Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Friday, March 14, 2003

From Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column:

"Richard Perle is responsible for one of my favorite college moments. Actually, I was in graduate school. Perle gave one of the greatest, coolest (in the sense of "coolness under fire") performances I have ever witnessed. The crowd was unbelievably hostile, of course. One guy heckled him, calling him a liar, and Perle said, calmly, "You'll have your turn in the Q&A."

In the Q&A, the guy said that the CIA and FBI had determined that Perle was an Israeli spy. (This was nonsense, obviously.) Perle gave a perfectly reasonable and sober answer. And then, at the end, he put on a coda — almost an afterthought. He said, "Oh, by the way, I just want to say: Your faith in the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies of this country is rather touching."

That was about the most devastating remark I'd ever heard in public, because the kid was a clear leftist who, in any normal circumstance, would revile the FBI, the CIA, and the U.S. government at large."

David Skinner has started a "Stardumb" column that details the idiocy of Hollywood leftists complete with a "Barbrometer." That's a Barbra Streisand meter that compares the latest Hollywood idiot to Barbra Streisand.

Today's idiot is Whoopi Goldberg for believing and saying that celebrities should be allowed to say what they think without anyone being able to respond. Whoopi's not alone in that idea. Many of her fellow leftists call it censorship when they express their political feelings and then meet a firestorm of criticism. Whoopi has every right to say what's on her mind and I do too. If I disagree with her, I have every right to say so. But apparently Hollywood thinks they have some further rights that the rest of us don't have. They think they should be free of criticism. Wrong! Aaannnnttt! It don't work that way Whoopi, you moron.

Charlie Daniel's Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch

You go boy! Damn, I wish I had said it. Beautiful and perfect.

Thursday, March 13, 2003

I was watching the Defense Department's press conference yesterday when Secretary Rumsfeld let the cat out of the bag and admitted that communications were taking place between Iraqi soldiers and the U.S. to work out the details of their surrender.

It's clear to me that the Iraqi soldiers don't want to fight, but they have to put up a facade because Saddam still controls Iraq. If they made it too clear that they don't want to fight Saddam would no doubt have them killed. Instead, they have to pretend until they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we're coming. As soon as they know that Saddam is finished they will throw down their weapons and surrender. I'm sure they aren't cowards, but they have to know that it is useless to die for a man that doesn't care about them or who doesn't genuinely have Iraq's best interest in mind.

CNN has a piece on the secret surrender negotiations.

Things are starting to come clear. It's beginning to look like a total war might be averted. No thanks to the war protesters. They have actually undermined peace efforts because they have given Saddam hope and encouragement. The protesters have directly aided and abetted that brutal man with their stupid and destructive protests. Janeane Garofalo, Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Woody Harrelson, Barbra Streisand, Danny Glover, Dustin Hoffman, and all the rest of the anti-war left (and right) have been the enemy of peace.

They deserve no thanks for what they were doing. Good intentions aren't enough. They don't deserve gold stars for good intentions. They have to be held responsible for the repercussions of their actions and the bottom line is that their actions gave Saddam comfort, hope and encouragement. That's all they succeeded in doing. Oh yea, they may have destroyed NATO, the U.N., and European-American relations forever in the process. I forgot about that.

Wow. I just noticed that I had over 225 visitors yesterday. That's a new record.

Ann Coulter's latest piece is titled, Liberals Feign Logic:

"Since new competitive media have forced liberals to confront opposing points of view, they seem to have abandoned emotionalism as their main argument. Their new posture is mock hardheaded realism. Liberals flex their spindly little muscles and announce that everything that used to make them cry – guns, racial profiling, torturing suspects – simply doesn't work: The fact is, it doesn't work, this is according to several studies, and no, you can't see them, why would you ask?"

Spindly little muscles. I love that imagery. Can't you see someone, muscles straining, little boy arms struggling under some weight that is simply too much for them? That's why I love Coulter's writing. She's brutal, but she also uses comic imagery to go along with her arguments.

Here's an example from the closing paragraph that illustrates how devastating she can be:

"It's as if liberals held focus groups on how to best present their ridiculous ideas and were told: Passion you've got! But what respondents say you lack is: intellection, thinking things through, understanding elementary human nature, and a basic awareness of what people are like. If conservatives have not yet persuaded liberals to give up on socialism and treason, we have at least gotten them to fake linear thinking. The next hurdle is substance.

Ouch.

There's an update to that 9/11 vandalism story (Via Drudge):

"LA HABRA -- A 19-year-old Orange County woman is free today after La Habra police arrested her for allegedly assaulting a woman who maintains a patriotic display on a fence here."

Good. I'm glad someone was arrested, but I doubt anything would have happened to the woman if she hadn't returned to the scene and assaulted the woman who maintains the site.

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Did you hear about this? 9/11 memorials in California are being destroyed by war protesters:

"LA HABRA -- Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since."

What's worse, the local police saw the acts of vandalism and did nothing because they viewed the destruction as the protesters freedom of speech. Wow. I can't believe this.

I was reading this article about leftwing Hollywood when I was stopped at one line. It's a quote from The West Wing, the NBC television show:

"The West Wing's President Josiah Bartlett (Martin Sheen) perhaps put it best when he said, "why can't we all just agree that the 2nd Amendment is a stupid amendment?'"

Huh!? What was that? Did he say what I thought he said?

I read somewhere (?) several months ago that the left didn't want to abolish gun rights. The point to the article was that both left and right had their causes that they accused the other side of working to outlaw. For the left the cause was abortion. For the right it was gun rights. The author of that article was more or less saying that it was a need to scare voters that caused the left and right to exaggerate their critics intentions. But after reading that piece of dialogue from The West Wing and considering how well Michael Moore's documentary, Bowling For Columbine, has been received and the awards that it has won (and will win) I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say that the left, especially the Hollywood left, are working to abolish gun rights.

