Town of Braintree

THE CENTERPIECE of John Kerry's

Does Kerry's plan include sacrificing Israel?

THE CENTERPIECE of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our help, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this. The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it. He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election. Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations? The answer is obvious: Israel. In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places like Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.
No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in ''Foreign Policy for a Democratic President,'' a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry. ''As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in. . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic President ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq.'' So in a ''new bargain with our allies'' America ''re-engages'' in the ''peace process'' in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do not be fooled by the euphemism ''peace process.'' We know what ''peace process'' meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House ?— a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another ?— in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.
''Re-engage in the peace process'' is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that.


By appearance of a Europhilic fresh

If the victims are politically c


Liberals have gone wild in hate-filled effort to beat Bush

HOW MANY hate crime anecdotes does it take before the mainstream media spot a trend? If the victims are politically correct, all it takes is one or two.
One alleged name-calling. A few alleged acts of vandalism. A suspicious arson here or there. In an instant, an unsubstantiated attack against the right kind of ethnic, racial, religious or sexual minority becomes undisputed evidence of an epidemic of violence. A symbol of rising hate. A national crisis. But what happens when the targets are the wrong kind of victim? What happens when conservatives and Republicans are on the receiving end of discriminatory threats or harassment or worse? Hello, reporters? Is anybody home? Is it my imagination, or do I hear pins dropping in the grievance corners of America?’s otherwise victim-friendly newsrooms?
For the past several weeks, the Internet has been buzzing with story after story of election-related mayhem aimed at Bush/Cheney supporters. Some have downplayed the incidents as run-of-the-mill pranks. Others claim that ?“both sides are doing it?” equally.
We have gone from simple mischief to open-season malice. And the supposedly objective reporters who are always so willing to connect the dots to expose the politics of hate are now whistling past the smashed windows and flaming signs and bullet holes.
In Madison, Wis., someone burned an 8-foot-by-8-foot Nazi swastika on a homeowner?’s lawn, which had been decorated with Bush-Cheney signs. The vandals used grass killer to spray the hate symbol (it?’s OK, Bush-hating trumps environmentalism). Several other homes nearby were vandalized. In Orlando, Fla., Democrats stormed the local Bush/Cheney headquarters, and the ensuing melee resulted in physical injuries to at least two Republican campaign workers. The liberal protesters justified their actions ?— including ramming the head of one of the workers into an office door ?— by blaming President Bush?’s ?“negative campaign.?”
So, the 30-second ads made them do it. It?’s always someone else?’s fault.

On an Alaska-bound flight, a drunken Kerry supporter went ballistic after harassing a female Bush supporter and refusing to calm down at the request of flight attendants. In Gainesville, Fla., police arrested a Democrat accused of punching the chairman of the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee in the face at the town Republican headquarters. The accused, David McCally, also punched a life-sized, cardboard cutout of President George Bush. McCally is a community college instructor whose specialty is social and behavioral sciences.
According to the GOP chairman, Travis Horn, McCally hurled obscenities at him before the assault. ?“He proceeded to say how he had a Ph.D., and he was smarter than me. I?’m a stupid Republican.?” And that, no doubt, is the superior attitude held by media reporters and anti-hate crime advocates and peace preachers and civility pleaders who refuse to acknowledge the totally unhinged tactics of Democrats Gone wild.Liberals promise to do ?“whatever it takes?” ?— ?“by any means necessary?” ?— to win this election. If it were conservatives mouthing those slogans as shattered glass was flying and lawns were smoking, Karl Rove would be under federal investigation. Jimmy Carter would be requesting U.N. assistance. And The New York Times would be calling for a National Day of Reconciliation. A single act of hate is a danger to the Republic, except when it?’s fomented by bug-eyed, rock-throwing, lighter-wielding Kerry/Edwards supporters just exercising their ?“free speech.?”


By Suspicious Arson Here or There

Just Like You Hunted the Viet Co


Just Like You Hunted the Viet Cong?
Kerry?’s dangerous rewrite of history.

In the final days of the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry is desperately attempting to make the case that he, not George W. Bush, can better defend America in the global war against radical Islam and its terrorist tactics. One of Kerry?’s most extraordinary attacks came over the weekend in Colorado, where he told a Pueblo audience, ?“With the same energy . . . I put into going after the Viet Cong and trying to win for our country, I pledge to you I will hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists before they harm us.?”

Huh? The Viet Cong? This is a dangerous rewrite of history.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Joshua Muravchik writes in the Weekly Standard that Kerry met with the two communist delegations to the Paris peace talks on at least two separate occasions, in 1970 and 1971. One delegation was from North Vietnam and the other was the Viet Cong?’s provisional revolutionary government. According to Muravchik, Kerry endorsed the Viet Cong?’s ?“peace plan,?” which was to set a date for American force withdrawal in order to have U.S. POW?’s returned. When back in the states, Kerry cited Viet Cong foreign minister Madame Binh for this extortionate swap.

Kerry was still in uniform in those days. Some believe his disloyal action is the key reason why he didn?’t receive an honorable discharge from the Navy until President Jimmy Carter?’s general amnesty of 1977. Whether or not this last point is true, it is fact that the young naval lieutenant met with the Viet Cong and took their position. Both the New York Times and Washington Post back this up.


Blunders like these are only making George Bush?’s message resonate that much more with voters. When he argues that Kerry doesn?’t understand the global war on terrorism and is not the man to prosecute it, voters are tuned in. Last week in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, with great clarity, Bush again laid out his wartime argument: The threat is real, the battleground is global, and ?“there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory.?”

Kerry only focuses on Osama, who has been holed up in a bunker for the last several years. But when you look at the terrorist attacks on the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca, Tunisia, and Spain ?— four continents in all ?— the globalness of this war becomes very clear. So does the moral clarity of defining good and evil, or separating our friends from our enemies.

Kerry has no policy on the state-sponsored harboring of terrorists. But these states are our enemies, too. Kerry has never understood the Bush doctrine of preemption, which says plainly that if we wait to attack it will be too late.
. In fact, America faces an irregular army that can only be defeated through military means.

Kerry also believes Saddam Hussein?’s Iraq was a diversion. But we have learned from the Duelfer Report that Saddam was using the UN?’s oil-for-food program to bribe officials in France, Germany, Russia, and elsewhere to finance prohibited goods and weapons that would recreate his banned weapons programs. ?“Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agents in a period of months and nerve agents in less than a year or two,?” according to Mort Zuckerman?’s recent column in U.S. News and World Report.

But this is no way to prosecute World War IV, which is really the most accurate context for the current war against Islamic fascism.

Finally, with all his pessimism, Kerry seems incapable of understanding that Bush?’s vision of freedom and democracy on the march is actually working.

You see, George Bush has a vision and a policy. Warts and all, the execution of that policy is moving ahead successfully. When the president says that there must be no uncertainty or weakness, that there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory, the U.S. electorate is listening carefully.


By John Kerry is desperately attemp

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla.,

Lawyers on both sides of the political divide are armed for legal battle leading up to Election Day and thereafter in a state where the lawsuits have already piled up.

Many of the attorneys who were central to the battle for Florida in the protracted 2000 presidential count are back again for the contentious race between President Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry.

Most of the lawsuits filed against the state so far have been by individuals, such as U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., or civil rights organizations on issues of manual recounts on touch-screen machines and incomplete voter registration forms. But the legal teams for Bush and Kerry are ready for a potential showdown after the polls close Nov. 2.

Democrats have trained more than 10,000 lawyers for action, if needed, in Florida and other swing states. An estimated 2,000 Democratic attorneys are expected to be working in the Sunshine State on election issues. Republicans have not released their numbers but have said it will be enough to counter any legal moves by the Democrats.


By manual recounts on touch-screen