Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Thursday, May 27, 2004

More proof that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein:

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned.

We could have confessions from Saddam Hussein himself and the left would still insist that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq because Al Qaeda is a extremist religious organization and Saddam was secular.

More likely in this instance though is that the left will simply move the goalposts again as they've done with all WMD finds and evidence of other complicity between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

Ann Coulter:

Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.

The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.

Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"

And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.

I believe it is undeniable that the media has been successful in casting Iraq as a complete disaster. I recently visited my favorite chat room and the mood among that room's conservative was in a word, whipped. One of the usually more reliable conservatives who goes by the nickname JQ or John Quick was reduced to Tucker Carlson handwringing and proclaimations that all was lost. I've never seen such hysteria in all my life. The man needed a slap across the face and a loud, "Snap out of it!" Even professional opinion writers who should know better have been reduced to conceding defeat and pronouncing that all is lost.

Thank God Ann Coulter is not one of those wimpy handwringers. Neither am I.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

The U.N. is s despicable organization full of corrupt officials and corrupt nations.

And to think that the left has complete faith in the U.N., even to the point of demanding that we turn Iraq over to that horribly corrupt organization.

I am so thankful we refused to let France, Germany, and Russia dictate the Iraqi occupation. Can you imagine?

Too bad the media refuses to cover the U.N.'s despicable record. If the media covered the U.N. the way they covered Abu Ghraib, Kofi Annan wouldn't have much time for anything other than apologizing. It would be one apology after another after another.

If the outrage from the media were in any way proportionate, the behaviour of U.N. peacekeepers, U.N. officials, and member nations would create a neverending controversy which in turn would force the U.N. to make the massive reforms that are so way overdue.

If the U.S. is supposed to feel shame for Abu Ghraib, can you imagine the magnitude of shame the U.N. should feel and apologize for?

Here it is. I was looking for this the other day when I was in Soapbox.

We were discussing Michael Moore and his accusations that the Bush administration conspiratorally whisked the Bin Laden family members out of the country just after 9/11.

I was saying that Richard Clarke was the one who made the decision to get the Bin Laden's out of the country.

The above link is to The Hill newspaper where Clarke admits it was his decision. Here's the opening paragraphs:

Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke’s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Yet another massive hole in Michael Moore's conspiracy theory.

I wish I could remember which Soapbox leftist was making the accusation that it was Bush who personally approved the escape by the Bin Laden's so I could go now and rub his or her smug little nose in this FACT.

During my reading this morning I came across an interview (via Andrew Sullivan) at a heavy metal website called Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles.

The interviewer is a Canadian leftwinger who at one point calls the Bush administration, "The Bush regime." That speaks volumes about where the interviewer is politically.

The interviewee is the leader of a band called ICED EARTH (never heard of them). The young man's name is Jon Schaffer and he lifted my heart with his brilliant words. I don't know the man except that he's the leader of a band and he's a high school drop out.

I suggest reading the whole interview because it's so inspiring, but here's an excerpt of the interview.

BW&BK: "This next question is controversial so I'm letting you know before we proceed. Some political analysts have articulated the view that what happened on September 11 was justified due to America's presence in the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. Some political analysts view it as retaliation for what the US has done in the Middle East in the past. As a Canadian, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about this view that's been put forth by analysts."

JS: "No, it wasn't justified. Not at all. And anybody who says so needs to have their fuckin' head examined."

BW&BK: "Do you think 9/11 will be viewed as the first event in the US empire's decline and fall?"

JS: "No. This is not an empire, first of all. If the United States was an empire, your country would be our 51st state."

BW&BK: "I understand."

