Monday, July 12, 2004


The 'dead cat bounce' has Democrats crying in their Volvos

Turn that frown upside down... Lack of bounce might mean Edwards is out

Washington, July 12 - Democrats are gnashing their teeth, fretting over losing what could have been. "Where's our bounce?" has been the plaintive wail from Boston to Berkeley. Despite the inevitable conspiracy theories, sickened Democrats are blaming John Edwards for the 'dead cat bounce.' Now there are cries for John Kerry to dump Edwards and pick a new vice presidential candidate before the election.

"We need to punch up the ticket," said an unnamed former Missouri Congressman. "We need someone who served in the House even longer than the amount of time that John Kerry has been a senator. Democrats love government and those who govern." It seems that Democrats have a bit of buyer's remorse when it comes to their initial enthusiasm over Edwards. One Democrat voter who lives on Manhattan's Upper West Side said, "I think I speak for all Americans when I say that the Bush Administration manipulated us into wanting Kerry to pick Edwards. Since when do we like shallow, good looking, inexperienced, personal injury lawyers? I think Bush fooled around with the polls that asked Democrats who they wanted for vice president. Is it too late for ask for the man we really want? Bring back Howard Dean, please!"

Morale at the DNC is low. Terry McAuliffe refused to comment on what the lack of a poll bounce means for the Democratic ticket. Donna Brazile thought she knew why the ticket hasn't caught fire. "John Kerry is an elitist. He chose to announce his choice over the internet to the white preppy kids in the Hamptons. Minorities don't have the internet, poor working people can't check their e-mail from the factory or the lunch counter. He turned off those voters."

The calls for dumping Edwards are growing. Former N.Y. Senator Al D'Amato urged President Bush, last week, to dump Dick Cheney. This week, he focused on Kerry and Edwards by saying, "I believe John Kerry can guarantee his election by looking to several other notable individuals who would add a great dimension to his ticket as a running mate. Colin Powell would make a great choice, even better than John McCain."

The Kerry campaign said they are not ruling anything out. An unnamed spokesman said, "we are entitled to that bounce. We're not going to allow some slick hick prevent us from our right to have a bounce in the polls. We're thinking about having Kerry ride in a swiftboat down the Charles River to the Democrat Convention in Boston. If we do choose to dump Edwards, we might push him off the swiftboat and pick up someone else, down river. It would be great symbolism and it'll send a message to Americans - John Kerry will do anything to win the election."

Update, July 15: NYTimes has juicy gossip on Cheney, not. Check out PoliBlog and Wizbang.



Clinton also lies about why he didn't react to the USS Cole bombing - The Galvin Opinion shows that Clinton had strong evidence of bin Laden's complicity before he left office

According to Bill Clinton, the buck didn't stop with him when he was President

Bill Clinton gave an interview to CNN's Christiane Amanpour to defend his failed and short-sighted policies when it came to dealing with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and terrorism in general.

Amanpour's husband, James Rubin (according to his website), served under President Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs from 1997 to May 2000. Therefore, Amanpour's interview calls into question her journalistic integrity. Interviewing her husband's boss, the one who made her husband a household name, does not smack of objectivity. Her softball and open-ended questions allow Clinton to revise history in order to make his presidency seem more "terrorist centered." It was hardly the case.

In the interview, Clinton claimed that the 1980's Goldwater-Nicholas Act gave too much power to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Therefore, he indirectly blamed General Henry Shelton, (former chairman of the Joint Chiefs) for not doing enough about Al Qaeda. Perhaps Clinton forgot that HE was Commander-in-Chief. That is hardly the case. He is trying to pass blame to his military advisors.

Clinton claims he couldn't send Special Forces to kill bin Laden because no one knew where he was. That is not true. CIA footage of bin Laden at his training camps in the 90's have emerged. Clinton was simply reluctant to pull the trigger, fearing he would offend European sensibilities and lose support in American opinion polls. But, Clinton does say he regrets not pushing the military officials to sacrifice their lives, "what they signed on to do," and that he wished that "debated it more thoroughly."

Clinton says he would have ordered Special Forces to do something had he "got the CIA and FBI finding that Osama bin Laden did it." Done what, what would he have done specifically? Clinton then goes on to say,
"I just assumed he did from the day it happened, and everyone else did. But it wasn't until after I left office that the CIA made a finding. If they had given me a finding beforehand, I would have gone after him."

But, Clinton DID HAVE EVIDENCE of who bombed the USS Cole, before he left office. Back on April 9, 2004, in this space, The Galvin Opinion showed how the United States quickly gathered evidence of bin Laden's culpability. In addition, the investigation revealed that Osama bin Laden said on September 22, 2000, just 3 weeks before the USS Cole attack, that he would attack American ships.

CNN - DEC 7 2000 - U.S. finds link between bin Laden and Cole bombing
Since the October bombing in the port of Aden, U.S. and Yemeni investigators have said they suspect the attack might have been orchestrated by Al Qaeda, the organization headed by bin Laden dedicated to driving Americans and other Westerners out of the Persian Gulf region.

Clinton, inadvertantly, makes a strong case for why President George W. Bush went to war with Iraq by saying,
"I basically believe that the policy that I inherited, which was basically to keep Saddam Hussein in a box and under sanctions, unless and until he fully complied with the U.N. resolutions, was the right policy. It wasn't so great for the Iraqis, but he didn't present a substantial threat to anyone else."

"Unless and until" are the operative words. We all know that "unless and until" would never apply to Saddam Hussein. He was never going to comply with the United Nations resolutions. In fact, he even kicked out weapons inspectors when Bill Clinton was president.

Therefore, President Bush had the guts and will to risk his political fortune by dealing with Saddam Hussein once and for all. For the sake of humanity, we could not keep Saddam in a box because the people he oppresed were in the very box with him.

Here is the CNN.com account of Bill Clinton's interview with Christiane Amanpour, Clinton weighs in on bin Laden, war in Iraq

Additional information...
The Galvin Opinion (April 9, 2004): FAILING THE USS COLE - A GALVIN OPINION INVESTIGATION: Sept. 22 2000, bin Laden said he would attack U.S. ships - Oct 12 2000 he struck the USS Cole

The Galvin Opinion (April 16, 2004): DO YOU REMEMBER: WORDS OF WISDOM ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FROM OUR GOOD FRIEND, BILL CLINTON What Bill Clinton said during his 1998 State of the Union speech

The Galvin Opinion (April 2, 2004): George W. Bush: The Real Human Rights Activist


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?