Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, July 03, 2004

This is what the media has drive our soldiers to:

Ever hear of the Battle of the Humvee? That's what I'm calling a May skirmish fought by soldiers of the 37th Armored Regiment's 2nd Battalion in the southern Iraqi city of Najaf. In what became a six-hour firefight, Americans battled militiamen of Muqtada al-Sadr to secure the hulk of a burning Humvee. It's not that our soldiers fought because the flaming wreck amounted to a tin can's worth of military value. They fought,as Capt. Ty Wilson of Fairfax, Va., explained to The Washington Post, because "we weren't going to let them dance on it for the news. Even [with] all the guys they lost that day, that still would have given them victory."

Yes, it would have given them a fake media created victory.

Anti-Bush and anti-American print and television reporters would have photographed and videotaped Sadr's men jumping up and down on the burning hulk of an American Humvee and splashed the sight all over the world as proof that America is losing in Iraq. This sight would, hopefully for them, demoralize the American people and give the Michael Moore's of the world just one more reason to smile and shake their heads at our silly arrogance. It would be more proof that our adventures in Iraq were ill conceived and that we should just pull out immediately to spare any more humiliations.

That's what the media is doing in Iraq. And our soldiers are fighting them just as fiercely, albeit without shooting them, as they are the violent enemy who is trying to destroy Iraq.

Via The Corner at National Review.

Saddam believed the U.N. would save him:

One official said that Mr. Hussein had implied that ambiguity over whether his government possessed illegal weapons "would keep the neighbors at bay, while the U.S. would be hung up in interminable debate at the U.N."

Yes, that's what the U.N. is best at. Interminable debate. Worthless, interminable debate while people are dying. The implosion of Yugoslavia is a perfect example. Another good example was Rwanda. Now we have the mass murders in the Sudan.

That's what the U.N. had in store for the U.S. after 9/11. They wanted to talk interminably about the talks they were going to have with Saddam in the hopes that he would tell them what they wanted to hear. Saddam was counting on this circular talk to keep the world busy while he went about his business. We said, "Screw that!" after 9/11 and the world got angry. They wanted us to continue to play the game. I'm sure they had a figure in mind, that when a certain number of Americans were killed, THEN they would vote to have some talks about the nature of the talks we would have to decide if we should talk to Saddam Hussein.

I can't stand the U.N. They talk while people die.

Friday, July 02, 2004

Typical Michael Moore:

But unmentioned in “Fahrenheit/911,” or in the Lehane responses, is a considerable body of evidence that cuts the other way. The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined “Bush Inc.” concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.

As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor—a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush “didn’t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didn’t profit from it.” (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)

Michael Moore is constantly being caught in lies. The above article is from Newsweek for heavens sake. Newsweek is very critical of the president and if they feature an article highlighting Moore's lies then you have to believe that there is something very wrong with Farenheit 9/11.

After each one of his films comes out commentators have a field day showing his numerous deceptions, distortions and outright lies. One example. Just one. In Bowling For Columbine Michael Moore goes into a bank, opens an account, fills out the necessary forms and leaves carrying his brand spanking new rifle. It looks ridiculous for a bank to be handing out guns on location.

What Moore doesn't tell you is that he had to leave the bank, drive to the vault FOUR HOURS AWAY to pick up his gun. After Moore picks up his gun, he drives back to the bank and stages the scene that has become so famous in Bowling For Columbine. He does this sort of thing constantly in his crockumentaries.

Michael Moore is a dishonest and deceitful con man. The sad part is that many accept what he tells them without ever knowing how many times he has lied to them.

You've gotta check out Protest Warrior's signs. They're brilliant.

My favorite. "Hey France, you shut the hell up, we'll protect civilization."

Hehehe.

Bryan Henderson and his Protest Warriors created a controversy at Princeton High School. You can read the account of what happened when they decided to counter the dominant (yes, leftwing) point of view.

What a heartening story.

Here's my letter to the principal:

Mr. Browning

I was encouraged to write to you by one of your former students, Bryan Henderson and his Protest Warrior organization.

I've just finished reading http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=82 his account of what happened at Princeton High School and I wanted to tell you just how proud I am of that young man.

Once upon a time it was considered noble, heroic, and righteous for leftwingers to challenge the authority of the institutions of higher learning that they were attending. Those students fought for the right to express views that were counter to the "establishment's" point of view. Ultimately they won and the result is that our nation's educational institutions are dominated by one point of view. Isn't it ironic that the views of those rebellious leftwingers has become the "establishment's" point of view?

Princeton High School is not alone. At facilities all over this country the leftwing point of view is preached to impressionable young minds on a daily basis. Polls have shown that educators are overwhelmingly leftwing in their political opinions and these ideas are being foisted on our young people without any balance from opposing points of view.

How can students be educated when they are being presented with only one point of view? That's not education. That's indoctrination. Sadly, this is what's been happening.

I am very proud of Bryan Henderson. He was attempting to tell the other side of the story when he ran into the stone wall that has become the politically correct version.

All the left has to do is cry "racism" or cry a few tears and the administration automatically ends the debate. If that has to happen, and I understand it may be necessary to maintain a semblance of order, then you need to end the leftwing sermons by your teachers.

The left has been able to maintain a one sided debate by wildly accusing the other side of racism. This is a tried and true tactic designed to squelch dissent. I hope you will be aware of this tactic as well as the "shout down", the "steal all the newspapers", the "kick their ass", and the "cry because someone hurt my feelings" forms of debate and will take appropriate actions should the time come.

Rolling over and cowardly acceding to the left's wishes is not what I would call appropriate. That's what got us into the mess in the first place.

Thank you for your time.

Sean Roper

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

I do believe this is how today's media would cover the D-Day landings in June, 1944:

Tragic French Offensive Stalled on Beaches (Normandy, France - June 6, 1944) - Pandemonium, shock and sheer terror predominate today's events in Europe.

In an as yet unfolding apparent fiasco, Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower's troops got a rude awakening this morning at Omaha Beach here in Normandy.

Due to insufficient planning and lack of a workable entrance strategy, soldiers of the 1st and 29th Infantry as well as Army Rangers are now bogged down and sustaining heavy casualties inflicted on them by dug-in insurgent positions located 170 feet above them on cliffs overlooking the beaches which now resemble blood soaked killing fields at the time of this mid-morning filing.

Bodies, parts of bodies, and blood are the order of the day here, the screams of the dying and the stillness of the dead mingle in testament to this terrible event.

Morale can only be described as extremely poor--in some companies all the officers have been either killed or incapacitated, leaving only poorly trained privates to fend for themselves.

Things appear to be going so poorly that Lt. General Omar Bradley has been rumored to be considering breaking off the attack entirely. As we go to press embattled U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt's spokesman has not made himself available for comment at all, fueling fires that something has gone disastrously awry.

The government at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is in a distinct lock-down mode and the Vice President's location is presently and officially undisclosed.

Whether the second in command should have gone into hiding during such a crisis will have to be answered at some future time, but many agree it does not send a good signal.

Miles behind the beaches and adding to the chaos, U.S. Naval gunships have inflicted many friendly fire casualties, as huge high explosive projectiles rain death and destruction on unsuspecting Allied positions. The lack of training of Naval gunners has been called into question numerous times before and today's demonstration seems to underlie those concerns.

At Utah Beach the situation is also grim, elements of the 82nd and 101st Airborne seemed to be in disarray as they missed their primary drop zones behind the area believed to comprise the militant's front lines. Errant paratroopers have been hung up in trees, breaking arms and legs, rendering themselves easy targets for those defending this territory.

On the beach front itself the landing area was missed, catapulting U.S. forces nearly 2,000 yards South of the intended coordinates, thus placing them that much farther away from the German insurgents and unable to direct covering fire or materially add to the operation.

