Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, February 15, 2003

Here's another report that details the French, Russian, and Chinese business contracts. This page has many links to reputable publications including Canada's National Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, the BBC, and The South China Morning News.

The left so hates America and President Bush that they completely ignore the fact that these three countries are looking out for their economic interests by opposing any war with Iraq. It is about oil (and weapons deals), but the fact is that it's France, Russia, and China who are motivated by these things. The U.S. is motivated by more than 3,000 dead in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

It's about oil. Richard Perle, a civilian Pentagon adviser and former Assistant Secretary of Defense, says that France's pro-Saddam stance is because of massive oil contracts:

".....(Perle) said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said."

Perle says that the contracts heavily favor the French companies:

"What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total,” Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York."

He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as “extraordinarily lopsided” in favour of the French company.

“This is not your normal oil exploration contract.”

So, the French have been bought off. What a bunch of weasels.

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Let me get this straight. The Iraqis were supposed to tell the U.N. where the weapons were and didn't. The CIA may have known the whereabouts of some of these weapons and didn't tell the U.N. Now Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and other Democrats are accusing the CIA of sabotaging the weapons inspections by not sharing information with the U.N.

Saddam was supposed to tell the U.N. about these weapons, not the CIA. If they wanted to get mad because this information would have influenced their decision about whether to support the war is one thing, but the Democrats are mad because the CIA is not helping the weapons inspectors. The CIA is not supposed to help the inspectors. They are supposed to help verify whether Saddam is disarming. They aren't supposed to be saying, "You didn't declare this weapon" or "You forgot to list that biological weapon." They are supposed to tell the president and congress whether they know that Saddam in disarming or not. It's their job to know what he's up to. It's not their job to act as weapons inspectors.

I will never forget how the Democrats have acted during this terrible time. They have not been a loyal opposition. A loyal opposition does not blame the CIA because Saddam refuses to disarm.

Are there anymore despicable leftists than Hollywood leftists? These people are no more qualified to opine in the New York Times or Washington Post than I am, but because they act or sing their opinions are supposed to mean something. The thing that pisses me off most of all is that people like Woody Harrelson, Sean Penn or Janeane Garofalo are not accountable for the things they say. They can always fall back on, "What do I know, I'm just a movie star" if events prove them to be wrong.

Also, they are out of touch. They aren't like an editorial writer for a major paper. You can't respond to them. They don't exactly publish email addresses or even snail mail addresses. They MIGHT give out their agents name and address, but chances are that they will not have to face the avalanche of mail that would ordinarily follow the things they say. They should be man or woman enough to be held accountable for the things they say. They should be big enough to face the counter-point to their arguments because, whether they admit it or not, or even realize it or not, a lot of people could easily refute the things they say if they were only decent enough to honestly listen to the same people they insist must listen to them.

Janeane Garofalo is the latest Hollywood "international affairs expert" who demands time on Fox News Channel or CNN so that she can make her anti-war arguments and it delights me to read what Ann Coulter has to say about Ms. Garofalo. It delights me because it's some sort of a response:

"The mascot of the anti-war movement is Janeane Garofalo."

"Garofalo has said that "dropping bombs on the Iraqis is not going to disarm Saddam." No, it will kill him. That's good enough. Trading in her Gen-X sneer for a nitwit's hysteria, Garofalo warned: "America will pay a very, very high, irrevocable price for this!" The lemon pucker puss said extremist groups will strike us "if we do this war." Things were going just great before we began to "do this war" – that's if you don't count the unpleasantness of Sept. 11. To state the manifestly obvious: Extremist groups are going to hit us eventually anyway. Let's make it a matter of honor and see what they've got."

Coulter doesn't go to any great lengths to respond to Garofalo because it's simply not necessary. If Coulter did decide that Garofalo deserved more attention.....well, let me just say I would pity Garofalo. It would be ugly. Like the Iraqi army on that highway fleeing Kuwait.

Charles Krauthammer in explains the reason why the left (that's the Democrats and pacifists) are opposing the coming war in Iraq:

"You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road:

--Iraq: Saddam continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors.

--North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement--surprise!--was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout.

--Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI--and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Osama was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification.

That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants, but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell ``teacup wars'' in places like Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with ``states of concern.'' Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars.

Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died."

History will judge Bill Clinton harshly. He failed us.

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you a candidate for the "Most Pretentious Person of the Year."

Long story short, a mother in Canada is upset that her daughter was given the word "gun" as part of her spelling lesson. Give me a friggin' break. The mother of this child was aghast that her child should even learn this word because, "The word gun is synonymous with death." She goes on to say that she is having trouble understanding why a child of seven would even need to learn this word.

I am suggesting that this is typical of leftists in general. Robert J. Ray had a piece in Frontpage Magazine back in June titled, "What Are Leftist?" Ray's thesis was that Leftists like this Canadian woman have an overwhelming need to be seen as morally superior to others. Here's how Ray put it:

"Psychological Leftism
It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting -- and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are intrinsically unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize that, when they were children, their mothers didn’t look when they said, 'Mummy, look at me'."

I think Ray is definitely on to something here. If I could, I would laugh in this woman's pretentious face.

Am I dreaming or are the Democrats aligning themselves to be a minority party for a generation? Between Al Sharpton's presidential campaign, Democratic opposition to the war, and the Nancy Pelosi-fication of the party, the Democrats are moving farther and farther away from majority party status. They are in fact becoming a fringe party that has nothing to offer except proven failed welfare economics, race and gender based politics, and an unreasonable opposition to a war that most American's understand is necessary in our post September 11 world.

I love it. The Democrats are regressing right before our eyes.

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

This is useless, but it's another reason for my fascination with Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column:

"This next is a language item, creepy as it is. Listen to the reporting of the New York Post’s Debbie Orin:

Iraqi exile Khidhir Hamza, who once headed Saddam’s nuclear program, said the six Iraqi voices heard on the intelligence intercepts all spoke Arabic with the distinct accent of Tikrit — Saddam’s home region.

'They may not be from Tikrit — because of Saddam, it’s become the high-class accent. Everybody is emulating that accent because it implies power.'"

Just a few short months ago I was almost wishing John McCain would switch political parties. He was acting and voting like a Democrat and I was to the point where I was fed up with him. All's forgiven....for now. McCain gave a great speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy. An excerpt:

"But I am concerned, we should all be concerned, not only with the "primitive" anti-Americanism of the street that resents America's successes, exults in our misfortunes, and ascribes to us motives that one must be a fool or delusional to believe. We should also be concerned with the "sophisticated" anti-Americanism, or perhaps more aptly, the "cynical" anti-Americanism of political leaders who exploit for their own ends the disinformed, "primitive" hostility to America voiced in some quarters of their societies; to further their ambitions to govern or to inflate perceptions of their international influence.

Just as some Arab governments fuel anti-American sentiment among their people to divert them from problems at home, so a distinct minority of Western European leaders appears to engage in America- bashing to rally their people and other European elites to the call of European unity. Some European politicians speak of pressure from their "street" for peaceful solutions to international conflict and for resisting American power regardless of its purpose. But statements emanating from Europe that seem to endorse pacifism in the face of evil, and anti-Semitic recidivism in some quarters, provoke an equal and opposite reaction in America.

There is an American "street," too, and it strongly supports disarming Iraq, accepts the necessity of an expansive American role in the world to ensure we never wake up to another September 11th, is perplexed that nations with whom we have long enjoyed common cause do not share our urgency and sense of threat in time of war, and that considers reflexive hostility toward Israel as the root of all problems in the Middle East as irrational as it is morally offensive."

I can be proud again that McCain is a Republican.

I have gotten four responses from Senator Patty Murray in regards to the email that I sent her. It's a standard response thanking me for my email, but I've gotten four of them! I wonder if this is an accident. Probably, but I'm hoping that she feels some guilt over the lies she told those high school students. A man can dream can't he.

Sunday, February 09, 2003

I've been looking at some really great websites and I guess I should link to more of them. The problem is that there are so many great ones and I don't want a page long list of recommended sites. Therefore, I think I will limit my links to requests only.

If anyone would like me to link to their page, feel free to send me a link so that I can look it over. Here's a few of the standards that I have applied to anyone wishing me to add their page to my list. It's from my September 5, 2002 post:

I am beginning to think that I will only have ten or so sites on my list because there are thousands and thousands of blogs. I will probably have to be much more selective in the process of determining which ones to link to. There are so many brilliant people with great blogs that I have to cut them off somewhere, but since I have already told three people that I will be linking to them I have to include them no matter who else makes the cut. I will not be including any weblogs that are poorly designed or are not maintained, but I think I have to add other standards that merit consideration. The problem is that I am not sure what standards to apply. Leftwingers will probably not make it, but I should include some centrists. Right wing extremists won't be included either. People with very narrow subject focuses probably won't make the cut. Boring people will be cut (it's my list!). Let's see. Oh yea, people with stupid blog names, you're cut. (I am beginning to feel like Homer Simpson in the episode where he's a football coach, "Millhouse, you're cut.") And one last standard. If their blog takes me a couple of days to load, they are definitely cut. I don't need that annoying crap (I really need DSL). I might amend these later, but for now I guess that's it.

The Smoking Gun has the affadavit from a 13 year old boy who, in 1993, settled a suit with Michael Jackson for $23 million for sexual battery.

I didn't know that the U.S. had soldiers specifically tasked to help rebuild Afghanistan towns and communities. These soldiers are called U.S. Civil Affair troops and they are helping to dig wells, build schools and generally helping to rebuild Afghanistan.

This piece in The Weekly Standard could be construed as propaganda and the writer does actually write for Army Times Publishing, but I thought that it is important to show that the U.S. government is not abandoning the Afghan people; that we are working in concert with the various humanitarian non-governmental entities to create a civil society.

I hope Senator Patty Murray is paying attention. In fact, I think I will send the senator a link to this story.

Here's the letter I just sent to Senator Murray:

Dear Senator Murray

I haven't forgotten what you told those high school students. I am sending you a link to a Weekly Standard piece that directly refutes what you told those impressionable minds. I hope you will take this information with you on your next visit to another high school so that the students can see what the truth actually is, but I won't be holding my breath. Here's the link to the Weekly Standard piece:

And here's a relevant quote from the piece:

"In a Dec. 19 briefing, Dr. Joe Collins, the Pentagon's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations, reported that over 200 Civil Affairs troops were on the ground in Afghanistan. Since the war began, 127 schools, 400 wells, and 26 medical clinics have been built. Over $900 million has been spent on such projects and more is on the way."

Senator Murray, you still owe Americans an apology for your comments. I hope you will take the time to correct the record on American generosity and humanity.

Sean Roper

The Washington Times has a special report about the growing divide between western and eastern Europe. While it is sport to criticize everything American in the west, the east is busy trying to remind the west of America's role in defeating the various tyrannies that dominated Europe for nearly one hundred years:

"Romanian Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana told a Washington gathering last week that U.S. support had been critical in undermining the communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceaucescu in the 1980s, in assisting Romania's economic and political transition in the 1990s, and in championing Bucharest's successful bid last year to join NATO. "You have helped us achieve the dream of an entire generation, and we will never, never forget it," Mr. Geoana said. Albanian Prime Minister Fatos Nano last week invoked the American soldiers who died in the D-Day invasion of World War II in an attempt to rally European support for U.S. demands to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein. "Perhaps it is time for European leaders to pay a visit to Normandy Beach to see for themselves what the United States has been willing to undertake in the name of freedom," Mr. Nano said. "Just as America contributed to the liberation of France and Germany and the rest of Europe during World War II, so must the United States and the coalition of the willing liberate the people of Iraq today," he added."

How quickly France and Germany forgot. It must be their impotence that causes them to forget. They dominated Europe for many, many years, and the world by extension of that fact, and now their irrelevance is humiliating. I love it.

One of the reason's that the election of 2000 was so crucial was because the next president would more than likely be the one to shape the face of the U.S. Supreme court for a decade or perhaps longer. Since Bush was elected a couple of conservative Supreme Court justices are said to be considering retirement. The rumor is that President Bush is ready to appoint the first black female Supreme Court justice, a lady by the name of Janice Rogers Brown. Of course it all speculation about who the president will appoint, but the next Supreme Court justice will more likely than not be Brown or perhaps another first, such as an hispanic, namely White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez.