Language so slanted it's pretty much vertical.
I don't like John Kerry, but if Bush's regime hates him this much...well, hell, the New York Post has just about bought him my vote.
(Mrs.) Kerry's Cash Connection
March 9, 2004 -- To hear some folks tell it, families of the 9/11 victims have risen en masse to denounce President Bush for using brief images from Ground Zero in his campaign commercials.
Let me preface this by saying that I lost no one in the 9/11 attacks, but as an American, I was profoundly affected by those attacks. I figure he's got to worry about offending us non-family members, too.
We have no doubt that the use of the images is appropriate - given that the president's leadership in the wake of 9/11, and his conduct of the War on Terror, are under drumbeat assault by John Kerry and the Democrats.
1) What they mean to say is, "Attention all sheep: the use of 9/11 images is appropriate in Bush's campaign." Who are "we," exactly? "We at the NY Post"? It implies "we as Americans," doesn't it? Count me out of this "we" shit, kimosabe.
2) Damn right his leadership [sic] and conduct are under assault. Bush has plundered our economy, pissed off all of our allies (TWICE, since everybody he pissed off before 9/11 suddenly became our buddy again right then), and is still killing two Americans every day in Iraq. (And has anybody heard anything significant about Afghanistan lately? Of course not. All anyone talks about is Kerry's possible extramarital affairs, Bush's stellar Vietnam record, and gay marriage thing. The latter of which, certainly, is important, but you know Bush is only hanging on to it so he has something to talk about when people remind him that the Afghanistan mission failed.)
I acknowledge that Bush is indeed under attack, but I don't see how that gives him the right use the greatest tragedy I've ever witnessed as a personal bullshit shield.
But now it turns out that this whole furor is driven by a group that's motivated by a far-left agenda and a festering hatred of the president - and has some quite dubious financial ties.
Actually, "festering hatred" is how I would describe my feelings about the President, too. Not to mention the gay lobby's feelings, VA beneficiaries' feelings, non-Christians' feelings, and the feelings of most unemployed people, I would imagine. To say nothing of the families of those dead Persian Gulf vets.
I also wouldn't call the Kerrys "dubious," nor would I apply that title to some of the groups mentioned below.
Leading the rhetorical charge has been an outfit called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows - which, the group admits, has only a few dozen members and represents relatives of no more than 1 percent of the 9/11 victims.
"Rhetorical," as in a question that need not be answered. Nice.
Let's talk about that 1% number. This writer actually might have helped his story if he did his homework. One percent of 2,824 victims (as listed on the September 11 Victims site) makes 282 families, which is a good number of lobbyists, as far as I'm concerned, especially when one considers the relevance of their opinions regarding what is and is not offensive material in this case.
Peaceful Tomorrows actually represents 120 families, less than half of what the NY Post gives them credit for. (I'd still call that more than "a few dozen," though.) Nevertheless, let's do some math:
Let's assume that the Average American FamilyTM consists of two parents and 2.5 kids. (Sure, some families are smaller, but some families, like mine, are much, much bigger, and this doesn't count extended families.) That means each family equals 4.5 people, minus one 9/11 victim, for 3.5 people per family. So we're talking about a lobby of 420 people, which is only 15 people shy of the total number of people in Congress.
More to the point, the group was formed specifically to oppose the entire War on Terror: Not just the campaign against Saddam Hussein, but also the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Well, yeah. "Peaceful alternatives to violence." These are people who figure that if terrorism breeds in an environment of international bullying, then the way to keep other families from being victimized by terrorism is to stop the cycle of violence that creates terrorists. Simple enough.
Indeed, the group's leaders traveled to Afghanistan, drawing a detestable moral equivalence between the 9/11 attacks and U.S. bombing of the Taliban and opposing "violent responses to terrorism."
"A detestable moral equivalence" indeed. After being abandoned by the CIA, the al-Qaeda retaliates by killing thousands of innocent Americans. Then, in retaliation for the September 11th attacks, the American military bombs the hell out of Afghanistan. Not just the al-Qaeda cells, either. Dubya declares victory after the Taliban is taken down, but they weren't the ones who planned and executed the attack. Those people, the al-Qaeda, were never completely eliminated,and Osama bin Laden is still at large. Let us not forget that important point, kids.
