used once before in their lives, probably when they first read it and were trying to pronounce it.

The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. ... The arms inspections and sanctions were working.

Unbelievable. "Sanctions were working?" After 12 years?

We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established.

The reasons, then and now, were clear. Give up what you've got, or we're coming in. No stockpiles found, but evidence of manufacturing. There's ample proof of Al Qaida-Iraq connections.

By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law.

A "second" UN resolution? Try 14.

Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.

It's called war, genius. It's not pretty. These troops are there to protect us. They've dedicated their life to protecting this country. They volunteered. Many are even re-enlisting. Yet, it seems, the Democrats keep saying Bush will re-instate the draft. So who just brought it up?

President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there.

Amazing. That's your explanation? "Differently?" There's a man with a plan.

Troops are dying, Iraq is unstable. There's no question there. But as much as Soros and his ilk like to say Bush is using 9/11 for his own gain, they seem to forget EXACTLY what happened on September 11, 2001. We were attacked on our own turf. We were vulnerable. We could be hit again. So let's take out the bad guys before they take us out.

It's a simple plan.

The Last Word On Star Wars

For the past few weeks, I've been hearing numerous complaints about the Star Wars Trilogy changes. When George Lucas tweaked them back in 1997, people complained. Star Wars geeks, of which, I must confess, I am in the lower end, complained about the Han/Greedo confrontation. In 1977, Han shoots Greedo first. Dead. In 1997, Greedo shoots, Han ducks, then shoots Greedo. Dead. What's wrong? Aside from a bad effect of digitally moving Han's head a few inches to the side, it went against Han's character. He's a pirate.

There were plenty of other tweaks to Empire and Jedi, some minor, some major, some improvements, some just plain stupid. But that's Lucas' perogative, to change things to make them, in his mind, better. People seem to forget Lucas started tweaking in 1978, when he re-released the film to theaters and changed the title of Star Wars to Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope.

Some have complained that these are not the films we grew up with, that Lucas has an "obligation" to release the originals in their original form. Well, I have one thing to say to that: WHO CARES?

Here are some examples of why I say that: When Lawrence Of Arabia was released in 1962, an entire reel was printed backwards, so that Lawrence and his guide are going the wrong way across the desert. In 1989, it was re-released, with the film flipped the correct way, and with added scenes re-dubbed by the actors. When Jaws was released on DVD a few years ago, the sound was remixed to Dolby Digital, and some sound effects were changed. Same thing with Superman. Longer cut, improved sound effects. And again, a few months ago, with the Indiana Jones Trilogy. Better prints, improved sound, and a snake's reflection in glass removed.

With Jaws, Superman, and the Indy Trilogy, these were not the same films I grew up with. But does it matter? NO! They were improved to match the the technology that's available today. Same with Lawrence. I was not around in 1962, but the film won Best Picture. Does the "tweaking" of a revered favorite and classic diminish our remembrance of the "untweaked" version? I think not. It made the film better. How many times have people said, "I wish such-and-such film would be released with improved sound and a better picture?"

Obviously, people can argue the merits of Lucas' changes, whether they made the films better or worse. But, imagine if Lucas did release the Star Wars Trilogy in it's original form. They would still not be the films I grew up with. They would have cleaner prints. They would have improved sound, better than what was available in 1977, 1980, and 1983. They would be different than what we saw and heard in the theaters!

Bottom line: I like 98% of the changes. A few are too digital, but that's what Lucas depends on now. I see them as the Ultimate Editions. Rumor has it he might want to tweak them again in another 5 years, for a different technology. Other than making them available as a chip we can plant in our head, can he really change the essence of the films, where the fight is the basic good vs. evil, and the films are just pure fun? No. They're still fun, and they'll always be fun.

And regardless of how crappy we feel Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones are, we'll all be there, May 15, 2005, waiting to see Anakin become Vader.

And we'll be as excited as ten-year-olds. Again.

The Geniuses Upstairs

So Canada decides to build a monument to draft dodgers. What's next? NAMBLA giving the Molester Of The Millenium Award to Michael Jackson? John Lee Malvo on the cover of Guns & Ammo? Michael Moore as the new spokesman for SlimFast? War Vet John Kerry as a Vietnam sympathizer? Oh, wait.......

Isn't It Ironic? Don't Ja Think?

From the Washington Times:

During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

No comment necessary.

Normally, I Don't Like Blondes, But...

I do like Ann Coulter. Generally, there aren't a lot of Republicans that rant and rave like Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, or Howard Dean, but Coulter could be the equivalent. The thing is, she's usually right:

Regarding Bad Rather's Memogate master, Bill Burkett: According to USA Today, an interview with Burkett ended when he "suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair" – an exit strategy Dan Rather has been eyeing hungrily all week, I'm sure.

