Posted on 08/10/2004 12:26:07 AM PDT by FairOpinion
It is worth registering at the LATimes, just to read it.
The points made in the article should be made everywhere.
After those scumbag's, in coordination with Clinton croonies , tried to shut down this very site, I'd say nothing is worth registaring with those stinking Nazi's!
Username: latimes1
pw: latimes2
WOW .. and this is from the LA Times??
Oh boy,oh boy...another thread to bookmark. :-)
This is where Kerry is very vulnerable. This is excellent fodder for the Bush Campaign. Pointing out his voting record is as legitimate as it comes and he should be pounded with it.
Has loss of readership REALLY hit them over the head?
Who is this writer, Joshua Muravchik? Is this commentary only in the online LAT, or in the paper?
I copied it and saved it in a Word document, because in a few weeks or so, when we need it, we probably couldn't get access to the LAT archive.
If anyone wants it, I can FReepmail it to you.
And here is another quote from the article, which shows that Kerry is actually dangerous to our national security:
"Not only in the Cold War but also in other events that foreshadowed today's challenges, Kerry consistently got it wrong. In 1986, Reagan bombed Moammar Kadafi's residence when intelligence intercepts showed that the Libyan dictator was behind the terrorist bombing of a nightclub full of American soldiers in Germany. Kerry denounced the U.S. retaliatory strike as "not proportional."
And when Saddam Hussein swallowed Kuwait in 1990, Kerry opposed using force to drive him out, calling instead for reliance on economic sanctions."
I guess .. I'm just glad some one is reporting the real facts
Yep. I shudder to think if John F*ckin' had been President in the 80s, the Soviet Union might well still be around today.
Are you sure this is the LA Times? Doesn't sound like them.
"Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."
http://www.aei.org/
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.42,filter.all/scholar.asp
Muravchik researches the United Nations, neoconservatism, the history of socialism and communism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and global democracy, terrorism, and the Bush Doctrine. He is the author of Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
Professional Experience
-Adjunct professor, Institute of World Politics, 1992-present
-Member, Maryland State Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1985-1997
-Member, Commission on Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China, 1992
-Adjunct scholar, Washington Institute on Near East Policy, 1986-present
-Executive director, Coalition for a Democratic Majority, 1977-1979
-Editorial board member, World Affairs and Journal of Democracy
Education
Ph.D., international relations, Georgetown University
B.A., City College of New York
I saw it online, but it may actually also be in the paper.
It isn't posted at the AEI, but maybe it will be later.
CRIPES! This from off the pages of the L.A. Times?
This must be the one reasonable editorial the LA Times publishes every 50 years. ;)
More and more and MORE newspapers are actually printing this sort of stuff and this is hust the beginning. I just hope that it doesn't peak too soon.
Can't be from the la times, they must have been hacked like barnes & noble either that or Kerry is toast and even the libs know it..
In the past when they printed this kind of stuff it was long enough before the election that it had no real impact. As it got closer to the election they would always close ranks in support of their candidate.
I don't expect this to be any different.
The NYT did much the same thing with Clinton.
Will wonders never cease, I was reading more about the author, Muravchek. He didn't vote for Bush in 2000!
If even he can see these things about Kerry, maybe a Bush landslide is still possible.
Here is an excerpt from another article he has posted at the AEI:
A Leader for Perilous Times
http://www.aei.org/news/filter.,newsID.20613/news_detail.asp
But my admiration for the man--for whom I refused to vote in year 2000--grows ever higher.
A president's chief duty is to keep the nation safe in the dangerous tides of international politics. In 2000, I found candidate Bush too little engaged with this challenge. But since 9/11, he has offered the kind of leadership that ranks him with the greatest presidents of my lifetime, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan.
Would some other president have made the same brave choice as George Bush to shoulder this "long twilight struggle"? Not Bill Clinton, whose eye was always on the electoral calendar. Not the elder Bush, who didn't think much of "the vision thing." And surely not John Kerry, who tells us that he voted against the Iraq war of 1991 although he was really for it and voted for the Iraq war of 2003 although he was really against it. Kerry offers, in short, all the leadership of a whirling dervish. Truman? Reagan? Perhaps. But 9/11 came when George W. Bush was in office. He has risen to the challenge of a vicious enemy. I wish I could vote for him twice this time--to make up for having underestimated him so badly in 2000.
marker bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.