The strongest blow inflicted to the al-Qaeda wasn't even military. It happened in the financial sector, when all sorts of al-Qaeda assets and shell charities were frozen. (Assuming, of course, that those were in fact shells, and not legitimate Islamic charities who were being persecuted by a zealot for following the wrong god. I, a mere civilian, might never know for sure.)
Then, before the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom...
That name still makes me chuckle. "Iraqi Freedom." Bringing freedom to Iraq. Yeah.
...a Peaceful Tomorrows delegation went to Baghdad to "demonstrate solidarity" with Iraqis - a move that Saddam's deputy, Tariq Aziz, termed at the time "a very important international development."
Well, sure, that whole "alternatives to violence" thing. This article seems to assume that the war in Iraq was to further the "war on terror," which I discount entirely. I should point out that a certain "focus group" (read: millions of anti-war protesters who marched on February 15th of last year) seem to agree with me.
And of course, you might remember that as the deadline drew near, the Iraqis were bending over backwards to make the Americans happy. Happy enough to call off the dogs, anyway.
They [Peaceful Tomorrows] also demanded that Congress set up a $20 million fund to compensate Afghan "victims" of the U.S. military.
I am of the belief that the only "victims" should have been the al-Qaeda network and their allies. And by "their allies," I mean "the Taliban, and possibly other terrorist networks," not "every Afghan ever." And certainly not "Iraq, Syria, Iran, and whoever happens to be sitting on too much oil." However, since there were victims other than terrorists, this fund would be a good step toward reconstruction.
And back in January 2003, the group said had it had gotten a "verbal commitment" to the fund proposal from the junior senator from Massachusetts - John F. Kerry.
Little surprise there - because Peaceful Tomorrows' parent group, the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation, has received millions from foundations controlled by Kerry's heiress wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
And so we see the dubious connections: the Democratic Presidential candidate, and his wife, the ketchup heiress. *dramatic musical sting* Peaceful Tomorrows denies the connection to the Tides Foundation, as far as I can tell, but I may have just missed it.
A spokesman for Kerry insists that her donations to Tides were earmarked specifically for environmental charities based in Pennsylvania. But money is fungible--and the Tides Foundation has a lot more than greening the earth on its plate.
*dramatic sting again!*
It has given millions to anti-war groups since 9/11 - particularly the extremist MoveOn.org.
Extremist? MoveOn.org seems to be a group who knows that we're all being lied to, and is trying (and failing, in the case of their Super Bowl commercials) to educate the masses. Apparently, "extremist" means "anyone who questions the President's asshat policies."
As an aside, I should point out that war generally does little to keep the Earth green.
Tides has also funded groups like United for a Fair Economy, which has been involved in violent anti-globalization street protests.
Is sounds to me like any violence was self-fulfilling prophecy, and this article admits that the violence was still less than they expected.
For example, the Ruckus Society, which was largely responsible for the anarchy in Seattle in 1999 and trains would-be environmental terrorists in the practice of "monkey-wrenching" - the willful destruction of construction equipment and so on.
Tides gets much of its funds from philanthropists like Mrs. Kerry and billionaire George Soros - who has made defeating President Bush his top personal priority.
Is it me, or did they just gloss over any sort of connection between United for a Fair Economy (which sounds like a legit group to me, honestly) and the Ruckus Society (which is by all accounts--including their own--a group of trouble-makers)? The Common Dreams article I referenced earlier calls them an "unlikely coalition," thrown together in a mass protest against the war and against unfair economic policies. But that's more connection than this editorial gives them.
As Richard Berman, director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, told Congress in 2002: "The Tides Foundation distributes other foundations' money, while shielding the identity of the actual donors."
Call it charitable money-laundering.
That may well be, but since Peaceful Tomorrows denied any link to the Tides Foundation, then it doesn't matter what Tides is doing. I really wish I could find some evidence, one way or another, on this. Not only does this editorial not link these groups together to my satisfaction, it gives no evidence to support the slander it's dishing out.
This, then, is the fringe crowd that declares itself "offended" by the Bush ads.
They're people who are offended by anything this president does - and they are working hard to put John Kerry in the White House.
Remember that the next time you hear a news report about "widespread popular outrage."
Want the opinion of a group with less obvious political motivations than the ones listed above? How about this one? (Here's the text direct from the IAFF resolution, in pdf format and unfortunately stanted by virtue of being hosted on Kerry's website.)
And, y'know, me. An American voter.
(Mrs.) Kerry's Cash Connection
March 9, 2004 -- To hear some folks tell it, families of the 9/11 victims have risen en masse to denounce President Bush for using brief images from Ground Zero in his campaign commercials.
Let me preface this by saying that I lost no one in the 9/11 attacks, but as an American, I was profoundly affected by those attacks. I figure he's got to worry about offending us non-family members, too.
We have no doubt that the use of the images is appropriate - given that the president's leadership in the wake of 9/11, and his conduct of the War on Terror, are under drumbeat assault by John Kerry and the Democrats.
1) What they mean to say is, "Attention all sheep: the use of 9/11 images is appropriate in Bush's campaign." Who are "we," exactly? "We at the NY Post"? It implies "we as Americans," doesn't it? Count me out of this "we" shit, kimosabe.
2) Damn right his leadership [sic] and conduct are under assault. Bush has plundered our economy, pissed off all of our allies (TWICE, since everybody he pissed off before 9/11 suddenly became our buddy again right then), and is still killing two Americans every day in Iraq. (And has anybody heard anything significant about Afghanistan lately? Of course not. All anyone talks about is Kerry's possible extramarital affairs, Bush's stellar Vietnam record, and gay marriage thing. The latter of which, certainly, is important, but you know Bush is only hanging on to it so he has something to talk about when people remind him that the Afghanistan mission failed.)
I acknowledge that Bush is indeed under attack, but I don't see how that gives him the right use the greatest tragedy I've ever witnessed as a personal bullshit shield.
But now it turns out that this whole furor is driven by a group that's motivated by a far-left agenda and a festering hatred of the president - and has some quite dubious financial ties.
Actually, "festering hatred" is how I would describe my feelings about the President, too. Not to mention the gay lobby's feelings, VA beneficiaries' feelings, non-Christians' feelings, and the feelings of most unemployed people, I would imagine. To say nothing of the families of those dead Persian Gulf vets.
I also wouldn't call the Kerrys "dubious," nor would I apply that title to some of the groups mentioned below.
Leading the rhetorical charge has been an outfit called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows - which, the group admits, has only a few dozen members and represents relatives of no more than 1 percent of the 9/11 victims.
"Rhetorical," as in a question that need not be answered. Nice.
Let's talk about that 1% number. This writer actually might have helped his story if he did his homework. One percent of 2,824 victims (as listed on the September 11 Victims site) makes 282 families, which is a good number of lobbyists, as far as I'm concerned, especially when one considers the relevance of their opinions regarding what is and is not offensive material in this case.
Peaceful Tomorrows actually represents 120 families, less than half of what the NY Post gives them credit for. (I'd still call that more than "a few dozen," though.) Nevertheless, let's do some math:
Let's assume that the Average American FamilyTM consists of two parents and 2.5 kids. (Sure, some families are smaller, but some families, like mine, are much, much bigger, and this doesn't count extended families.) That means each family equals 4.5 people, minus one 9/11 victim, for 3.5 people per family. So we're talking about a lobby of 420 people, which is only 15 people shy of the total number of people in Congress.
More to the point, the group was formed specifically to oppose the entire War on Terror: Not just the campaign against Saddam Hussein, but also the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Well, yeah. "Peaceful alternatives to violence." These are people who figure that if terrorism breeds in an environment of international bullying, then the way to keep other families from being victimized by terrorism is to stop the cycle of violence that creates terrorists. Simple enough.
Indeed, the group's leaders traveled to Afghanistan, drawing a detestable moral equivalence between the 9/11 attacks and U.S. bombing of the Taliban and opposing "violent responses to terrorism."
"A detestable moral equivalence" indeed. After being abandoned by the CIA, the al-Qaeda retaliates by killing thousands of innocent Americans. Then, in retaliation for the September 11th attacks, the American military bombs the hell out of Afghanistan. Not just the al-Qaeda cells, either. Dubya declares victory after the Taliban is taken down, but they weren't the ones who planned and executed the attack. Those people, the al-Qaeda, were never completely eliminated,and Osama bin Laden is still at large. Let us not forget that important point, kids.
The strongest blow inflicted to the al-Qaeda wasn't even military. It happened in the financial sector, when all sorts of al-Qaeda assets and shell charities were frozen. (Assuming, of course, that those were in fact shells, and not legitimate Islamic charities who were being persecuted by a zealot for following the wrong god. I, a mere civilian, might never know for sure.)
Then, before the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom...
That name still makes me chuckle. "Iraqi Freedom." Bringing freedom to Iraq. Yeah.
...a Peaceful Tomorrows delegation went to Baghdad to "demonstrate solidarity" with Iraqis - a move that Saddam's deputy, Tariq Aziz, termed at the time "a very important international development."
Well, sure, that whole "alternatives to violence" thing. This article seems to assume that the war in Iraq was to further the "war on terror," which I discount entirely. I should point out that a certain "focus group" (read: millions of anti-war protesters who marched on February 15th of last year) seem to agree with me.
And of course, you might remember that as the deadline drew near, the Iraqis were bending over backwards to make the Americans happy. Happy enough to call off the dogs, anyway.
They [Peaceful Tomorrows] also demanded that Congress set up a $20 million fund to compensate Afghan "victims" of the U.S. military.
I am of the belief that the only "victims" should have been the al-Qaeda network and their allies. And by "their allies," I mean "the Taliban, and possibly other terrorist networks," not "every Afghan ever." And certainly not "Iraq, Syria, Iran, and whoever happens to be sitting on too much oil." However, since there were victims other than terrorists, this fund would be a good step toward reconstruction.
And back in January 2003, the group said had it had gotten a "verbal commitment" to the fund proposal from the junior senator from Massachusetts - John F. Kerry.
Little surprise there - because Peaceful Tomorrows' parent group, the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation, has received millions from foundations controlled by Kerry's heiress wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
And so we see the dubious connections: the Democratic Presidential candidate, and his wife, the ketchup heiress. *dramatic musical sting* Peaceful Tomorrows denies the connection to the Tides Foundation, as far as I can tell, but I may have just missed it.
A spokesman for Kerry insists that her donations to Tides were earmarked specifically for environmental charities based in Pennsylvania. But money is fungible--and the Tides Foundation has a lot more than greening the earth on its plate.
*dramatic sting again!*
It has given millions to anti-war groups since 9/11 - particularly the extremist MoveOn.org.
Extremist? MoveOn.org seems to be a group who knows that we're all being lied to, and is trying (and failing, in the case of their Super Bowl commercials) to educate the masses. Apparently, "extremist" means "anyone who questions the President's asshat policies."
As an aside, I should point out that war generally does little to keep the Earth green.
Tides has also funded groups like United for a Fair Economy, which has been involved in violent anti-globalization street protests.
Is sounds to me like any violence was self-fulfilling prophecy, and this article admits that the violence was still less than they expected.
For example, the Ruckus Society, which was largely responsible for the anarchy in Seattle in 1999 and trains would-be environmental terrorists in the practice of "monkey-wrenching" - the willful destruction of construction equipment and so on.
Tides gets much of its funds from philanthropists like Mrs. Kerry and billionaire George Soros - who has made defeating President Bush his top personal priority.
Is it me, or did they just gloss over any sort of connection between United for a Fair Economy (which sounds like a legit group to me, honestly) and the Ruckus Society (which is by all accounts--including their own--a group of trouble-makers)? The Common Dreams article I referenced earlier calls them an "unlikely coalition," thrown together in a mass protest against the war and against unfair economic policies. But that's more connection than this editorial gives them.
As Richard Berman, director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, told Congress in 2002: "The Tides Foundation distributes other foundations' money, while shielding the identity of the actual donors."
Call it charitable money-laundering.
That may well be, but since Peaceful Tomorrows denied any link to the Tides Foundation, then it doesn't matter what Tides is doing. I really wish I could find some evidence, one way or another, on this. Not only does this editorial not link these groups together to my satisfaction, it gives no evidence to support the slander it's dishing out.
This, then, is the fringe crowd that declares itself "offended" by the Bush ads.
They're people who are offended by anything this president does - and they are working hard to put John Kerry in the White House.
Remember that the next time you hear a news report about "widespread popular outrage."
Want the opinion of a group with less obvious political motivations than the ones listed above? How about this one? (Here's the text direct from the IAFF resolution, in pdf format and unfortunately stanted by virtue of being hosted on Kerry's website.)
And, y'know, me. An American voter.