Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Friday, March 26, 2004

The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, are working to declassify Richard Clarke's classified sworn testimony from 2002. Bill Frist said that "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath."

Poor stupid Richard Clarke.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

I noticed the headline a week ago, but I never posted anything about the brewing corruption scandal over the U.N. sponsored oil-for-food program.

At a press conference at U.N. headquarters yesterday in New York, Annan yielded to intense international pressure to address allegations of a gigantic swindle in which Saddam is said to have handed out more than $2 billion in sweetheart oil deals to U.N. diplomats and friendly politicians.

Saddam is believed to have pocketed $4.7 billion in kickbacks for himself through the U.N.-run program designed to help feed the Iraqi people during international economic sanctions.

Wow. That's a big surprise. Who would have thought that the U.N. was full of despicably corrupt officials.

It's time to reform the U.N.

So which is it Richard? Are you lying now or were you lying then?

Richard Clarke is testifying before the 9/11 commission and the only thing we know for sure is that Richard Clarke is a liar.

Here's what he's saying now:

"My view was that this administration didn't listen to me -- either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as if there was an urgent problem," Clarke said.

Clarke was asked by panel members why, then, he defended Bush's terrorism policies (in 2002).

Here's what he said in 2002:

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

Richard Clarke is an unprincipled man. He says now that he didn't believe what he was saying in 2002. He says he did it because it was his job to make the president look good. So he's either a lying asskisser from way back or he's lying now trying to sell his new book. A damning quote or two from his 9/11 commission testimony will probably be worth a few thousand more books sold.

Either way, no one except the conspiratorial left will believe what he says now.

Monday, March 22, 2004

Yes John.

I am honor bound to mention this: Galloway wins damages for Iraq libel

The anti-war MP George Galloway yesterday accepted £50,000 damages and a public apology from an American newspaper over a claim he was paid £10m by Saddam Hussein to oppose the conflict in Iraq.
The high court in London was told the allegation, based on forged documents given to a journalist by an Iraqi general, was "false and without foundation".

Mr Galloway immediately demanded a government inquiry, saying the documents were evidence of a dirty tricks campaign against him and other anti-war campaigners.

It should be noted that the newspaper who lost this decision is the Christian Science Monitor and NOT a reputable conservatively focused newspaper. The Christian Science Monitor can best be described as left of center.

I missed the story John. Thanks.

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, has a brilliant post that shows why he is my blog hero:

When Palestinians blow up Israelis school buses, that's understandable anger. When America defends itself, that's indefensible. When dissent is crushed with secret police and torture chambers, that's not worthy of comment. When some people point out that traitorous behavior is unadmirable, that's the recapitulation of Nazi Germany.

To people of no moral standing. Which is what these people are. Fortunately, there aren't very many of them. (Read this, too.)

That quote is in response to another post by another of my favorite writers, James Lileks.

Glenn Reynolds inspired me to start my own weblog.

Wow. Israel assassinated Sheik Ahmed Yassin earlier today.

For the longest time Yassin was considered off limits for assassination. He was so loved by the Palestinians that he was considered untouchable. That's all ended. Look for a major response from the Palestinians. Whatever they've been holding as their ace in the hole; it's time to play it. We'll see what happens in the next week or so.

Sunday, March 21, 2004

The New York Times Magazine features a long article about Al Franken, the soon-to-be "star" radio host for the new all leftwing radio network.

Democrats are desperate to make this format successful because Rush and the rest are just killing them. The problem for the Democrats as far as I can tell is, that because they are a coalition of individual beliefs under one banner, Franken and the other radio hosts on the new network have to be careful to not step on any important toes. He must know and believe that any opposition to affirmative action, abortion, gun control, anti-war activism, or illegal immigration (to name a few) could each cost the network a significant number of listeners. The core audience will be a collection of individual groups who have their own agendas. There are certain things that the new leftwing radio network hosts must believe and these things are beyond discussion. Their can be only one thought on key issues, approval, and nothing else will be tolerated. If Franken forgets these fundamental truths then he will have really bad ratings. If he's able to juggle these he may do well at least in the short term.

I don't have much faith that the Democrats can attract much of an audience. They are an intolerant bunch whose individual parts make them difficult and inflexible. I'm writing this whole leftwing radio thing off as a campaign expense. I bet it won't make any money and it will be forced to end in no more than two years or so.