Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Monday, June 09, 2003

Um, if the Palestinian prime minister refuses to use force against Palestinian militants then the latest mideast peace initiative will fail. No if, and, or buts about it. It will fail. President Bush is wasting his time and we can all get ready for many more murders in Israel.

Oh my God. North Koreans are having to resort to cannabalism:

"Aid agencies are alarmed by refugees' reports that children have been killed and corpses cut up by people desperate for food. Requests by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to be allowed access to "farmers' markets", where human meat is said to be traded, have been turned down by Pyongyang, citing "security reasons"."

Deny it if you want, but this is a direct result of that nation's leftwing form of government. When I accuse the left of slaughtering millions of people, this is what I mean. The leadership of socialist and communist countries have been so sure of the superiority of their ideology that they have allowed millions to starve or have slaughtered millions more for daring to oppose their policies.

Leftwing moral superiority is like a super-plague. It kills by the tens of millions.

Sunday, June 08, 2003

Wow. Claire Berlinski, via Instapundit, is reporting from Paris "that the trade unions' protests over the government's pension reform scheme have become outrageously violent, and France is in chaos."

I love this quote from Sylvain Galineau that Glenn Reynolds has at his site:

"At this opportune point, I have to ask my American friends who were shocked by France's behavior and foreign policy regarding Iraq : what in the name of all that's Holy were you expecting ? They can't even deal with trade union blackmail and political street terrorism, and you want them to fight al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein ? Hello !?!McFly ? Anybody home?"

Hehehe. That's funny.

You still don't believe? Good grief. Ok, here's Colin Powell at the U.N. Security Council back in February (You don't remember this?):

"Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you’re about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26th of last year, on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq. The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

[The tape is played.]

SECRETARY POWELL: Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohammed ElBaradei is coming, and they know what he's coming for and they know he's coming the next day. He's coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things.

But they're worried. We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it? What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen.

The general was incredulous: "You didn't get it modified. You don't have one of those, do you?"

"I have one."

"Which? From where?"

"From the workshop. From the Al-Kindi Company."


"From Al-Kindi."

"I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried you all have something left."

"We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left."

Note what he says: "We evacuated everything." We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up. "I will come to you tomorrow."

The Al-Kindi Company. This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.

Let me play another tape for you. As you will recall, the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16th. On January 20th, four days later, Iraq promised the inspectors it would search for more. You will now hear an officer from Republican Guard headquarters issuing an instruction to an officer in the field. Their conversation took place just last week, on January 30.

[The tape was played.]

SECRETARY POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message.

"They are inspecting the ammunition you have, yes?"

"Yes. For the possibility there are forbidden ammo."

"For the possibility there is, by chance, forbidden ammo?"


"And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there. Remember the first message: evacuate it."

This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.

You go a little further into this message and you see the specific instructions from headquarters: "After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message."



Why? Why? This message would have verified to the inspectors that they have been trying to turn over things. They were looking for things, but they don't want that message seen because they were trying to clean up the area, to leave no evidence behind of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And they can claim that nothing was there and the inspectors can look all they want and they will find nothing.

This effort to hide things from the inspectors is not one or two isolated events. Quite the contrary, this is part and parcel of a policy of evasion and deception that goes back 12 years, a policy set at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime."

How soon people forget.


I refer you to the last post. If your A.D.D. (Attention Deficit Disorder) is that severe I suggest that you gets some meds to take care of the problem.

The howls are growing that President Bush deceived the people of the U.S. and the world about the WMD's that Iraq had. Leftists are saying that Bush outright lied to justify the war, but the evidence is/was clear to anyone who can remember more than 10 minutes ago.

Robert Kagan in the Washington Post:

"Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

Who else was in on this plot to deceive the world?

"Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush."

Andrew Sullivan's been getting a lot of mail from me lately. This time I wrote to him because he's complaining that the U.S. Justice Department ended Gay Pride day at the Justice Department Here's my letter to Sullivan:


Why should gay pride be marked at the Justice Department? Is there a hetero pride day?

Why stop there? Maybe we should have a black pride day, Puerto Rican pride day, Jewish pride day, Hispanic pride day, Muslim pride day, Russian pride day, Canadian pride day, Mexican pride day, French pride day, German pride day, Polish pride day.......The list could go on and on. I'm sure you see what I mean.

