Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, July 17, 2004

I looked for this article and finally found it at Michelle Malkin.  Here's the part I want lefties to read:

The bucolic island's deep reputation for civility got a gut check this week during the annual Grand Old Fourth of July celebration.

That's when Jason Gilson, a 23-year-old military veteran who served in Iraq, marched in the local event. He wore his medals with pride and carried a sign that said "Veterans for Bush."

Walking the parade route with his mom, younger siblings and politically conservative friends, Jason heard words from the crowd that felt like a thousand daggers to the heart.

"Baby killer!"

"Murderer!"

"Boooo!"

To understand why the reaction of strangers hurt so much, you must read what the young man had written in a letter from Iraq before he was disabled in an ambush:

"I really miss being in the states. Some of the American public have no idea how much freedom costs and who the people are that pay that awful price. I think sometimes people just see us as nameless and faceless and not really as humans. ... A good portion of us are actually scared that when we come home, for those of us who make it back, that there will be protesters waiting for us and that is scary."

On the Fourth, Jason faced his worst fear.

I wanted this as proof for our leftwingers who insist that they all love and support the troops and that it's just Bush they oppose. Bullshit.  I guarantee you that there are many more examples of this sort of thing happening to our troops as they come home from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Also, I would bet a week's pay that it was even worse during Vietnam for our soldiers returning home. I've heard lefties in Soapbox insist that hateful comments toward returning soldiers is a urban legend; that it doesn't happen.

Well, now I have proof.

Wow. WomensWallStreet.com features a highly disturbing account of a flight from Detroit to Los Angeles just a couple of weeks ago.

I know, I know. Those Democrats who oppose our response to 9/11 will say this is only so much hysteria, but I invite you to read the article especially to the point where the writer quotes the British paper, The Observer, which featured this headline:

Terrorist bid to build bombs in mid-flight: Intelligence reveals dry runs of new threat to blow up airliners

The whole account is terrifying.
 
The U.S. Transportation and Security Administration will be to blame if we have another 9/11 type attack. The racial profiling restrictions that are placed on airlines is ridiculous. When a group of 14 Arab men get on a flight, the airlines are specifically restricted from searching them all. Only two can be searched because anymore would be discriminatory. Also, one of the men in question had a orthopedic brace and shoe on and restrictions forbade the airline from searching him properly.

It's time that we end the politically correct loophole that endangers thousands of people.

Friday, July 16, 2004

Once again: Whoopi, you have the right to say whatever you want. And the American people have just as much right to disagree, even to the point of threatening to stop using products you endorse.

Freedom of speech is not a one way street Whoopi. The people have as much right to voice our opinions as you do. And if we voice our opinion that Slim Fast should drop you as a spokesperson then we are exercising our constitutional rights as much as you are. Just because you are a Hollywood celebrity does not mean that you have additional rights that the rest of us aren't endowed with.

I know what it is. Celebrities like Goldberg are so spoiled, so used to people fawning over their every word, that when they find out that their views are not popular they get furious. How dare the great unwashed contradict a great Hollywood celebrity?

Also, Goldberg and the Hollwood left are hypocrites to talk about being denied freedom of speech. It's well known among the Hollywood elite that only leftwing thought is tolerated. Those that drift outside the herd mentality are running the risk of being marginalized and underemployed. I've read several anonymous accounts of conservatives feeling that their careers are threatened if they are found out.

I might not agree wholeheartedly with organized threats to boycott Slim Fast, but it is entirely within our rights as citizens to write to Slim Fast and express our outrage over Whoopi's remarks. Furthermore, if I was so inclined, I have every right to write to Slim Fast and demand that they drop her as spokesperson That is my right just as it is Whoopi's right to act stupid and say stupid things.

Slim Fast has a business to run. Many people depend on their jobs and Whoopi's comments showed that she has no grasp of her importance to the employees of Slim Fast. In short, she's a selfish person who didn't think about the repercussions to completely innocent people.

This could all have been avoided if Whoopi had only acted decently and disagreed with Bush on the issues. Instead, she goes onstage with a bottle of wine and goes off on an X-rated riff about how Bush = female genitalia.

Nice Whoopi. No wonder Slim Fast dropped you.

Blogger has added several new features to their template.  I appreciate the efforts and the attempts to make this ever easier to use. 
 
I now have the ability to post pictures although I need a little work on the whole ftp thing.  I'll figure it out when I have a picture worth posting.   




It bothered me that it took a year to reveal for the world that Joseph Wilson is/was a liar.

I know that the American people have short attention spans, but thankfully the pundits don't.

Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, and Christopher Hitchens have each penned articles that will remind people exactly what was said by the Democrats and Joseph Wilson last year.

This man deserves everything that he's getting right now

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Three months ago Ralph Peters was outraged that the U.S. had pulled the Marines out of Fallujah. He saw this as a sign of weakness and insisted that the terrorist insurgents would also see it that way.

My view was that the Iraqi people had to start fighting these sort of battles for themselves. At the time, the city of Fallujah was under the control of Iraqi and foreign insurgents who were hell bent on fighting the Americans. I believed that the best thing we could do was to do what the Iraqi Governing Council and the Fallujah leaders wanted us to do which was to pullout. The citizens of Fallujah also indicated that they wante us to pull out. So we did. We pulled out and Peters went beserk insisting that it was a horrible mistake and a win for the terrorists.

Now, three months later we are seeing how the Iraqi citizens in Fallujah like things now:

But the city west of Baghdad is no longer a sympathetic rallying place for a unified Iraqi resistance. It is now seen as run by intolerant and exclusivist Sunni imams who are seeking to turn it into a haven for Al Qaeda ideologues. Fallujah is emerging as a symbol of the disparate nature of the overall insurgency inside Iraq. Many Shiites, like the Muthars, have stopped supporting it.

Since two of Muthar's brothers and four of his cousins - all members in a family trucking cooperative - were tortured and murdered in the resistance stronghold three weeks ago, he's changed his mind about how the US handled Fallujah.

"They should have done whatever it took to take that place over,'' Muthar says. "It's been left in the hands of people who call themselves Muslims but they're not. They're simply inhuman."

Oh really? You don't say? Can I say one thing to the citizens of Fallujah? You got what you wanted. Happy?

This is EXACTLY what we needed to do. Furthermore, I say we should at no point go back into Fallujah. That ship has sailed. We tried to help the citizens of Fallujah, but they rejected our help. They wanted us out. Now it's time for the Iraqi people to drive these evil people out of Fallujah. I wish them luck. The smart thing would have been to have allowed the marines to finish the job, but they rejected that gift. Now they'll have to do it themselves or live with this terror for the foreseeable future.

I wish the Iraqi people much luck.

THIS is how you treat U.S. soldiers.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Irwin M. Stelzer makes an excellent point in his latest piece for The Weekly Standard.

Let me paraphrase his argument.

John Kerry is telling Americans that he will increase trade protectionism to protect American jobs, but at the same time he's saying that he will reach out to an increasingly export minded Europe to solidify our strained alliances.

Stelzer is arguing that Europe refuses to reform their labor markets and therefore they are more reliant than ever on American markets.

Kerry can't do both. He can't be more protectionist and at the same time make our markets even more accessible to the Europeans who need ever more access to U.S. markets. He'll have to make some choices.

Something's telling me that one of these campaign promises can't be kept. If Kerry wants an improved transatlantic alliance he will have to make some concessions. And it appears the the concessions the Europeans need and want the most are trade concessions.

Monday, July 12, 2004

I agree:

"So I had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman or defend America. Given that choice I will defend America."

Democrats and the left chose to trust Saddam.

More from Bush's speech:

"We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

It really is that simple. We all know that Saddam did have WMD's at one point. For goodness sake, he used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. Prudence dictated that we assumed he still had them until he proved otherwise. Saddam decided to obstruct and obfuscate. The left sided with him and decided that it was okay to trust him. I thank God that President Bush didn't trust the man.

Also, after September 11, 2001 I agreed that the policy of containment was untenable. The left wanted to continue this policy even though it was demonstrated that 19 men with box cutters could kill 3,000 people.

The left isn't serious about preventing mass murder. They are more interested in winning political office so they can tell people how to live their lives.