Casualties at day's end are nothing short of horrific; at least 8,000 and possibly as many as 9,000 were wounded in the haphazardly coordinated attack, which seems to have no unifying purpose or intent. Of this number at least 3,000 have been estimated as having been killed, making June 6th by far, the worst single day of the war which has dragged on now--with no exit strategy in sight--as the American economy still struggles to recover from Herbert Hoover's depression and its 25% unemployment.

This is exactly the way the contemporary media would have presented that news. I have no doubt.

When a member of Duran Duran declares that Iraq is an "unmitigated disaster" you know it must be true.

The man isn't so much an idiot as he is a unquestioning believer in whatever his newspaper and the BBC tells him. He has no clue as I suspect most people don't.

Hillary Clinton reveals the Democrats plan for when they win control of government:

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

They DO know what's best for you. Just ask them. They'll tell you they do.

This article did not appear in a rightwing newspaper. It is found in the leftwing San Francisco Gate online.

Just for the record. Those tax cuts were timely and very helpful. They came for me when I needed them the most. And I am not what anyone would consider wealthy.

Via Instapunidt.

A marine describes how the Washington Post's Baghdad bureau chief develops his story complete with the words of the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign affairs.

Here's the link to the marine's story in CommentaryPage.com and an excerpt:

Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the American operation a failure. Reading his dispatches from April 2003, you can already see his meta-narrative take shape: basically, that the Americans are clumsy fools who don’t know what they’re doing, and Iraqis hate them. This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.

How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes. Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Al Kut last April, talked to a few of our officers, and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.

The whole article is infuriatingly consistent with other articles I've read about the media's behavior.

Many reporters are openly opposed to our military operations, or they are subtly working to get the democratic nominee elected because they are democrats themselves, or they are too concerned for their safety (I can't say I really blame them for this one) to go out and see what's really happening in Iraq.

Whatever the reason, the media is not telling the story of what's happening in Iraq and this marine is just one of the dozen or so examples that I've read that reinforces that belief.

In a few years, people will be simply stunned at the remarkable success that Iraq has become. They will not understand. It'll be as surprising to them as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union because they accepted the media version without question and refused to believe anything else.

People will be amazed. But by that time a Democrat will probably be in the White House and they'll be telling the story of how Iraq's success was due to a combination of American Democratic leadership and the moral legitimacy of the United Nations.

That they'll buy because they will remember how they were told that Iraq was a complete failure under George W. Bush. They will refuse to believe that it was Coalition steadfastness that brought Iraq to this amazing point because, as they all knew in 2004, the occupation was a miserable and complete failure. It couldn't possibly have been going well because the media and Michael Moore assured them that it was a catastrophe.

Monday, June 28, 2004

The UK's Financial Times features a story today that reveals why British intelligence insists to this day that Iraq was working to secure uranium "yellow cake" from Niger:

However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

No. Saddam was in no way whatsoever trying to develop nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. And no, he never, ever tried to buy uranium for a nuclear weapon and the two nuclear reactors the French sold him were never intended to create nuclear weapons even though Saddam himself bragged that the nuclear reactors would create the first Arab nuclear weapon.

No, Saddam was no threat to anyone. He was as harmless as a little lamb.

Let's put the recent Abu Ghraib controversy in some perspective.

Ibrahim Idrissi:

"They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a 'celebration.' We all knew what they meant by 'celebration.' All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn't tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen."

"This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us."

"Amer's wife didn't lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer's throat." There is a moment of silence. Then Idrissi says: "What we have seen about the recent abuse at Abu Ghraib is a joke to us."

Iraq gained it's sovereignty today.

We all know that it's not a perfect and complete sovereignty, but it's definitely a step in that direction.

Once again, I'd like to take this opportunity to note that if it was up to the Michael Moores and Noam Chomskys of the world this would never have happened. If the French and Germans had their way Saddam would still be having people murdered and tortured while his sociopathic sons would still be committing mass murder.

If the American left had their way Saddam would still be in power.

We must never forget who those were who fought so passionately to keep this day from coming to pass. We must never forget who opposed this day. We must remind history who lined up on which side.

Leftists will insist that they weren't defending Saddam and that may very well be true, but the truth is also that if they had succeeded in what they were trying to do Saddam would indeed be in power this very day.

I've made the comparison before. The left has defended Saddam very much in the same way a defense attorney defends his client who was found to have a frozen human head in his freezer. The attorney will argue that his client should be freed because the search warrant had a clerical error in the name of the suspect or the address of the residence. Never mind that a frozen head was found; the attorney wants his client free on a technicality.

This is very much the position of the world left in regards to Saddam Hussein. Yes, we found mass graves, yes Saddam did use WMD's--twice, yes Saddam did invade his neighbors--twice, yes he did refuse to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which gave him ONE LAST CHANCE to cooperate with weapons inspections as he'd refused to do for 10 years, yes he financially funded and sheltered terrorists who had commmitted mass murder, yes he'd tortured his people in rape rooms and dungeons, yes he'd ravaged the environment by draining the marshes, and yes he caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children by keeping the profits of the Oil-For-Food program for himself and his French backers, but by God the Americans didn't find barrels of WMD's!

So, on that technicality the American and world left insists to this day that the overthrow of Saddam was fraudulent, illegal, unjust and based on lies. Oh and that the only reason we went into Iraq was for OOOOIIILLLL!!!

Never forget who was on Saddam's side. Never forget that it was the left who staged protests all over the world to keep Saddam in power.

The left has a long history of supporting mass murderers. Indeed, the 20th century is full of examples of the murders of tens of millions of people, perhaps as many as one hundred million, by leftwing governments. Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot. Hitler. Castro. The list is full of lesser leftwing dictators, but the results are tragically identical.

Never let them forget which side they are on.

Indeed.

Let Freedom Reign!

Via Instapundit.

An astonishing article on France and it's business dealings around the world:

The Elysee Palace's routine disregard of its clients' human rights records makes President Jacques Chirac's new status as hero of the left and guardian of Europe's conscience on Iraq all the more ironic. This is the same Jacques Chirac who, as French premier in the 1970s, sold Saddam Hussein two nuclear power plants ("This deal with France is the very first concrete step towards production of the Arab atomic bomb," gushed Saddam). Chirac later declared himself "truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974". France went on to sell the Ba'athist regime $1.5bn of weapons.

In the 1990s, the French oil giant TotalFinaElf spent six years developing the Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields, representing 25 per cent of Iraq's oil reserves. Alcatel won contracts worth $75m, its main task being to upgrade Baghdad's phone system; Renault sold Iraq $75m worth of farming equipment; and, once the trade embargo was partially lifted, France controlled 25 per cent of Iraq's imports. It is estimated that, in 2001 alone, 60 French firms did $1.5bn in trade under the now-suspect oil-for-food programme. In December 2003, when the US announced it was barring opponents of the Iraq war from bidding for US-financed projects worth $18bn, France professed astonishment. The then French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said Iraq's sovereignty should be resolved before reconstruction could begin.

France opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. I wonder why.

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Via Power Line.

How did I miss this:

Duelfer also said his team has now found 10 or 12 chemical-weapon rounds armed with sarin and mustard gas. Until now, only a few chemical rounds had been reported.

This is the first time I've read about any more WMD finds in Iraq. Why hasn't the media reported this? It was significant that the only shell I have heard about contained enough sarin, that if used most effectively, could have killed upwards of 60,000. And now I find that there 10 or 12 more chemical weapon artillery shells and we haven't been told of the finds? Incredible!

I know what many skeptics would say about this report of "10 or 12 chemical-weapons rounds armed with sarin and mustard gas." They would say, "If this is true, the media would have reported it" to which I can only say, "Would they?"