Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Sunday, November 19, 2017
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
War Blog By: FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, October 20, 2004


The Bush campaign got more good news this afternoon from the ABC News trackng poll taken over the weekend, which shows George Bush leading John Kerry by 5 points and Bush over the 50% mark for the first time:

Support for President Bush has crept above the critical 50-percent mark for the first time in two weeks, but one group — new voters — could be John Kerry's wildcard.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters support Bush, 46 percent support Kerry and 1 percent prefer Ralph Nader in the latest ABC News tracking poll, based on interviews Saturday through Monday. That's a slight lead for the president after a 48 percent to 48 percent dead heat the second half of last week.

The increase in Bush's support comes from weekend polling as well, which usually favors Democrats. The internals of this poll also augur well for Bush:

* Only 12% of voters classify their votes as "movable", and Bush leads among them by 4 points.

* Bush pulls almost three times more Democrats from Kerry (13%) than Kerry pulls Republicans from Bush (5%).

* Kerry only leads women in this poll 50-47, within the margin of error, while Bush leads men by 14 points.

Their sample comprises more Democrats than Republicans among the likely voters (36-34, with 26% being independent), making this a more reliable look at the situation at this point. Including this information, where the CBS/NYT poll does not, leads me to conclude that the pollsters used a more honest process than those who fail to disclose their samples, at any rate.

This poll shows that Bush has clearly regained the momentum after the debates. Kerry shot his bolt and came up short. Barring any surprises -- a tall order, with the Kerry/Edwards penchant for wild accusations and myth propogation -- Bush could be heading for an unequivocal victory two weeks from tonight.


The Associated Press reports that George Bush has doubled the support he received in 2000 from the African-American community, although he still trails John Kerry by a wide margin in this almost exclusive Democratic voting bloc:

President Bush has doubled his support among blacks in four years and Sen. John Kerry's backing among the key Democratic voting bloc is down slightly from the support Al Gore won in 2000, according to a poll released Tuesday. ...

The poll found Kerry receiving as much or more support than Gore among those age 18 to 25, those with less than a high school diploma and those making $60,000 or less.

But Kerry had 49 percent support from black Christian conservatives, down from the 69 percent Gore enjoyed in 2000. Bush was at 36 percent among the group this year, more than tripling the 11 percent he got four years ago.

Republican officials say they are making an effort this year to reach out to the black community. Campaign aides have cited Bush's support of school vouchers, public money that can be used to help pay private school tuition, and support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as issues that might win him more black votes.

The result is an increase from the 9% he got in 2000 to an estimated 18% now -- a paltry number, and shameful in the face of continued policy indifference from the Democrats, but still a significant gain. It's even more remarkable given that Kerry has been spewing lies about voter-suppression efforts, both now and in 2000, in order to hoodwink black voters to support him. The Urban Legends Tour hasn't gotten Kerry the results he desired, apparently.

Without a doubt, this result should have the Democrats worried about their prospects in swing states like Florida and Ohio, where such a shift could cost them any edge they may hope to gain. Worse yet, it may signal a trend among black voters to give the GOP another look, as decades of unkept promises and dead-end handouts have left a large number of them stuck in failing public schools and violence-racked neighborhoods. The damage that the Kerry campaign has done to the Democratic Party may take years to fully materialize, but if this trend continues, we can project that they will wind up even more marginalized than ever.  Tuesday, October 19, 2004




Good news on the polling front: The Fox News poll released today has President Bush ahead by seven points among likely voters, 49% to 42%.

For those who haven't followed the polls closely, Fox's survey has not been particularly favorable to the President. Their last poll, done two weeks ago, had Bush up by only two. The internals don't appear to be available, but Fox didn't just oversample Republicans, as they show independents going for Bush by a surprising 52% to 34% margin.

Some possible explanations:

45% of respondents believe they will pay higher taxes if Kerry is elected; 12%say lower taxes.

A surprising 52% say they would be "very concerned" about changing Presidents at this time, given the unrest in the world. Another 14% are "somewhat concerned." Especially surprising is that 50% of Democrats say they are "concerned."

By 69% to 24%, respondents say the war on terror is a "real war," not just a figure of speech. And by 61% to 25%, they believe President Bush will fight the war more aggressively. Is it possible that a majority of Americans believe that we are in a war, but will vote for the less aggressive candidate? If so, the national character has undergone a sudden transformation.

67% of respondents say John Kerry is a liberal. They didn't ask how many think he is a flip-flopper, but by 52% to 31%, respondents say Bush has stronger convictions.  Tuesday, October 19, 2004


Yasser Arafat has made one bad decision after another when it comes to promoting the interests of the Palestinian people. However, he rarely errs when his personal interests are at stake. Thus it comes as little surprise that, according to WorldNetDaily, Yasser Arafat is hoping for a Kerry victory in the upcoming election. So says Arafat deputy and chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat. Another Arafat crony, who didn't want to be identified by name, added that Arafat "thinks Kerry will be much better for the Palestinian cause and for the establishment of a Palestinian state."

As WorldNetDaily explains, Arafat has good reason to favor Kerry. First, consider Kerry's desire to coordinate American foreign policy with European countries, especially France. These countries favor working with Arafat and, not coincidentally, are hostile to Israel. Bush, on the other hand, has fully backed Ariel Sharon's decision to isolate Arafat on the grounds that he is directly involved in planning terrorism and is an obstacle to peacemaking. Second, consider Kerry's appointment of Martin Indyk as an adviser. Indyk, WND reminds us, "was a driving force behind Clinton's assessment of Arafat as a statesman and urged Clinton to accept Arafat as the legitimate ruler of the Palestinians." Moreover, "under Indyk's advisory, Arafat visited the White House during the Clinton administration 24 times, more than any other world leader during those eight years."

Yes, it is fairly easy to picture Arafat, sitting in his battered Ramallah compound hoping for a Kerry victory. Will Jewish voters in Miami, Philadelphia, and Cleveland give Kerry the margins he needs to make Arafat a White House regular again?  Monday, October 18, 2004




A little birdie told me the Mason-Dixon Florida poll results: Bush 48 percent, Kerry 45 percent.

Details: 625 registered voters were interviewed statewide by telephone. All stated they were likely to vote in the November general election. Men: 305 (49%) Women: 320 (51%); Whites 487 (78%) Blacks 65 (10%) Hispanic 69 (11%) Other 4 (1%); Democrats 281 (45%) Republicans 259 (41%) Independents 85 (14%).


I played the Los Angeles Times electoral college game that Jonah discovered. You know why President Bush has the advantage right now?

Take all the southern states that the L.A. Times has "toss up" but that Kerry has trailed almost all year long - Virgina, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri - and color them red. Give Bush a couple of red states that he leads, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado. Give Bush Florida, where he leads by 3. Now conclude that Bush picks up two blue states that he currently leads in, New Mexico (Bush leads by 3) and Wisconsin (Bush leads by 4).

Without giving Bush any other state - including Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon or Washington - Bush is at 269, which throws the election to the House of Representatives. Barring a stunning performance by Democrats in the House races, Bush wins.

If Bush goes 1 for 8 among those last 8 states, winning only New Hampshire or Maine (the states with the least electoral votes) he still hits 273 electoral votes and wins more than he did last time. Bush going 8 for 8 would be a 353-185 landslide, spurring the Dukakis comparisons.

Kerry just has so little margin for error on Election Day.  Tuesday, October 19, 2004




While still a candidate in the primary season, Senator Joe Lieberman (D) had plenty to say about candidate Kerry:

Lieberman said that Kerry played politics with the support of the troops: “‘If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money would not have been there to support our troops,’ said Lieberman (D-Conn.). ‘I didn’t duck it. I didn’t play politics. I voted to support our troops.’"  (Andrew Miga and David R. Guarino, “Iraq Viewpoint Dominates
Dem Detroit Debate,” Boston Herald, 10/27/03)

Lieberman Said Kerry’s Statements On The Use Of Force Authorization Were “Unbelievable.” “I thought that John Kerry’s statement in his announcement address - that he voted for the resolution just to threaten Saddam Hussein - was unbelievable. It was clearly an authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam. ... I don’t get it.
He’s been criticizing Howard Dean for lacking experience to lead America in the world today.” (Glen Johnson And Anne E. Kornblut, “Democrats Rip Bush In 8-Way Debate,” The Boston Globe, 9/5/03)

Lieberman: Kerry not “mainstream.” "Lieberman said Kerry is not a ‘mainstream Democrat,’ saying, ‘Just look at his record, look at what the
Republicans are already saying about him.’"  (Andrew J. Manuse and David R. Guarino, “On A Roll: Kerry Takes Big Win South,” Boston Herald, 1/28/04)

Lieberman accused Kerry of making “protectionist statements.” “Lieberman signaled that Kerry may feel heat in the next few days by pointing to Kerry’s position on the Iraq war, to what he said was his rival’s opposition to further tax cuts and to ‘protectionist statements’ on trade.” (Dan Balz, “Debate Looms Large for Democrats,” The Washington Post, 1/22/04)

Lieberman: How did Kerry vote to send troops to Iraq, and then oppose funding them? “Well, I do, and I’ve said that about John before. I don’t know how you can vote to authorize the war, enabling the president to send troops to Iraq, and then vote against the $87 billion … which is mostly going to support those troops.” (CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now,” 11/4/03)

Lieberman: Kerry is inconsistent. “I want to say obviously I respect John Kerry’s military service to our country, but that’s not what this is about. This is about the votes that he’s
cast that I believe are inconsistent. In fact, what do we look back and wonder about our time in Vietnam? We didn’t support our troops. If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money wouldn’t have been there to support our troops.” (Fox News/Congressional Black Caucus Democrat Candidate Debate, Detroit, MI, 10/26/03)

Lieberman called Kerry’s message on Iraq “ambivalent.” “If John Kerry or anyone else who voted for the war resolution thinks that they were misled in a way that makes them think they voted the wrong way in supporting the war, they have an obligation to say exactly what--what--in what way they were misled. Otherwise, they’re sending, again, a message that I would call ambivalent.”  (CBS, “Face The Nation,” 8/31/03)

Lieberman: Kerry is “for and against.” “Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) are pro-war while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
voted for it but then swung back and forth, prompting Lieberman to jab that some are ‘both for and against.’“ (Deborah Orin, “Dems At War-With One Another,” New York Post, 4/10/03)

Lieberman: Can’t figure out Kerry’s stance on Iraq. “I don’t know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say that they supported
the war but then oppose the funding of the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized.” (Fox News/Congressional Black Caucus Democrat Candidate Debate, Detroit, MI, 10/26/03)



I wondered how long it would take Tommy Franks to respond to repeated accusations from John Kerry that American military commanders allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from their grasp at Tora Bora by "outsourcing" the war on terror, an egregiously false accusation which the SSCI report shows to be a lie. Today, Franks fires back at Kerry from the pages of the New York Times in a scathing essay that underscores Kerry's cluelessness on military matters:

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Quite frankly (no pun intended), I've never understood the "outsourcing" criticism except in the context of cuteness on Kerry's behalf, a glib and superficial way to dig both at Bush's war and domestic policies. On one hand, Kerry chides Bush for not having a big enough coalition and for having too many Americans as a percentage of fighting troops in the war. On the other hand, in an area where American troops clearly would have been at a disadvantage against an entrenched foe in an unknown and difficult terrain with excellent defensive features, he scolds Bush for not going it alone. John Kerry as commander-in-chief would only send American troops into action under conditions where they would almost certainly fail, if this is any indication.

Franks succinctly points out that Bush has approached this war strategically as well as tactically, and upbraids Kerry for not knowing the difference:

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.

Again, this is a key difference between the two men, and the fact that terrorist cells exist in 60 nations has demonstrated this difference before. In an impromptu press conference a couple of weeks ago, John Kerry referred to this as a reason why we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. "Will we attack all 60 countries?" Kerry asked derisively. Kerry's sarcastic and flippant comment shows that Kerry would have allowed the US to be paralyzed at the scope of the strategic war on Islamist terror, and would have followed the Clinton strategy of making tough speeches followed by little if any action.

It's that strategy of waiting for attacks to occur and then siccing the FBI on them to try to find the one cell responsible before taking any action that emboldened the terrorists to continually escalate their attacks on the US, culminating in 9/11. That difference is the key between Bush and Kerry, which Franks uses as his summary:

Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.

Franks has it right; John Kerry either is incapable of recognizing the strategic implications of the war or refuses to acknowledge them. Either way, we cannot afford a Kerry presidency while we remain under attack by terrorists supported by states waging a proxy war against the West. The first qualification for the Presidency in this era should be the recognition of that fact. Kerry fails.


The cease-fire that Spain bought with Islamists with their capitulation after the Madrid bombings appears to have been an illusion, as predicted. Spain announced that it captured seven terrorists plotting to bomb their High Court, according to Reuters:

Police arrested seven suspected Islamic militants in raids across Spain on Monday to foil a planned bomb attack on the High Court, judicial sources said. The arrests came seven months after train bombs killed 191 people in Madrid.

The seven suspects, including four Algerians and one Moroccan, were arrested in the southern region of Andalusia, the Mediterranean city of Valencia and Madrid.

Further arrests could be made in the coming hours as part of the operation against a radical and violent Muslim network, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Perhaps the Spanish electorate will understand now that appeasing terrorists only leads to more terrorism, a lesson that Europeans learned the hard way 60 years ago. The Islamic lunatics don't want to be left alone, as many Europeans assume; they want to take over all of the old ummah, which includes most of Spain, especially Andalusia. The political success of the Madrid attacks has emboldened the fanatics to press their advantage, and the so-called "cease fire" announced by Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of Spain's withdrawal from Iraq only exists while tactically important for the next attack.

Maybe this will wake the Spaniards to the dangers of withdrawal and appeasement. I suspect the Socialists will be spinning this as a major victory on their behalf, which it is -- tactically speaking. Strategically, however, the Socialists have committed a huge error in backing down from the terrorists and fleeing Iraq, where establishing a functioning democracy would have a positive effect on stemming radicalism and terrorism.

For American voters, the same choices have been given to us in this election. Let's not allow ourselves to be fooled that leaving the Middle East would result in a safer America or a safer world.  Tuesday, October 19, 2004



By Michelle Malkin  
Caught a few minutes of Teresa Heinz Kerry on ABC's The View earlier this morning. I've been tough on her and she has been as unhinged and unraveled as I said she would be during most of the campaign. But today she just seemed pitiful. She said she "winced" when her husband joked about marrying up during the last presidential debate. She complained about being "so tired" of traveling and said she brought her girlfriends along on the campaign trail to help her cope with "what I'm going through" (treating the most important election of our lifetime as a personal trauma).

Most revealing, Teresa confessed--were those tears in her eyes--that she has only talked to her husband about "once a week" and only gets to talk to him "for a few seconds." She could barely muster up enough enthusiasm to make a pitch to undecided voters for her husband--even with helpful coaxing from lib handholders Star Jones and Barbara Walters.

Well, he's "thoughtful," Teresa murmured. He knows how to think about "complex" things. (Showing a brief spark of her old self, she couldn't help noting that he sometimes thinks about things too much. That a girl.) And finally, she pulled out an old line uttered with weary, mock gung-ho spirit: If she were in a foxhole, she'd want to be with John Kerry.

As with all of her campaign appearances, the interview revealed much more about Teresa than it did about the candidate. Who cares about the race? She just wants it to be over and she wants her husband's attention back. If she and we are lucky, they'll be together again sipping hot chocolate and getting hot stone massages or whatever in Ketchum for Thanksgiving.

Hang in there, Mrs. Heinz. Two more weeks.  Tuesday, October 19, 2004




Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera....

The ad, created by the conservative Progress for America Voter Fund, will run until the election on cable stations and in nine key states at a cost of $14.2 million, said the group's president, Brian McCabe....


To finish reading Wednesday's War Blog, click here.

We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com