Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Thursday, August 12, 2004

"The revolution will be blogged" just doesn't have the same cachet as the more famous saying, but you get the idea.

That link is to a National Review article on "Blogging Brothers (and Sisters)".

New Jersey Governor James McGreevey admits to being gay and indulging in an extramarital affair. He announced his plan to resign today at a press conference.

Okay. Now I don't give a crap if the man is gay. That's his business. But I want to use this to ask "what if?"

What if President Bill Clinton had been gay and had been having an affair with a 18 year old boy? Do you suppose our president could be blackmailed with this information? What if North Korea President Kim Jong-IL or Iraqi President Saddam Hussein found out that our President were gay and blackmailed him? Anyone who "pppfffftttss" that scenario is now in danger of ignoring a real possibility now that we know New Jersey's governor admits to being a closet homosexual with a wife.

THIS IS WHY BILL CLINTON'S SEX LIFE WAS OUR BUSINESS! As long as the man is our president we have a vested interest in knowing that the man is not susceptible to any sort of blackmail schemes. We have a right to know that our president can't be compromised to keep his preferences from being made public.

I'm sorry that no one in the media made this point at the time, but when a person becomes elected to the most powerful office in the world that person's sex life is our business.

If you want to be president, this is something you must give up.

Iraq's conference to select a national assembly begins Sunday:
The conference, made up of 1,000 delegates from Iraq's 18 provinces as well as tribal, religious and political leaders, is intended to help choose a 100-member national assembly that will counterbalance the interim govenment

The assembly will have the power to approve the national budget, veto executive orders with a two-thirds majority and appoint replacements to the Cabinet in the event a minister dies or resigns.

The meeting is scheduled to last three days.
It has occurred to me recently that the left has become the conservative party as it relates to Iraq and the Middle East while the right has become the radical group in that we seek a radical change in the political structure of the Middle Eastern countries even as the left seeks to maintain the status quo of despotic dictatorships.

I guess you could say that a bunch of "neo-conservatives" are fighting to prevent the liberalization of the Middle East with every weapon they have at their disposal.

They have been demonstrably opposing Iraq which has the most liberal constitution any Arab country has ever seen. These people are progressives? I think not. They have fought the liberalization of Iraq at every opportunity. They have protested, editorialized, and campaigned against the very ideals they purport to champion. They have even gone so far as to defend the worst mass murderer in Middle Eastern history in an attempt to maintain the status quo.

Progressives my ass.

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

There's a chatter at Soapbox who goes by the nickname "hotldy" who announced to the room that she has it on good information that Iraq is a complete and unmitigated disaster. See, she has a few family members who served in Iraq and they assured her that it was a mess. So obviously that is what hotldy believes since she has no reason to not believe these people.

But I wish before she spreads her pessimism and negativity that hotldy would take the time to read some of the things that I read. For instance. Take Omar's "Iraq the Model" weblog. Yes, Omar does report the bad with the good, but it's also clear that quite a bit of the good news is not making to people like hotldy. Example:
The chief of Najaf IP, brigadier Ghalib Al Jazaeri was interviewed by Al Sharqyia TV today and gave some important statements. Mr. Ghalib confirmed the IP control over the majority Najaf and said that Al Mahdi militia are besieged in small areas. He also said that most of them are surrendering and that among the 1200 captured till now there are 1000 from outside Najaf (Basra, Kut, Amarah, Baghdad) and 4 of them were Iranians who confessed that they have joined the Mahdi army. Those 4 were Transferred to Baghdad for “The importance of the information they have”.

The man’s anger was showing and he slammed his hand against the meeting table as he said that Muqtada’s militia are the ones who broke the truce, as the truce depended on many conditions among which is the disappearance of armed men from the streets and their departure from the city, and that never happened. Also the so-called “legitimate court” founded by Muqtada was still there and was functioning despite the truce and even ‘arrested’ IP members and was trying to prosecute them! He also affirmed that the militia were the ones who started attacking the police station and the city hall.

Mr. Ghalib confirmed that there will be no negotiation with those who he described as “evil that we must get rid of” and repeated that no one is above the law, and resented the attempts of “The Sheát House” to help start negotiation with Sadr and he said that he still have the warrant of Muqtada’s arrest and he’s working on this persistently. He mentioned that yesterday he was in front of Muqtada’s house with a group of IP and ING but the door was closed and no one was in the house.

He made it clear that he will arrest Muqtada as soon as he find him and that he was a law man and has nothing to do with what politicians are trying and he will carry on with his orders and will enforce law. The police chief insisted that Muqtada was still in Najaf according to his information and he finally said that he won’t hesitate to ask for support and back up from the multinational force which he describes as “friends” to get the “evil” out of the city of Najaf.

I must say that I liked what the man said and especially his tone and strong dedication to do his job regardless of the dangers he may face and is facing now.

Also his statement that most of the thugs were from outside Najaf rule out all the claims that this is an uprising, as if it was so then we would’ve seen the people of the city themselves revolting in large numbers but the fact is that Muqtada has gathered his criminals from many cities and focused on Najaf and Baghdad only because he knew he wouldn’t find enough people to support him had he depended on the people of Najaf alone. While the fights in other cities were small compared to Baghdad and Najaf and there was absolutely no fights in the rural areas which shows that the distribution of fighters was planned to focus on important areas only, and this ensures more media coverage which in my mind is one of the main goals of such movement, as it’s clearly supported and planned by outside parties which are dying to show Iraq as an unstable and hopeless place. Besides we all saw how the people of Najaf were delighted to see the IP control the city again in the previous revolt after many days of fighting. Also an uprising is a reaction rather than a planned action and here the percentage of the fighters from outside the city show clearly that this is closer to a planned revolt.

I also admired the man honesty and courage in calling things by their names on TV especially calling Muqtada “evil” and coalition forces “ friends”. I hope the government depend more and more on people like this man who I heard from my friends in Najaf that he’s a very good and respected man.
That's from a man who lives in Iraq.

While I'm at it, how about a link to the first of Arthur Chrenkoff's "Good News From Iraq" feature. The subsequent installments can be found here as well (scroll down).

Hotldy doesn't know about any of this because, I believe, she is politically opposed to the idea of a democratic Iraq. I mean, this would be great news for President Bush and the Republicans so the Democrats are doing everything in their power to oppose the liberalization of Iraq and that entire region.

What's most sad is that this liberalization is what is best for America. But hotldy and the Democrats don't seem to care about that. They want their man in the White House and if that means a regressive Iraq and a status quo Middle East, then so be it. As long as they gain political advantage. Nothing else matters.

How sad.

It's time we quit dicking around. Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army must be wiped out. If that means killing al-Sadr, so be it.

We can't let him keep this up or he will become another hero to the Arab people and the respect he garners will continue to rise and rise. It's time to kill him.

There, I said it. That's what must happen. Either that or his arrest. Except, for some reason, I doubt he'll go like Saddam. He will have to be killed I believe.

Wow. It's been nearly a week since I last posted anything. I've gone longer without posting anything, but this didn't seem like that long.

The Swift Boat book is the raging controversy right now. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing. I mean, Kerry has supporters and opponents who served with him so that's kind of a wash as far as I'm concerned.

My bottom line is that I can't see that this is a reason by itself why I or anyone shouldn't vote for him. Many people would say this is an insight into his character and should be considered. I tend to agree, but I would rather make the case against Kerry based on his party's political philosophy.

I believe the Democrats would change this country in radical ways if they controlled the three branches of government the way the Republicans do now.

The way I see it, if they could, the Democrats would: raise taxes exorbitantly, create a massive welfare state, gut the military budget, entangle business in environmental red tape that may not have any basis in scientific necessity, socialize industries that they consider vital such as air travel and medicine, institute a speech code that would fine and/or jail offenders, and give complete obeisance to the United Nations.

In other words, The European States of America.

That's why I oppose the Democratic party. They want to make us socialists and I believe with every fiber of my being that that is disaster for this country.

I believe it's a mistake to oppose John Kerry because of what he did in Vietnam. I believe it obfuscates the real reasons that I listed above why people should oppose the Democratic party and John Kerry. But the bottom line for many people is that John Kerry should lose by any means necessary. I just wish he would lose because his and his party's ideas on governance are so diametrically opposite of anything that America was founded on.