« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »
November 11, 2004
Remember Arafat's victims
I'm contemplating the death of Yasser Arafat, a man who first erupted into my consciousness when the Israeli Olympic team was massacred at the '72 Munich games.
Throughout the years, I've learned more and more about the evil deeds done by this man, the duplicity and hatred at his core.
Now that he's gone to Hell, I've been barraged by idiotic news reports, delivered in solemn tones, about the "passing of a statesman."
Jimmy Carter, a man with a fetish for dictators and tyrants so intense it seems almost sexual, said Arafat was "a powerful human symbol and forceful advocate."
Actually, he was a murderer of women and children, a crime boss who raped his own people for decades, an inept "politician" who backed Saddam Hussein, crossed the leaders of Jordan and triggered an all-out assault by the Hashemite Kingdom, and the man who was offered 95 percent of what he wanted and told Pres. Clinton and Prime Minister Barak to get stuffed.
And, although the credulous Carter forgot (alzheimers is the most charitable explanation), Arafat was also directly responsible for the deaths of American diplomat Cleo Noel, Jr., charge d'affaires George Curtis Moore, and Belgian charge d'affaires Guy Eid. Arafat ordered the members of his Black September hit squad to kill the hostages, and they complied, pumping 40 bullets into their bodies.
Arafat is remembered by the sycophants and the toadies to evil as a leader.
Who remembers World War II veteran Amb. Noel?
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:44 PM | TrackBack
November 03, 2004
Gambling in Casablanca? I'm shocked!
Law prof. Ann Althouse, posting at InstaPundit, notes:
MEDIA BIAS IN CALLING THE STATES? Generic Confusion notes: "All close Kerry states are listed as Kerry pickups. All close Bush states are listed as undecided."
Yes, why is Wisconsin called for Kerry already? Only 99.3% of the vote is in with 1,466,963 (49.3%) for Bush and 1,480,256 (49.8%) for Kerry.
I did notice on TV this morning that Fox hadn't called Wisconsin yet. The NYT also hasn't called Wisconsin.
There is a .5 percentage point difference in Wisconsin with .7% of the vote still to count. In Ohio, which is getting so much attention, the percent counted is listed as 100 and Bush has 51.0% over Kerry's 48.5%. That's a 2.5% point lead.
How can anyone call Wisconsin before Ohio and expect to escape charges of bias?
Good question. Any takers?
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:37 AM | TrackBack
It ain't over 'til. . . .
Roger L. Simon was blogging away until the wee hours on the Left Coast.
If the Democrats Protest Ohio...
...the Republican should protest Pennsylvania where the race was closer!
Pennsylvania:
Bush 2,738,850 48.59
Kerry 2,864,124 50.81Ohio:
Bush 2,777,645 - 51 percent
Kerry 2,632,547 - 48 percentPathetic, huh? Time for the Democratic Party to grow up or implode.
The Volokh Conspiracy, the website of UCLA Constitutional Law Prof. Eugene Volokh, points out that the vote isn't really close.
Assuming that there is no way to manufacture new provisional ballots in the next few hours, it appears that Americans were lucky this time that the results in Florida and Ohio were not close. At 4am Wednesday, with 100% of the Ohio precincts reporting, Bush leads Ohio by 145,000 votes (51.1% to 48.4%)--very different from the effective tie in Florida in 2000 (just a few hundred votes difference then). People were so strongly expecting a razor thin result in Ohio that they haven't yet fully adjusted to the fact that it wasn't too close. Wins by more than 2% are completely ordinary and--absent special evidence that I am not privy to--not the sort of situation that should merit special scrutiny.
Hugh Hewitt commented on a candidate who chose to concede early:
Pete Coors is a gentleman. Trailing by less than 50,000 votes out of nearly 1.8 million and with 12% of Colorado's precincts yet to be tallied, Pete nevertheless took a calm look at the numbers and called Ken Salazar to concede. Classy.
Contrast that with Tom Daschle, Tony Knowles and Betty Castor, and of course John Kerry. No reasonable interpretation of the data in any of these races can give any of these candidates a win, but they are hanging on.
This is not the conduct of a great party, but it is also not surprising for the party of Michael Moore. What an example for the new democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps sleep will bring wisdom to this group. Sleep, and a good hard look at what Al Gore has become.
With the pick up of a net four seats in the United States Senate, the GOP is in a position to force votes on the president's judicial nominees. That is the major story for next week, after a concession is wrong from Kerry.
Congratulations President Bush, the first president since his father to carry a pure majority of the popular vote.
Meanwhile the Media lackeys of the Democratic Party are already beginning to lay the blame for this loss where it belongs: on the idiotic electorate. That's right, folks, we're too stooopid to vote for the better candidate. Check out Will Saletan's piece over on Slate:
Simple but Effective: Why you keep losing to this idiot.
In Saletan's defense, the body of the article isn't as ridiculous as the headline, but his mantra of Bush's "simplicity" carries with it the unavoidable subtext that those voters who like said simplicity are too . . . dumb to appreciate the glorious nuance of the horse-faced maroon from Massachusetts.
Memo to Bush haters: He won more than 3.5 million votes more than your guy. You folks have been spewing hateful invective for the last four years about "Selected, not elected," and "Gore won the popular vote."
Gore had a margin of 500,000.
Give it up, will ya?
Ain't democracy grand?
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:53 AM
We're in infarction country
It's 6:18 a.m., PST, and this election has yet to stop my heart.
Which is of interest only to those colleagues who are in the office pool on when this election will send me to the ER.
Not yet, you black-hearted wretches, not yet.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:28 AM
November 01, 2004
Why won't he sign Form 180?
Pres. Bush signed his Form 180, authorizing the release of all his military records, more than a few months ago.
Despite Kerry's claims to the contrary, he has failed to do so, going so far as to tell Tim Russert that no one can say whether Bush is smarter, as he [Kerry] has not released the contents of his military personnel file.
Leaving us to wonder, "What's he afraid of us finding out?"
Could it be this?
What exactly has the main stream media been doing for the past year?
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:13 AM