Ouch. Mark Steyn is brutal to John Edwards in the English daily, The Telegraph:

According to Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton-stain-mopper-turned-Guardian-columnist, "He bears the memory of his father taking the family to a local restaurant after church only to leave when he realised he could not afford anything on the menu."

Really? Robbins was a town of just over 1,000 people, so presumably it was, if not the only restaurant, one of only two or three. In small towns, folks generally know what the local eateries charge. And, while the Edwards family was poor by comparison with John Kerry, dad was in fact the mill's production manager (though the son tends to leave that bit out). So, in a mill town, at a restaurant presumably priced to cater for mill workers, the management of the mill couldn't afford to eat?

Ah, well. There are two Americas, and, as a successful plaintiff's attorney, Edwards spent 20 years exaggerating the gulf between them. "Plaintiff's attorney" is American for the kind of lawyer who specialises in those suits that Britons find so fascinating - you spill the coffee on your lap, so you sue McDonald's for a gazillion dollars, etc.

Polls are indicating that the John Kerry/John Edwards presidential ticket got no "bounce" in the polls from the announcement that Edwards was the veep choice.

It could be ugly for the Democrats come November.

William Safire is saying that the U.N.'s Oil For Food scandal will reach maximum exposure next spring:

All our July chin-pulling about polls and veeps and C.I.A. missteps has little to do with November's election, which will be decided by unforeseeable events. Instead, let's counter-program, to examine a political corruption story beginning to gain traction that will reach warp speed in hearings and headlines next spring.

At least eight official investigations have begun into the largest financial rip-off in history: preliminary estimates from the G.A.O. point to $10 billion skimmed or kicked back or otherwise stolen in the U.N. dealings with Saddam Hussein.

I can't wait. The U.N. is a despicable organization that has been allowing massive corruption and one scandal after another for many years. It's time they were exposed so that the average person can see what a horrendous organization it truly is.

It's high time to reform the United Nations.

Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times:

National security shouldn't be a Republican/Democrat thing. But it's become one because, for too many Americans, when it's a choice between Bush and anybody else, they'll take anybody else. So, in ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' if it's a choice between Bush and Saddam, Michael Moore comes down on the side of the genocidal whacko and shows us lyrical slo-mo shots of kiddies flying kites in a Baathist utopia. In the Afghan war, if it's a choice between Bush and the women-enslaving gay-executing Taliban, Susan Sarandon and Co. side with the Taliban. And in the most exquisite reductio of this now universal rule, if it's a choice between Bush and the CIA, the left sides with the CIA.

There's one for the peace marches: Hey, hey, CIA/How many Bush lies did you expose today?

This isn't an anti-war movement. This is a movement in denial.

It's always perplexed me, especially among the leftwing women in Soapbox, how those who are supposed to care the most about women, children and minorities could be the very ones who most opposed our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, weren't women brutalized by the Taliban? Didn't women have acid poured on them for exposing too much of their faces? Weren't women beaten for showing too much ankle or being out in publice without a male relative escort? Weren't children forbidden from playing? Didn't Saddam attempt to slaughter the Kurdish minority?

What is wrong with the left? Steyn hints at it. The thing that is wrong with the left is that they are most interested in winning political office and since Bush is in office any support for his actions is support for Republicans. They can't support Republicans and so they have to oppose the war. They have to find reasons to oppose the liberation of 50 million people, the defense of the United States, and the transformation of a brutal and despotic region so they can win political office.

The American left is sick.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

A lot of the time I have to rely on people who are smarter than me to make sense out of current events.

Last year, there was a controversy surrounding "16 words" in President Bush's State of the Union address. In his remarks, President Bush asserted that there was evidence suggesting that Saddam Hussein attempted to buy "yellowcake" (remember that word?) uranium from Niger.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

The media and Democrats pounced on this as proof that "Bush LIED!" This is where the "Bush Lied!" accusation started and now it's accepted as an article of faith on the left that, indeed, "Bush LIED!" If you read leftwing sites or message boards you will be reminded every few seconds that "Bush LIED!" and the follow on to that screech is "People Died!"

With me so far? Okay. The source of that controversy was one Joseph Wilson. Remember him? He was the man whose wife was supposedly outed as a CIA undercover agent by conservative columnist Rober Novak. That's besides the point.

Well now, the Senate Intelligence Committee has caught Joseph Wilson in lies. There's no other way to say it. The man has been caught:

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

There's more to this story. Wilson said publicly last year that his wife had nothing to do with him being sent to Niger. A CIA memo from his wife, Valerie Plame, says that the man lied:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

And finally there is this:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

The damage has been done. Not many people will understand what all this means. I had a hard time understanding until I read the Power Line Blog post about this Senate Intelligence Committee finding. As I said, the damage is done. Most people will never know that Bush didn't lie. They'll believe that he did because it was repeated so many times that it's become fact. Like the plastic turkey story the insistence that "Bush LIED!" will continue to circle the globe even though the facts indicate that he did not.

I've been aware of the insistence by many leftwing journalists that, when President Bush visited Iraq last Thanksgiving, he was photograped with a fake, plastic turkey. This story went on and on. Reporters and editorialists the world over repeated the claim that Bush was photographed holding a fake turkey and how this was simply more proof of the dishonest nature of the man.

Thankfully, the leading bastion of leftwing journalism picked up the story as noted in this Powerline Blog post. It seems that The New York Times repeated the claim and now they have issued a correction:

An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake.

I wonder how many more times this will be repeated around the world. Just because the accusation has been proven false doesn't mean that leftists will quit referencing it.

James Lileks fisks Michael Moore. This is an excellent refutation of basic Michael Mooreisms.

I want to take this opportunity to expose, yet again, the sort of thing Michael Moore does:

(Moore quote) Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?

(Lileks response) This is addressed in “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.” As the authors note: the survey to which Moore refers also says (quoting MMIABFSWM) “in the next paragraph, [the survey] goes on to note that 25 percent of those people who scored in the lowest literacy category were immigrants who have learned little or no English. And in classic Moore fashion, he also fails to disclose that nearly 19 percent of the group he includes in the uneducated masses are actually people who have ‘visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print.’”

The authors also note that when it comes to the highest level of literacy skills, “the US figure is 21.1 percent, compared to 16.6 percent in the UK and only 13.4 percent in Germany.”

See what Moore does? He makes an emotionally explosive accusation, but the truth is much more benign than he leads people to believe. I'm sure Moore goes to Europe and repeats tese same facts over and over and over again to show the world just how stupid Americans are. Here's a New York Times quote:

They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. "That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore's books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

No, Michael Moore doesn't hate America. Whatever gave anyone that idea? That New York Times article is full of this sort of anti-American bile coming out of Moore's mouth. I will paste one more comment just in case the Times link goes old and I can longer access the quotes:

But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

I don't care what Schankin at Soapbox says. Michael Moore hates this country and everything it stands for. Sadly, the man speaks for a very large part of the American and world left.

I must be a real news geek. I was talking to a buddy yesterday and I wanted to discuss "Farenheit 9/11", but to my astonishment he said he'd never heard of it.

I did a quadruple take.

I was stunned that he'd never heard of Michael Moore, F911, or "Bowling for Columbine." After remarking for about the sixth time how surprised I was that he'd never heard of Moore or any of his "documentaries" the friend said, "Well, I think I may have heard of 'Bowling for Columbine'."

Then a few minutes later another acquaitance of mine happened by and I asked him if he planned on seeing the movie. He also said no and that he'd never even heard of it.

Blank stare.

The whole reason I wanted to talk about this movie with my buddy was because I knew he didn't follow issues as closely as I do and I wanted to warn him about Moore and how he went about making his movies. I wanted to warn him because if you don't know then you may think that Moore is absolutely truthful and everything in his "documentaries" is accurate and there is no shenanigans going on.

I was able to relate a couple of examples of the sort of distortions and outright lies Moore has included in his movies and I'm glad. This person is just the sort of viewer that Moore targets. If he saw "Bowling" or F911 he would probably be outraged by the things he was told. He would believe everything Moore said not knowing how he has deceptively distorted facts or told outright lies about critically important foundational elements of his conspiracy theories.

It's hard to fight the "Big Lie" form of propaganda and Moore is a master at it. I was able to warn one person, but there are millions more who have no clue how deliberately untruthful Moore is.