What's not to like?

Waiter, There's a Fly In My Ketchup

From MSNBC:

NEW YORK - Sen. John Kerry said Monday that mistakes by President Bush in invading Iraq could lead to unending war and that no responsible commander in chief would have waged the war knowing Saddam Hussein didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction and wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

“Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?” Kerry said at New York University.

At the fear of repeating myself: we've found EVIDENCE of WMD, there are no STOCKPILES. Saddam would not tell us what he had and where it was. 12 years and 14 resolutions later, still nothing. There's the possiblity he moved the stuff during the build-up to war. There is absolute fact he gassed Kurds. 300,000 in mass graves. He sees Al-Qaida attack America, probably thinks he can do the same. We, in a post-9/11 world, could not take that chance. Nevermind the fact that regime change in Iraq began with Clinton, nevermind that the rest of the world, along with Kerry himself, believed Saddam had WMD. And, of course, since when do we let a threat go until it becomes "imminent"?

Thank God, President Bush responded:

“Today my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind,” Bush said at a rally in Derry, N.H. “He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, no, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he would have voted for force even knowing everything we know today.”

Kerry said Monday, “Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no because a commander in chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.”

There's plenty of evidence of Iraq ties to Al-Qaida, but let's ignore that, shall we, Mr. Kerry?

Once again, President Bush:

“Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power and not in prison,” Bush said. “He’s saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy.

“I couldn’t disagree more, and not so long ago, so did my opponent,” Bush told an audience of supporters. Bush quoted Kerry as saying recently, “Those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.”

By the way, here's a little "oops" from MSNBC: Kerry said Bush’s two main rationales — weapons of mass destruction and a connection between al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 attacks — have been proven false by weapons inspectors and the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks.

First, Al-Qaida WAS behind 9/11. Second, If they meant Iraq and 9/11, the president NEVER SAID there was a connection, and neither did the commission. The connection was between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

To top all this, Teresa Heinz Kerry calls her critics "scumbags," and the New Yorker APOLOGIZES for her by saying "I doubt that she knows the literal meaning of 'scumbag,' but perhaps, after forty years in America, nearly thirty of them as a political wife, observing how the flaws and contradictions of a personality as complex as hers are melted down for ammunition by the other side, she should have learned it."

And these people want to run the U.S. A ketchup bottle in every cupboard.

Pizza Delivered Late? Blame Bush! Milk Go Sour? Blame Bush!

From a L.A. Times reader:

How can you print a story on the horrific rapes of women in Sudan and not mention the damage done by George Bush reinstating the gag rule? These poor women and girls cannot receive information about abortion from any clinic that recevies U.S. funds. How many Sudanese girls and women are forced to go through with a pregnancy resulting from rape? They can thank Bush and his mythical quest to promote women's rights in the Mideast.

Oh, I see. Sudanese women can't have abortions, so blame Bush. Okay.

And David Shaw, in Media Matters, L.A. Times, tries to sound neutral and say that he's sick of the Vietnam talk about Bush and Kerry, and how they should talk about what they're going to do about our future. While I agree with Shaw that we should drop the Vietnam stuff, it's hard to when Kerry won't stop talking about it.

Shaw says he doesn't care about Bush's "preferential" Guard treatment. He also doesn't care what Kerry said about throwing his ribbons/medals, or "what he said about the atrocities committed by other U.S. troops in Vietnam." He hope's the stories are not about revealing the individual's "character." He says "...a public official's official behavior is far more revealing, and far more relevant, that his sexual behavior", referring, of course, to dress-stainer Clinton. But here's the fact, Mr. Shaw: Clinton lied under oath, trying to define what "is" is. And if Kerry lied about atrocities, making it seem as if every squadron had its My Lai massacre, then that absolutely reveals something about Kerry's Kerracter.

Plus, I love the fact that Shaw tries to pass himself off as an independent, almost as if he's "looking out for you" in his coverage of the media's coverage. But every time, he let's his bias show:

"Nor do any of Bush's or Kerry's words or deeds in the days before either held public office tell me anything useful about how they will end the war in Iraq, pursue a reasonable foreign policy elsewhere (elsewhere? well, duh) or try to improve the nation's troubled economy, it's health-care crisis..."

First, Kerry coninued to vote against anything helping our military for years. Bush had 9/11, and could not take the chance of anyone buliding to a threat. Second, aren't the policy, economy (which is doing well, thank you) and the health-care comments the talking point of the Victicrats... I mean, Democrats?

Just asking....

Less Moore = Moore Lessons

CSU San Marcos has called off Michael Moore's speaking engagement. University Pres. Karen Haynes said she didn't want to spend money on partisan politics, so the students are raising the $35,000 fee for Moore to show up. She also said there was not enough time to find a balancing viewpoint. Moore feels the "balancing" viewpoint is a smokescreen, because he's offered to help CSU San Marcos find a conservative. He now plans to sue if they don't let him speak.

First off, what is Michael Moore-pancakes doing charging $35 grand to speak to a bunch of students who are probably leaning his way to begin with (and I don't mean to gravitational pull, either)? I thought he was a man of the people. I guess only when the people pay him.

Go Jump A Clift

Eleanor Clift distorts again.

George W. Bush's proven failure to fulfill his National Guard duties was widely reported, but because of CBS's flawed journalism, the GOP was able to shift the story away from Bush's credibility to Dan Rather's.

Proven failure? Is this based on falsified documents, Terry Macullife (forgive spelling, I just don't care) saying Bush was AWOL, or Michael Moore calling Bush a deserter? He was honorably discharged.

Dan Rather is not God. He does make mistakes. And he made a HUGE one in not completely verifying his sources and story. But what gets me is Rather crying and whining about people getting their news from sources other than himself and NBC or ABC. God forbid people should use the internet for something other than Amazon orders or porn. Yes, Dan, there are other informed people in America.

"It really scares me when members of Congress begin to publicly talk about holding an investigation into how a journalist does his job," says Bill Kovach, veteran newsman and founder of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. The First Amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law" when it comes to abridging freedom of religion or expression, or freedom of the press. "What if Congress began an investigation into what the Catholic church does," Kovach says to make his point on how wildly inappropriate Cox's action is.

The word, boys and girls, is context. Is Congress in the process of making a law? No. The rantings of the left continue:

The controversy over the memos overshadowed what is known about Bush's Guard service, or lack thereof. First, Bush needed political pull to land a coveted spot in the Texas Guard. Former Texas House speaker Ben Barnes, a Democrat, told Rather that he helped Bush at the request of a Bush family friend, that he did it for countless other well-connected young men and that he regretted it.

He then later recanted.... but of course, that doesn't fit with what she wants to say.

Secondly, we know Bush didn't show up in Alabama when he was supposed to. There's a $50,000 reward for anybody who can vouch for him, and nobody has stepped forward. Third, The Boston Globe revealed that Bush never reported for Guard duty in Boston as promised when he attended Harvard Business School. Lastly, Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox, says the content of the disputed memos is true even if the memos were forged.

OK. The 50 grand is from Garry Trudeau. You know, that ultra-conservative writer (joke). Marian Knox is older than Yoda, but not as smart. She remembers exactly what the memos said 30 years ago? Bush has said he served honorably, the same thing he said about Kerry. What else is necessary? Kerry continues to screw himself up by remembering things that are seared - seared - into his memory, then changing his story as he sees fit.

But that's just my opinion.

Not A Memetic Poly-Alloy

Little John Connor, aka Eddie Furlong (T-2, American History X) was arrested in Kentucky Wednesday for trying to free some lobsters from a supermarket lobster tank. The citation said that Furlong, an animal-rights acitivist and vegetarian, was "unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and his breath smelled of alcohol."

Lobsters have a right to be dipped in clarified butter. We all know that. And I thought being a vegetarian was a fad.

George Carlin used to say that if lobsters looked like puppies, we'd have a hard time dropping them in the boiling water. I disagree. If it looked like puppy, and tasted like lobster, bon appetito!

The Tolerant, Compassionate Party

A 3-year-old girl was made to cry by those loving, caring Kerry/Edwards supporters. It warms the heart to know that the left loves free speech, but can't tolerate a sign that has names they don't like.

The old saying, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged" should also add, "and grew up."

Welcome

The new home of the O-Pine Zone. Those who know me, welcome back. Those who don't, welcome.

Given that this is an election year, I will try to do my best to bring you the rants of the left, the Janus mask called John Kerry, the good, bad, and ugly of this race, and the missteps of the Republicans. Yes, I am a Republican, and a conservative.

I believe in small government and personal responsiblity. I listen to Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Bill O' Reilly, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, Tammy Bruce, and Capt. Dale Dye, and time permitting, Al Rantel and Hugh Hewitt.

I will also bring attention to the absurd of the day, the lack of common sense, the occasional musings on life, a possible DVD review on Fridays, and also Movie reviews, if they're worth reviewing.

Anyone is free to agree or disagree with me. I will never say I have all the answers, because I never will.

Facts rule the day. Truth is a wonderful thing. And my opinion matters, because it belongs to me.

That's why this is the O-Pine Zone. Because, at the end of the day, that's all I'm doing. I'm not trying to change the world, I'm just giving it a little tweak.

~S