Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, July 31, 2004

I hope Democratic Senator Zell Miller says this same thing at the Republican convention next month:
Today, it's the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn't have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent "the heart and soul of America."

No longer the party of hope, today's Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry's many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry's going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about "the misery index" and the Depression. What does he know about either?
I can't wait.

Zogby says Kerry got "no bounce" in his poll numbers from the convention. Historically a candidate gets a six point increase, but Kerry got nothing.

It may still be too early to tell whether that's accurate or not, but it can't be encouraging for Democrats.

Power Line blog asks, "What's going on with the Democrats."

They drafted a platform in regards to Iraq that polls show they don't believe in. Power Line concludes:
So what's going on? The delegates to the Democratic convention adopted a platform that few if any of them believe in, which acknowledges the danger of terrorism and pledges to stay the course in Iraq. It would be nice to think that the Democrats have undergone a transformation. But we know that isn't true; a survey indicated that three-fourths of the delegates advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the opposite of the platform they voted for. And this year there was not even a debate, let alone a fight, about the platform.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Democrats are so desperate for power that they have no compunction about misrepresenting themselves to the American people. This isn't shocking in itself, of course, but how painful must it be for Michael Moore to sing "America the Beautiful" on television? How hard must it be for Democratic delegates to pay tribute after tribute to a U.S. military toward which they have demonstrated nothing but suspicion and hostility for decades?

At some point, one has to wonder what is left of leftism, if leftists not only refrain from expressing their true opinions, but join with apparent enthusiasm in celebrating views that until now, they have considered anathema.
Beautifully said.

Hehehe. John Kerry is dissed by Marines:
Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary — an Edwards family tradition — when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions.

The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir."

But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."

A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.

The Marines — all of whom serve at nearby Stewart Air Force Base — wouldn't give their names.
God bless 'em!

Wow. The examples of Moore's deceptions keep rolling in.

A newspaper in central Illinois want an apology from Moore for doctoring a frontpage:
A scene early in the movie that shows newspaper headlines related to the legally contested presidential election of 2000 included a shot of The Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent headline: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."

The paper says that headline never appeared on that day. It appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition, but the headline was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer."
Michael Moore is an unscrupulous propagandist.

Also via Instapundit.

Another bit of good news. Germans alone bought one million copies of Michael Moore's bestseller, "Dude, Where's My Country?" That's out of three million sold. Germans bought one million. That fact should indicate the level of anti-Americanism in that country.

Well, David Kaspar is reporting that the German press is rebuking Moore's film, "Farenheit 9/11."

Go. See the excerpt Kaspar translates from the leftwing German magazine, Spiegel Online.

The truth about Moore is getting out. Be heartened. Critics all over the world are rebuking Moore and his deeply flawed work.

Via Instapundit.

The Democratic Leadership Council featured a wonderfully timely article about "Michael Moore's Truth Problem" even before "Farenheit 9/11" came out. The article is from March and it's mostly about Moore's book, "Dude, Where's My Country."

Here's a sample, but you MUST go read the whole thing:
Is Michael Moore a courageous political documentarist who unmasks the chicanery all around us -- or just a charlatan in a clown suit? Is he an entertainment genius or a dangerous ideologue? The answer, of course, is all of the above. The problem is that you never know which of the four is doing the talking in Moore's movies and books. The end result is that the writer-filmmaker spreads a fog of misbegotten notions about America, politics, business, and international affairs among his youthful, left-leaning following at home and, indeed, around the world. Uninformed readers and viewers tend to believe everything he says.
That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Uninformed readers tend to believe that everything he says is true and accurate, especially when he says it without any indication that he's trying to be funny.

Moore's insistence that President Bush let the bin Laden's leave the country after 9/11 is a perfect example. Most people believed that assertion without question. I mean, it was in F9/11 so it must be true. But the fact is that it was Richard Clarke who approved the flight. The decision never reached President Bush and, in fact, Clarke told The Hill newspaper that, "I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again."

This is very important foundational element to Moore's whole thesis in F9/11. For sure, there are other deeply flawed foundational elements to F9/11. This is just one example.

Another example is found in a Newsweek article that I linked to back in June. That article explains how the nefarious Carlyle Group is peopled by Democrats as well as Republicans and, more importantly, that Bush wasn't even part of the group during the years most important to Moore's conspiracy theory. Moore also fails to tell the audience that President Bush cancelled an $11 billion contract with the Carlyle Group. He leaves those problematic facts out of his movie.

To be fair, I believe Moore makes some valid points. There are problems in the U.S. corporate and governmental structures, but the U.S. is not nearly the force for evil that Moore portrays in his books and movies. Moore is a deeply deceptive moviemaker who is unfairly spreading anti-Americanism around the world. The saddest part is how the Democrats have embraced and cheered the man as if he's a hero to be looked up. He's nothing more than the world's leading anti-American cheerleader.

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Carmen bin Ladin:
"Osama bin Laden and those like him didn't spring, fully formed, from the desert sand. They were made. They were fashioned by the workings of an opaque and intolerant medieval society that is closed to the outside world. It is a society where half the population have had their basic rights as people amputated, and obedience to the strictest rules of Islam must be absolute. Despite all the power of their oil-revenue, the Saudis are structured by a hateful, backward-looking view of religion and an education that is a school for intolerance . . . .When Osama dies, I fear there will be a thousand men to take his place."
I am dumbfounded when I hear women side with the Islamofascists we are fighting. In their defense, I know they aren't openly siding with these regressive, women-hating, death worshipping, mass murdering Islamofascist totalitarians, but they are in effect defending them when they adopt the leftwing opposition to our actions in the Middle East.

It's all about politics. I understand. They must maintain the party line even if that means supporting positions that are contrary to their real best interests. But it's still a head scratcher to hear feminists, gays and leftists in general so hostile to the progressive, world changing events that are taking place in the Middle East.

Do they really lack such foresight that they can't see the potential for mankind as a result of these historical events? Do they really want to end the chance for a greatly more liberal Middle East?

For an ideology that is supposed to be an advocate for the oppressed and marginalized, they sure are doing a lousy job.

Ralph Peters has an encouraging and uplifting editorial in today's New York Post:
A few months ago, an Army general with service in Iraq as well as extensive NATO experience remarked to me, "Think of the weakest National Guard unit you saw in your career — they're light years ahead of the best the [continental] Europeans have got."
Europe will have to devote many more resources to their defense in the coming years. We are fed up with them and their juvenile opposition to our national security. We are drifting apart and years from now the Europeans may have to choose between paying for welfare or paying for an effective military. I have a feeling that the socialist welfare state will win out for a while longer or at least until something terrible happens.

Via Professor Reynolds

I'm a Soapbox junkie. I love to argue with the lefties who come to that room and I especially love it when I go armed with stuff like this:
It is playing a key role in curbing and caging North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il. It played a key role in disarming Libya, discovering and rolling up the Pakistani A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network, and has become a framework for international military and police exercises organized by the United States. Its membership includes most of the world's largest economic powers, most of the world's largest military powers, and most of the most influential states on earth. The United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia, the Netherlands, France, Australia and Germany are among its 15 member states, and it is one of the pillars of the Bush administration's strategy to both win the war on terrorism and halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As an organization set up to perform a mission that the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency have jointly failed, halting the spread of nuclear weapons, it has the potential of becoming an alternative to the UN itself in coming decades. Notably, all of its members to date are democracies.

But thanks to the media and Democrats who insist on portraying the Bush administration as "unilateral," you have probably never heard of it.

Called the Proliferation Security Initiative, this results-oriented alliance is now just over a year old.
This is news to me too so I don't expect many people to know about this alliance.

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Michael Moore was on O'Reilly last night:
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The issues… all right good. Now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain and now the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

MOORE: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by — all of those investigations come to the same conclusion. That’s not a lie.

MOORE: Uh huh. So, in other words, if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…

O'REILLY: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth.

MOORE: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it and then I would realize, oh Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s President Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a…

O'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing: If you, if Michael Moore is president…

MOORE: I thought you said you saw the movie? I show all that in the movie.

O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine…

MOORE: But that was your question…

O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious…

MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test…

O'REILLY: All right, now you’re dancing around a question…

MOORE: No, I’m not. There’s no dancing.

O'REILLY: He didn’t lie.

MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true.

O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources.

MOORE: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody.

O'REILLY: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too.

MOORE: His own people told him. I mean, he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said, “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”

O'REILLY: You’re diverting the issue… did you read Woodward’s book?

MOORE: No, I haven’t read his book.

O'REILLY: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?

MOORE: I know who he is.

O'REILLY: OK, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said, “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, ‘slam dunk.’” If you’re the president, you ignore all that?

MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O'REILLY: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.

MOORE: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th.

O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...

MOORE: OK, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O'REILLY: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

MOORE: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don’t know a worse…

O'REILLY: It wasn’t a lie.

MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.

MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that.
Okay. There you have it. If anyone, Democrat or Republican, ever makes a mistake then it's a lie. If you defend Michael Moore then this is the standard you and yours will be held to: If any Democrat EVER makes a mistake, ever believes something that anyone tells them, if they quote a CIA or other intelligence organization and that report turns out to be false, then your man or woman is a liar.

