Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, May 08, 2004

C, a commenter at Tim Blair's site makes an excellent point:

As partisan and ineffectual as the World Court is, what about the Court of World Opinion? Why the clamor for Rumsfeld to step down and for Bush to keep apologizing, when the UN fails to acknowledge and punish far worse deeds and lapses under its auspices?

Kofi's not just an inept bureaucrat with nice suits and the face of diversity, he is complicit in his organization's crimes of graft and its crimes against humanity. He could not apologize enough.

Ah, but Kofi Annan is not American and the U.N. is not a U.S. institution so they are not held to any standard the U.S. is expected to maintain. Kofi is one of the international leftists so he can get away with pretty much anything.

Where are the demands for Annan to resign? The evidence is clear that Annan has failed miserably and his failures have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, prostitution rings in Kosovo, and the massive Oil-for-Food scandal that enriched his son and top U.N. officials.

Where are the calls for HIS resignation? His failures are surely more consequential than anything Donald Rumsfeld is guilty of.

A post at Power Line has nailed the sentiment exactly:

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists because they desperately want the terrorists to win in Iraq. Thus they take every opportunity to encourage the terrorists while scaring off and demoralizing any allies or potential allies of the United States, both inside and outside Iraq. Anyone in Iraq who might be considering throwing his support behind the American effort can see what way the political winds are blowing in this country.

The reason the Democrats are doing this is because they view a U.S. loss in Iraq as politically advantageous for themselves.

To the Democrats in Washington, nothing matter so much as them winning elections. The Democratic nomination of Bill Clinton in 1992 proved to me and many others that the Democratic party had become the party of the slick salesman. Principles and beliefs were not important.

It is widely known that Bill Clinton used polls throughout his presidency to tell him what to believe. His campaign style has become John Kerry's campaign style. That is, you tell each individual group whatever they need to hear so that they will support the candidacy even if that directly contradicts what you told the last group you were seeking support from.

This lack of principles led the Democratic party to seek judicial relief in the 2000 elections. Al Gore was trying to get the rules changed after the Florida election was over. That is how unprincipled the Democratic party is. That's what happened in 2000. The Democrats went to court to get the rules changed after they had lost Florida by an excruciatingly close margin. Never mind that crap about George W. Bush stealing the election and the U.S. Supreme Court "selecting" him. George Bush won that election according to the rules in place before election day and the U.S. Supreme Court simply told the Florida Supreme Court that they could not change the rules after the election had taken place.

That attempt by the Democrats is the same tactic used by third world dictators to take and maintain control of their countries. It's lost on Democrats that their party was attempting the same strategy that dictators have been using for many years.

Now the Democratic party is so intent on winning elections that they are willing to see America defeated and international terrorism grow unrestrained by American power.

I believe this is a losing strategy and I hope the election in November teaches the Democrats that important lesson.

Goddamn Blogger! There is nothing more frustrating than writing what I consider to be an inspired post only to lose it. I am so agitated right now.

Actually, it's my own fault for not saving my work before posting it, but this is the first time in months that I have lost something. I used to right click, select all, and copy before posting, but I didn't this time and haven't in months and now Blogger's internal failure has cost me.

Did I mention that the nation added 288,000 jobs last month? That means that we have seen an increase of 867,000 jobs in four months this year.

Jobless recovery my ass.

Wow. Wretchard at the Belmont Club features a sobering account of atrocities that puts the Abu Ghraib affair in some context.

The whole thing is worth reading, but I especially liked this in the final paragraph:

One day Ted Koppel will read, in addition to the names of American soldiers who died in Iraq, the names of friends who will have died in another attack on New York. One day Nicholas de Genovea, the Columbia professor who called for a "million Mogadishus" will understand that it means a billion dead Muslims. And then for the first time, perhaps, they will understand the horror of Abu Ghraib while we all raise our glasses, sardonically like Robert Graves, "with affection, to the men we used to be".

The people who are most opposed to our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq do not understand that we must do those things to protect Americans, but also, if we don't do those things, millions of innocent people will die as the result of a much larger conflict if we do nothing now and choose appeasement as the Europeans do.

If we had done nothing in response to 9/11 except to send money to the terrorists as the left wanted, the attacks would have continued and escalated until we were forced to respond with a devastating attack that would indeed cost the lives of many more innocents than have already died.

If we had appeased, radical Islam would ultimately have gotten a nuke or two. Perhaps they still will, but the odds are much lower today than they were then. And if radical Islam had obtained a nuke and set one off in NYC, can you imagine the response? Millions would die as opposed to the thousands who've already died. The U.S. will not be nuked and then adopt the appeasement strategy preferred by our erstwhile "allies" in Europe. The response would be devastating and the death toll for the poor and innocent would indeed be much larger than it is today.

Regardless of what the far left believes, the U.S. is the only force for world stability. The impotent Europeans are unable to back their preferred diplomacy with any kind of military threat and the world is still a dangerous place where dictators (Saddam) can rise a la Hitler to threaten world peace. The U.S. maintains a presence around the world to try to ensure that doesn't happen. And what do we get for our troubles? Anti-Americanism.

You're welcome.

Thursday, May 06, 2004

This is why I believe President Bush is the man for the job.

I've been reading opinions (okay, it's spin) about the Iraqi prisoner abuse that indicates there may be a silver lining to this whole mess.

The idea is that the Arabs are seeing that our leaders, western leaders, are servants of the people and when something scandalous occurs those leaders are obligated to report and apologize. For example. Have you ever once heard an Arab leader apologize to their people for acts of corruption, torture, or mass murder? Of course not. They view anything like that as a sign of weakness whereas we see it as a fundamental strength of our society.

Today, President Bush apologized for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Saddam never apologized for killing and torturing millions. No Arab dictator would ever apologize.

One more thing must be noted. All those years CNN spent kissing Saddam's ass and not once did they ever report anything like this to the world. Now, they have spent a week on this sensational story. Yes it's newsworthy and they should cover it, but they also should have reported the other stories that Eason Jordan confessed they sat on so they wouldn't lose their precious Baghdad bureau.

CNN should be ashamed of the choices they made. They chose to not report important stories for the sake of access. It makes me wonder how many other CNN bureaus are allowed to remain as long as they don't report the truth about what's happening. Now that the U.S. is involved in a scandal CNN is more than happy to pile on because we are a free and open society. CNN executives are not subject to murder and torture if they report American scandals. It would nice if CNN and the left in general would acknowledge what wonderful freedoms we have.

All societies are not equal no matter what the occasional leftwing professor would have us believe. Western society is better in many many ways and it's time they admit it.

April's jobs numbers are due out tomorrow and the unemployment numbers from last week indicate that the good economic news will continue to come:

America's employment outlook brightened on Thursday after the government said jobless claims dropped last week to their lowest since 2000, bolstering expectations for strong numbers in the April jobs report.

Those unexpected numbers and tomorrow's jobs creation numbers should considerably bolster President Bush's reelection chances.

Oh yeah. It's too early to tell, but it appears that the United Nations may be going to stonewall the Oil-for-Food investigation.

For now we can give the U.N. the benefit of the doubt because they have chosen the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, to investigate the scandal. The official line is that they want all documents to be handled through Volcker's staff. So, for now, we should be patient and see what Volcker comes up with.

My gut is telling me that it's every bit as bad as the preliminary evidence suggests.

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

The $521 billion budget deficit appears to be much less than first thought according to a Washington Post story.

According to the Post, the U.S. government is paying out less in tax refunds and is receiving more in tax revenue than was earlier projected.

This is good news for President Bush's reelection hopes.

I haven't mentioned the prisoner abuse stories coming out of Iraq. I guess I should take the time to officially condemn that behavior and voice my outrage. I hope that those responsible are prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. This whole episode has been a disgrace and reflects horribly on the United States.

Jeff Goldstein presents "Ted Rall's Internal Monologue."

Ted Rall is a disgusting human being.

You may remember Rall from a couple of years ago when he attacked Daniel Pearl's widow in one of his more memorable strips.

This is the face of leftism. Rall is the perfect example of why Democrats should not be referred to as liberals. They are anything but liberal. Many, not all, but many, are cruel, intolerant, hatefilled people who wouldn't know liberalism if it bit them on the ass.

That first link is to Rall's latest strip in which he attacks Pat Tillman. I imagine many on the left would find it funny. I find it disgusting and sadly typical of those who present themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rest of the world.

Sunday, May 02, 2004

I remember seeing Thomas Hamill three weeks ago in the backseat of a car after he had been captured by Iraqi gunmen.

Yesterday, Hamill escaped from his captors.

It didn't look good for Hamill. I thought for sure he would be found dead later.

Thomas Friedman is warning about China's economy. It would be foolish to not pay attention to the risks involved.

If I had money invested in China I would definitely be looking for ways to mitigate those risks. The Chinese economy could be a disaster waiting to happen for many investors

Another Weekly Standard article shows the differences between European and American ideas of the root causes of terrorism:

IN THE WAKE of the March 11 Madrid train bombing, Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, said, "It is clear that force alone cannot win the fight against terrorism." Prodi was hardly the first continental leader to implicitly criticize U.S. policy as short-sighted and to suggest that there are clear and compelling alternatives to America's strategy in the war on terror.

Soon after 9/11 itself, French prime minister Lionel Jospin traced terrorist acts to "tension, frustration, and radicalism," which in turn "are linked to inequality," which would have to be addressed. In 2002, France's foreign minister famously termed U.S. policy toward terrorism "simplistic" precisely because it did not look to "root causes, the situations, poverty, injustice." Norway's prime minister, Kjell Bondevik, insists that "fighting terrorism should be about more than using your military and freezing finances," and convened two international conferences on the root causes of terrorism in 2003. And after Madrid, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder said that "terrorism cannot be fought only with arms and police. We must also combat the roots of terrorism."

Now here's the view most popular in the U.S. as defined by President Bush:
......President Bush has articulated what amounts to a root-causes theory of terrorism. "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger," he says, "it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends," because dictatorships incubate "stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export." And his administration has begun to implement a strategy based on this theory. It has outlined a far-reaching "greater Middle East initiative" aimed at offering incentives for political reform and democratization in the region. More pointedly, the United States invaded Iraq in no small part to create a new democracy which the administration thinks might catalyze liberalization throughout the Middle East.
The Europeans have totally ignored the idea that despotic mass murderers are to blame for the frustrations of the Arab people.

We believe freedom and liberty will eliminate the root causes of terrorism while the European people seem to believe the solution lies in socialism.

This is classic leftism versus conservatism on how best to help people. Most Europeans seem to believe some sort of international welfare will ease frustrations. Most Americans believe liberty and freedom will encourage a climate of growth and peace.

I believe our view will previal initially, but I also believe we'll see a return to a gentler despotic rule in the Arab world. Kind of what's happening in Europe with the undemocratic and potentially dictatorial European Union.

Whatever. As long as they aren't killing Americans I don't give a crap what they do or if they become corrupt like the E.U. and the U.N.

From a Weekly Standard article on the new Socialist prime minister of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Spain's reaction to March 11:

From the moment the bombs went off in Madrid, the statements one heard from Zapatero's circle were illogical: On the one hand, Iraq was so disconnected from al Qaeda that Spain's entry into the Iraq war was unjustified. On the other hand, Iraq was so tightly linked to al Qaeda that the March 11 bombings were just tit for tat.

Europe has embraced appeasement as a military and political strategy. They've decided that it's best not to upset mass murderers or else they might be targeted.

What blind stupidity. But then again, we really expect nothing more from Europeans.

Power Line features a piece about this years commencement speaker at Pitzer College:

David Horowitz recalls the 1969 "War Council" convened by Dohrn and Ayers in Flint Michigan, whose purpose was to launch a military front inside the United States with the purpose of helping Third World revolutionaries conquer and destroy it. Taking charge of the podium, dressed in a high-heeled boots and a leather mini-skirt ?- her signature uniform ?- Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast."

Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Horowitz notes, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the most famous was actress Sharon Tate) Dohrn shouted: "Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim?s stomach! Wild!" (In Fugitive Days -- the memoirs that gave the occasion for the Times profile, Ayers elegantly observes: "Memory is a motherfucker.")

Yes, the president of Pitzer College received an email.