I know this isn't a lot of evidence at the moment, but then again I left out Rosie O'Donnell's comments. Remember how she argued against gun ownership while her own bodyguard had a permit to carry a gun? I'm sure there are a lot of other Hollywood leftists that have made similar comments. I will have to keep watch and post other anti-gun comments by Hollywood's rich and famous.

There is an attempt to once again pass a budget resolution allowing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

"....drilling advocates are maneuvering to include the provision in a budget resolution that is not subject to filibuster. Once in the resolution, it will take drilling opponents 51 votes to get it out."

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

I've been looking for information on the new super bomb that the U.S. has developed for use in the Iraq war. Via Drudge ThisisLondon.com provides the details I was looking for. The bomb is called M.O.A.B (Massive Ordinance Air Burst aka Mother Of All Bombs) and it's even bigger than the Daisy Cutters we used in Afghanistan. The bomb is scheduled to be tested today in Florida and ThisisLondon.com is reporting that the U.S. will videotape the results to show Iraq what they face.

Here are some details on the bomb:

"*Nicknamed Big Blue, it contains 21,000lb of conventional high explosive, an increase from the 15,000lb BLU-82 "daisy cutter" used at least four times on tunnels and caves in Afghanistan.

* It was originally designed to clear helicopter-landing zones in Vietnam and works by detonating a few feet above ground level and destroying everything in its path.

* The warhead is packed with Gelled Slurry Explosive, which is detonated with a high explosive booster. The slurry is poured into the bomb's casing which is then loaded on to a plane and launched by parachute at 6,000ft.

* Eleven BLU-82s were dropped during the first Gulf War, according to some experts "as much for their psychological effect as their destructive power"."

I read this report the other day in The Telegraph, but I didn't blog it because the most surprising and delightful part of the piece seemed so likely not to happen that it amounted to wishful thinking. But now that France and Russia have formally declared that they will veto the next U.N. resolution if it contains any enforcement measures (that means war), the scenario appears more likely than ever. Here's the quote from the article and it explains what I'm talking about:

"Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent."

As much as I hate the U.N. I can't say whether actually pulling out is the thing to do. I don't know. What would it mean? Would the U.S. then work to create another world body that means what it says? Will we have to quit all the trade, environmental, and human rights treaties we have negotiated? Will we be removed from them?

On the surface, I cheer when I consider that we might leave that corrupt, bloated, horribly inefficient, and increasingly anti-American organization, but the unknown is a bit unsettlling.

I'll be optimistic. I hope we do quit. Screw 'em.

Wendy McElroy has a column about the woman who is reported to be the person who will run central Iraq, including Baghdad.

I love it. Arabs seem to hate women and having a woman to run the central part of Iraq would be a strong message that we will demand that women are treated with much more respect. You think the left will support Barbara Bodine in her attempt to free Arab women. Ha! not a chance.

Sunday, March 09, 2003

Every so often I go into Excite's Soapbox to beat my head against a wall trying to get the leftwingers in that room to understand why we must take out Saddam. This one regular (I'm not sure who exactly said it so I don't want to accuse anyone by name) was asking, stupidly I might add, "Why Iraq?" I'm not sure of his exact words, but they were saying something plaintive like, "Why Iraq? Saddam has done nothing to cause us to attack him and he is not a threat to the U.S." His line of reasoning goes that Iraq is a small weak nation that knows better to mess with the U.S. I mean this guy wants to completely ignore how easily we were attacked on 9/11. He has forgotten how a group of people with box cutters took control of three planes and killed thousands. Imagine how eager their associates would be to kill millions if they could. It wouldn't take many people to do it. All they would need is for someone to give them a nuke. That's all they would need.

When faced with this argument the same regular said that Saddam would not give a nuke to Osama bin Laden because they hate each other. Now if I understand that right, he was saying that the only terrorist who might attack the U.S. is Al-Qaeda. As if there are NO OTHER terrorist groups in Iraq, secular or religious zealots, who would ever want to attack the U.S. He was saying that there is no evidence (I wish I had this article when he said that) of a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, and because there is no evidence, then we don't have to fear a terrorist attack that originates in Iraq.

The whole idea that there is only one group that would love to be given a nuke or other such weapon to set off in the U.S. is naive at best and ignorant at worst. 9/11 showed us just how easy it is to kill thousands and it also showed that indeed their are people who are motivated enough to kill us all if they only had the means. Saddam would willingly provide the means if he could. To wait till he gets a nuke is insanity. To take the chance that he would not give it away is a chance we cannot take. We gave those crazy Arab bastards the benefit of the doubt. We let our guard down because it seemed irrational to believe they would attack us in such a bold way. We were wrong and we can't afford to be wrong again. We must go to lengths to protect our nation. Iraq was not much of threat before 9/11, but that day woke us up to the horrible possibilities. We aren't kidding ourselves anymore.

Saddam would love to see America get nuked while having complete deniability. And giving a weapon to a small group of terrorists to set off in New York would be perfect. He could deny he had any involvement and wait for the same lefties who defend him now to defend him in that case. It would happen. They would march, protest and give speeches to protect Saddam Hussein.

Saddam is so confident that he is winning the public relations battle that he is now demanding an end to the sanctions.

"Baghdad said the latest weapons inspectors' reports showed the country has fulfilled its disarmament commitments."

France, Germany, and Russia would probably agree.

Spring has arrived I think. It's a beautifully sunny and warm day. It's about time, although I do enjoy the winter, I won't miss the cool days. I hate being uncomfortably hot and spring only means that summer is on the way with it's 95 degree days with 100% humidity.