This is the new reality courtesy of your hero, Michael Moore. Happy now?

* 64 percent say the country is heading in the right direction.

* 81 percent say that they plan to vote in the October election.

* 77 percent say they believe the elections will "make a difference."

* 64 percent say they rarely or never worry about their personal safety, while under the Taliban only 36 percent felt that way.

* 62 percent rate President Hamid Karzai's performance as either good or excellent.

This was no pro-Bush put-up job. The polling firm, Charney Research, is a partisan Democratic polling firm. And superstar Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who's read the study — and who has worked on similar polling in developing countries — calls it "very reliable."
The man who conducted the poll has does this many times in other difficult countries and I love the quote at the end of the piece:
"Afghans would like to see democracy in their country after decades of war," Charney said. "Even those who say they are dissatisfied say they want more aid, not the return of the Taliban."

"Many people said, 'Thank you for asking,' " he said. "No one's ever asked."

The New York Times grudgingly admits that Iraq is taking steps towards a democratic form of government:
Caucuses like the one Dr. Abu-Raghif attended have been convening around Iraq to select roughly 1,000 delegates, who will hold a national conference in Baghdad in the next week.

The concrete goal of the conference is to vote - openly and freely - on a 100-seat transitional council that will oversee the government of Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, until national elections are held in January. But the conference is also meant to function as an opportunity for a national dialogue, in which for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis from all religions, regions and political and ethnic groups begin to discuss the way forward.

With widespread violence and fragmentation, that has turned out to be difficult, so much so that the United Nations is urging Iraq to postpone the conference at least briefly.
If the United Nations is urging Iraq to postpone the conference then it can only be because they fear it will succeed. In other words, if the U.N. is against it, then it should proceed.

I have to post this: France opposes UN Sudan sanctions

Why does France oppose UN Sudan sanctions? It could have to do with the fact that France has oil interests in Sudan as they did in Iraq. Now granted these Sudanese oil interests aren't nearly as massive as the deals the French had with Saddam, but money is money and the French want all they can get their grubby hands on.

France opposed the U.S. over Iraq because France had multi-billion dollar oil contracts for exclusive rights over Iraqi oil fields as soon as the sanctions from the Gulf War were lifted. While our morally deficient enemies waited for the sanctions to be lifted they made themselves a nice profit in the Oil-For-Food scheme which allowed Saddam to keep up to 10 billion dollars while the French kept their beaks wet as well.

And these are the people the Democrats want to give veto power over our national security? Are they insane?

Monday, July 26, 2004

Ann Coulter in the article that USA Today banned:
For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. We've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting "Allah Akbar!" Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying "digital Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush – in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.
Ann Coulter is accused of being an unfair ideologue, but I know when she's exaggerating and trying to make a joke. She is a very funny woman.

American and international leftists are no doubt cheering the wonderful news that Farenheit 9/11 is having a devastating effect on our soldiers morale in Iraq.

It seems they are young and impressionable people and they don't know about the lies Moore employs to lay the groundwork for his crockumentary.

There are some people (Via Andrew Sullivan who know a piece of propaganda when they see it, but nfortunately most of the soldiers in Iraq who have seen F911 don't know what a lying sack of shit Moore is and their morale is devastated by this deceitful and dishonest work.

I can just see the Democrats grinning. This is good news as most bad news for the country equals good news for them. How sad.

Mark Steyn has one of his typically brilliant columns. It is a must read. My favorite part:
Cleland is tangentially relevant to the 9/11 commission's report. The senator lost his re-election in 2002 not because "Republicans attacked my patriotism," but because they attacked his demand that the new Homeland Security Department be filled with the same old featherbedded jobs-for-life unionized federal workers you can never fire no matter what they do. Like those INS guys who approved Mohammed Atta's and Marwan al-Shehhi's student visas six months after they'd died on Sept. 11, piloting their respective planes into Tower One and Tower Two. The INS took decisive action against those responsible, moving Janis Sposato "sideways" to the post of "assistant deputy executive associate commissioner for immigration services.'' I don't know what post she was moved sideways from -- possibly associate executive deputy assistant commissioner. Happily, since then, the INS has changed its name to some other acronym and ordered up a whole new set of business cards, extra-large if Sposato's title is anything to go by.
Absolutely blistering. The rest of the column is just as brilliant.

Andrew Sullivan is having another pledge week. I'd give him some money if I weren't so opposed to his politics, but I thought I would give him a plug anyway since I do visit his website everyday.