JS: "Let's get real. We don't do that. It's not our thing. Colin Powell did an interview and the interviewer called the United States an empire and used this bullshit fuckin' socialist language and his response was, 'The only land we've ever asked for is enough for the kids who don't come home. In all the countries we've gone and liberated as far back as WWII, the only land we've asked for is for our soldiers that died.' There's an over-whelming amount of jealousy and resentment out there. When you're the leader, everyone comes to you when they need help. But then they shit on you every chance they get. You can never please everybody all the time. No matter what you do. You can try to do the best things, and no matter what someone is out to get you and tear you down. It's in that way in any scale of leadership. I don't care if it's a personal thing or a country or a commander of a battalion. It's human nature, it's unfortunate. But it's the way it is."


BW&BK: "So you don't see the Bush regime as being cultural imperialists? You don't see them as trying to force the American way of life on to a nation that maybe doesn't want it?"

JS: "No. If you think that's true, then why are 70 or 80 percent of the people are thrilled to have us there. Have you not seen that? And it's not a regime, by the way. You keep up that kind of language I'm going to end the interview right now."

BW&BK: "Ok. I understand."

JS: "I'm serious."

BW&BK: "I'm sorry. It's just my Canadian bias I guess."

JS: "Yeah, it is your Canadian bias. I'm sure it is."

BW&BK: "Do you think Americans are as free as they think they are?"

JS: "Um... yeah, I do. In most ways. If you're saying you should be able to drink when you're 16 years old like you can in Germany, is that the kind of freedoms you're talking about?"

BW&BK: "Well, sometimes Americans believe they're very free, when they're sometimes not. There are a lot of authors, especially a guy like Noam Chomsky, who believes a lot of consent in the US is manufactured by politicians and corporations --"

JS: "Talk about one of the fuckin' ultra leftist spin doctors of the world, Noam Chomsky. You buy into that crap?"

BW&BK: "Well, I read a lot of his stuff."

JS: "But do you believe it all?"

BW&BK: "I have a degree in political science, so I believe some of it."

JS: "Hmm. Yeah. Well. And how old are you?"

BW&BK: "I'm 22."

JS: "22 years old? That's a lot of wisdom there! Come on, man. You know where I live? In the real world. When I was 16 years old I was living in abandoned houses and making my way into a career. Building things up from nothing without any kind of... well... socialist system to help me. That made me a very strong, independent person. I'm an independent thinker. Just because I get certain things shoved down my throat, I don't follow. I lead. Y'know what I'm saying? I look at the facts, and I base my opinions on the facts. Not the political rantings of someone like Noam Chomsky. I've got some of his books in my library. I think they're unbelievably over-the-top, like dangerously so. But that's you've got out there."

The whole interview is brilliant. I bet Jon Schaffer had no idea that this would reach many of the people who are now reading his words.

What more can I say. Read the whole interview.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Did you read or hear about E.L. Doctorow's commencement speech to the graduating class at Hofstra University?

It seems Doctorow used his time to bash President Bush and the people in the audience booed his sorry ass. Good for them.

The above link is to an Opinion Journal editorial by Peggy Noonan that accurately describes the sort of person who would use a commencement speech to vent his political beliefs. The sort of person who would do that has no class and little regard for anyone other than themself. The sort of person who takes advantage of a captive audience to harangue a president is an arrogant asshole who cares about no one but himself.

I'm glad he got booed. Those students deserved words of wisdom and advice on the future lives. They didn't need some jerk spouting his deceitful opinions.

Not surprisingly, this is typical of leftists. They are convinced they know what is best for everyone. It must have come as a surprise to Doctorow and the approving faculty at Hofstra University to hear their opinions so roundly booed.

If Kofi Annan, as the leader of the United Nations, doesn't feel compelled to apologize for the sickening behavior of U.N. peacekeepers then he's unfit for his office.

Where are the editorials demanding a shameful apology from the U.N.? Where are the American Democrats? Where's Ted Kennedy? Do they expect so little from the world's supposed foremost moral authority that they can't even muster a "sorry"?

The U.N. is sick. I'm so glad we didn't cave and give France, Germany and the rest of the U.N. what they wanted to bring them into Iraq. Can you imagine what a disaster that would have been?

Anyone who knows what's happening in Kosovo would understand that the U.N. in Iraq would be a horrible turn of events for the Iraqi people. Thank God we didn't cave.

The U.N. is a sick, sick organization. Makes you wonder why the left loves them so much doesn't it?

Monday, May 24, 2004

Once again Mark Steyn is reporting on events that the rest of the media is completely ignoring. First there's this:

In the southern Iraqi town of Amara, 20 men from Scotland's Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders came under attack from 100 or so of Muqtada al-Sadr's ''insurgents.'' So they fixed bayonets and charged.

It was the first British bayonet charge since the Falklands War 20 years ago. And at the end of it some 35 of the enemy were dead in return for three minor wounds on the Argylls' side.

Why did they make a bayonet charge? The Brits weren't out of ammo. They were sending a message to the enemy. They were saying, "This is how strongly we feel. We'll run this piece of steel up in you at close range so that you can see our determination up close." I can imagine the impression those brave men made. More from the same article:

There are some 8,000 towns and villages in the country. How many do you hear about on the news? For a week, it's all Fallujah all the time. Then it's Najaf, and nada for anywhere else. Currently, 90 percent of Iraqi coverage is about one lousy building: Abu Ghraib. So what's going on in the other 7,997 dots on the map? In the Shia province of Dhi Qar, a couple hundred miles southeast of Baghdad, 16 of the biggest 20 cities plus many smaller towns will have elected councils by June. These were the first free elections in Dhi Qar's history and ''in almost every case, secular independents and representatives of nonreligious parties did better than the Islamists.'' That assessment is from the anti-war anti-Bush anti-Blair Euro-lefties.

The media are not reporting what's going on in Iraq.

Sunday, May 23, 2004

We need to have many more discussions just like this:

Gov. Ehrlich provided full-throated support. "I reject the idea of multiculturalism," Mr. Ehrlich told WBAL host Ron Smith. "Once you get into this multicultural crap, this bunk that some folks are teaching in our college campuses and other places, you run into a problem. With respect to this culture, English is the language."

A diverse society is great for America. I want legal immigration of the best and the brightest from around the world. I hope people will celebrate their heritage in their homes and be proud of their contributions to this American melting pot. What I don't want is for this country to evolve into something resembling Europe where each section of the country becomes isolated along cultural lines.

It's already happening. The left has been telling immigrants for years that they don't have to assimilate to American culture or language. They are telling people that all cultures are equal with one exception: The American culture is the greatest evil the world has ever known. That's why most Democrats don't believe in assimilation. Simply put they hate this country and would change it in radical ways if they could. Multiculturalism allows them to make many of those changes without having to put their ideas to a vote. Of course that's fine. But when they are opposed in the market place of ideas they hurl the race card and have effectively stifled the debate.

The left doesn't want to take the best from each society and assmilate it into America. They want a multicultural hyphenated society that labels us and assigns us to our respective victim group.

Democrats have a vested interest in pitting group against group. They derive power from the division. They don't want a common America. They need a divided America that pits white against black, rich against poor, women against men, gay against straight, union against non-union, environmentalist against industry, etc.

Multiculturalism is another aspect of political correctness that has been accepted for too many years because to oppose it automatically brought accusations of racism, bigotry and hatred. It was easier to roll over quietly instead of fighting for American values.

The struggle was recently engaged by a Republican governor of Maryland who called multiculturalism "a bunch of crap". I hope we finally have a honest debate about multiculturalism versus assimilation without the standard cries of RACISM! from the race lobby.

The examples of Michael Moore's lies keep piling up, but the left doesn't seem to care one bit.

Fred Barnes writes about two prime examples of Moore's extreme dishonesty in a piece for The Weekly Standard:

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels.

Michael Moore does this sort of thing constantly in his quest to be considered the most important person in the world. He's shameless. Here's another example:

Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Later, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times.

Michael Moore does this sort of thing all the time. He's a con man.