There should be no "pride" days at all. It's divisive. It's multiculturalism and that's an evil that should be eliminated.

Before you get excited, I am not opposed to people celebrating their culture or heritage or sexual orientation, but those hyphenations are a destructive, divisive, and ultimately, evil that should be opposed and gay pride days that are officially sanctioned by our government are only opening a door for every other group to demand their own "pride" day. It's silly and it's a bad precedent. I'm sorry it ever got started.

Sean Roper

Sullivan is really pissed that Gay Pride day has been ended after a six year run. He's accusing President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft of treating gays like "second class citizens and second class employees" because he ended Gay Pride day. Is that ridiculous or what? That's the sort of insanity that created the politically correct atmosphere that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to plot the deaths of 3,000 of our citizens from inside our country. I'm not saying that gays are murderers, but the same political correctness that created Gay Pride day is the same political correctness that kept our government from investigating radical Muslims for fear of being accused of racial or religious profiling by the hysterical left.

Gay pride has no business being sanctioned and promoted by the U.S. government. If gays want to promote it then that's fine. I have no problem with it. But to insist that the U.S. government officially sanction it is political correctness run amok.

I am really honored. John Risby has created a category for blogs that he disagrees with, but likes for one reason or another and mine is the first entry. Here's how he titles the category:

Sean's Blog

Wow. Thank you John.

I'm watching a documentary on The History Channel and I was so upset by what I was hearing from people inside and outside the U.S. government that I had to come here and speak my mind.

The experts on this documentary are insisting that the only reasons the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on Japan was: (1) to send a message to the Soviets, (2) because we had spent 2 billion on this weapon and to not use it was out of the question, and (3) because we wanted a real world test of the bomb. The idea that we used the bombs to end the war is considered almost ridiculous by these people. That really pisses me off.

I wonder who these people are and exactly what their politics are. I mean, these people could be as leftwing as they come and we all know that leftists have a way of twisting reality and truth to present the U.S. in the worst possible light. We see it everyday. These people hate the U.S. They view our nation as the greatest evil the world has ever known and even go so far as to morally equate George W. Bush with Hitler or Stalin. Now they are doing it with Harry Truman. They are saying he killed innocent men, women, and children to send the Soviets a message and that any idea that Truman used the atomic bombs to save American GI's and to end the war is nonsense. There is no truth or reality that they won't twist or spin to further there ideologies.

These experts are saying that it's now widely known, and I'm assuming they are saying we knew this at the time, that Japan would have been forced to capitulate in the fall of 1945 no matter what. They are insisting time and again that we didn't have to use the bomb. That no invasion would have been necessary and that American casualties wouldn't have amounted to as many as one million killed or wounded. These people are what is known as historical revisionists. All their opinions are with the benefit of hindsight no matter what they claim.

The U.S. had asked Japan to surrender unconditionally before we dropped the atomic bombs and Japan refused. Now these nitwits are saying that Japan would have capitulated in the fall of that year. That they would have just quit because their war making capabilities were going to be so deteriorated as to give them no other choice. What they are saying is that we should have paused in World War II, to stop and simply wait for Japan to quit. What supreme idiocy. We had no guarantee that that would have happened, but to hear these nitwits put it that's exactly what Japan had in mind.

I am very upset because these people are framing this as the real history of our use of the atomic bomb. They are saying that Harry Truman was a war criminal who dropped those bombs to send a message to Stalin, as if that was the only reason. Now, granted the revisionists do make some good points. They're probably right about some of the reasons for the use of the bombs, but to treat the number one reason for Truman's use of those bombs as nonsense is infuriating. I don't care what the revisionists say. The number one reason for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to spare the hundreds of thousands of American casualties if we had to invade Japan. The Japanese people were fanatical and we had every reason to believe the worst would meet us when our invasion force arrived on the Japanese home islands. We were not responsible for Japan's refusal to surrender unconditionally before the dropping of the bombs. We were not responsible for taking the chance that Japan would eventually surrender like these idiot experts are insisting. Our only responsibility was to prevent the deaths of American soldiers and citizens by any means at our disposal. When Japan refused to surrender unconditionally, they forced Truman to use the full power at his disposal to prevent American deaths and injuries. That was his job. He did it well and he made the right decision for the American soldiers under his command.

The revisionists can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned.