Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, October 16, 2004

David Brooks made me laugh out loud in his latest editorial for The New York Times. Brooks is brutal to both Kerry and Bush.

A hilarious must read.

Democrats have issued a 66 page Election Day manual that tells Democrats around the country to fabricate tales of voter intimidation.

Furthmore, the manual instructs Democrats to "warn newspapers not to accept advertising" that doesn't meet with the Kerry campaign's approval. What would meet with Kerry campaign approval and what happens to newspapers that do accept advertising that Democrats disapprove of? We know Democrat have been attacking Republican campaign headquarters around the country and that Democrats have also been physically attacking Republicans. Do you think Democrats would send their goons to beat up newspaper editors or shoot out windows? A few months ago I might have laughed at the thought, but these days there's just no telling what the tolerant peaceloving left might do.

Films that are designed to counter "Farenheit 9/11" are popping up everywhere. What's most encouraging is these film makers are sending thousands of DVDs to our soldiers in Iraq. Profit isn't the consideration. Showing our soldiers why what they are doing is important is the goal for these independent film makers. Another goal is to highlight the deceit contained in Moore's movie.

Michelle Malkin lists the attacks by Democrats on Republican and wonders why the media is silent:
How many hate-crime anecdotes does it take before the mainstream media spot a trend? If the victims are politically correct, all it takes is one or two.

One alleged name-calling. A few alleged acts of vandalism. A suspicious arson here or there. In an instant, an unsubstantiated attack against the right kind of ethnic, racial, religious or sexual minority becomes undisputed evidence of an epidemic of violence. A symbol of rising hate. A national crisis.

But what happens when the targets are the wrong kind of victim?
I don't doubt Malkin's conclusion one bit:
Liberals promise to do "whatever it takes" — "by any means necessary" — to win this election. If conservatives were mouthing those slogans as glass shattered and lawns burned, Karl Rove would be under federal investigation. Jimmy Carter would seek U.N. assistance. And the New York Times would be calling for a National Day of Reconciliation
Tolerant peace lovers. Hahahaha. Yea, right.

U.S. Image Slides, But Americans Popular:
America's popularity around the world has taken a beating in recent years, according to a set of coordinated polls conducted in 10 different countries. But the survey also found that despite widespread animosity toward President Bush, huge majorities said they have a good opinion of Americans.

"We like Americans, we don't like Bush," was how Britain's Guardian newspaper summarized the results of the surveys published Friday.
It seems to me that the world wants us to cede our national security decisions to them and if we do that then they'll like us.

Forgive me, but fuck that. The recent revelations that French, Russian, and United Nations leaders were bought off by Saddam Hussein shows how we must never trust other countries to decide for us how best to defend ourselves. If the Democrats are to be believed then we must understand that they would have acquiesced to a bunch of countries that had been bribed. We would have ceded our national security to a group that had financial incentives in mind instead of our best interests.

Is that wise? Apparently the Democrats think it is.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Arthur Chrenkoff has another of his heartening "Good News From Iraq" pieces in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal.

When I read these sort of below the radar articles I'm more convinced than ever that Iraq will emerge as the leader of the Arab countries. The American and international left will be simply stunned at the turn of events and they'll be dumbfounded as to how this was allowed to happen.

They won't know what to think. They'll be confused and possibly angry that the media mislead them and made them believe that Iraq was a complete and total disaster. More than a few will have a crisis of confidence in their political philosophy as they realize how they've fought against the liberalization of the Middle East. Many will begin to question their allegiance to an ideology that vigorously campaigned for the failure of a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan.

The left should be deeply ashamed for what they've done. They nearly succeeded, but it was President Bush's steadfast resolve that kept the left from returning the Iraqi people to the rule of some despotic dictator. Only just though. The outcome was in doubt.

I shit you not. John Edwards has promised that if John Kerry is elected president crippled people will walk again.
This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: ``If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.''
I shit you not.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Ann Coulter:
During the second presidential debate, John Kerry said: "I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your guts. Gut-check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort?"

How about this for "gut-check time": When you close your eyes, can you see the Democrats defending America? Because I can't see it.

These are the people who are obsessed with getting the French to like us. They call terrorism a "nuisance," like prostitution and other petty crimes. ("Hundreds of Children Killed in Chechnya by Nuisance," "British Civilian Beheaded by Annoyance," "9-11: What a Hassle!") They babble about nonexistent civil liberties violations under the Patriot Act.

If Gore had been elected president, right now he would just be finding that last lesbian quadriplegic for the Special Forces team.
Hehehe. Typically witty Ann Coulter.

Once again I didn't watch the presidential debates. They come on much too near my bedtime. Besides, my mind has been made up for years now. The only issue that matters to me this year is national security and I just don't trust the Democrats to defend us. They've spent way too many years bashing the military and trying to gut defense spending to make me confident that they will in fact fight those who would love to off about a million of us if they could. No, I don't trust the Democrats at all.

With that said though, the debates took place last night and I want to once again see what Bill Clinton's former advisor, Dick Morris had to say about the outcome:
On the whole, however, domestic issues skew to the Democrat while foreign policy tilts toward the Republicans. Since these biases stem from deeply rooted experiences, it is very hard to change them and almost impossible to do so in a single debate.

So despite Bush's able performance last night, Kerry had the edge because the subject matter was overwhelmingly Democratic.
Morris's headline?: "DRAW, ADVANTAGE KERRY". About as I expected, but I think the fact that no one is saying that Kerry won as in the first debate that that must be considered as a major factor in determining who won and lost. After all, this was a Democratic issues debate. Kerry was supposed to wipe the floor with Bush. The fact that no one is saying he did must be factored in.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Zell Miller D-GA has a brilliant satire of how contemporary journalism would cover the battle for Iwo Jima. Dead on, I'd say. An excerpt:
Cutie to camera: "No one has yet really confirmed why this particular battle in this particular place is even being waged. Already, on the first day, at least 500 Marines have been killed and a thousand wounded. For this? (Camera pans to a map with a speck of an island in the Pacific. Then a close up of nothing but black volcanic ash). For this? For this?" (Cutie's sweet voice becomes more strident as it fades out.)

At 7 a.m., Cutie's morning show opens with a shot of hundreds of dead bodies bobbing in the water's edge. Others are piled on top of each other on shore. After a few seconds, one can see Marines digging graves to bury the dead.

Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think. Call the number on the bottom of the screen. Give us your opinions on these three questions:

1. Were the Marines properly trained?
2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives?
3. Has the president once again misled the American people?

"After the break, we'll ask our own Democratic and Republican analysts, both shouting at the same time, of course, what they have to yell about all this. It should make for a very shrill, provocative morning.

"But before we leave this horrible — some will say needless — scene, let us give you one more look at this Godforsaken place where these young Americans are dying. Volcanic ash, cold, wet miserable Marines just thankful to be alive. And still no flag that we had been promised on that mountain. Things have gone from bad to worse in this obviously misguided military operation. One thing is certain, there should be and there will be a high-partisan — make that bi-partisan — congressional inquiry into this."
Sounds just like the media I know.

The previous post talks about the overall strategy of using Iraqi soldiers to clear mosques. Well, this piece talks about the Iraqi special forces that the U.S. is training.

This is the sort of thing that makes me most optimistic. I read these "below the radar" articles and I get a broad picture of what's about to happen in Iraq.

We are indeed approaching a tipping point and the only thing that can cause a regression in Iraq is American Democrats. How sad is that? To know that the odds for for a free and democratic Iraq worsen if Democrats win the presidency next month?

The headline COULD say, Iraqi Soldiers Clear Mosques of Terrorists, but that won't do.

The real headline? "U.S. Hits Insurgents in Ramadi, Fallujah". It's true, but the real story should be that Iraqi soldiers are entering and eliminating insurgent strongholds in mosques. This is great news. This is a critical step. U.S. soldiers can't go into mosques for obvious reasons, but Iraqis can.

The Iraqi people grow stronger by the day and by January they will have a large effective army that can fight these terrorists without having to worry about what the world thinks. It won't be evil Americans killing poor Arab freedom fighters. It'll be Iraqi soldiers fighting for the safety of the Iraqi people.

We are approaching a tipping point and the day is fast approaching when the insurgency in Iraq will quit making headlines just as the power shortage has quit making headlines.

It is just a matter of time. Again, it's just too bad that the "progressives" had absolutely nothing to do with this. If they'd had their way Saddam and sons would still be ruling Iraq.

Hooray for Afghanistan!

If you're like me you remember how the far left criticized the war in Afghanistan. You remember how Noam Chomsky, the intellectual grand poohbah of leftism today, proclaimed that our real intention in Afghanistan was to make a genocide on the Afghan people. As if that was our goal. He wailed and prophesied that a great calamity was about to befall the Afghan people and that catastrophe was called the United States of America.

Protests against the Afghanistan war were the prelude to the main event to come in Iraq. The protesters were just warming up. Finding their voice if you will. Trying out the catchiest of the anti-war slogans.

Now we see what is happening in Afghanistan. True progress is taking place. No thanks to the progressives. If they'd had their way the Taliban would still be throwing acid in the faces of women who dared to walk around town without a burqa on.

Now we see the future of Iraq. We can start to see the possibilities for a nation that has water, farmland, huge oil resources, ports, and a relatively educated population. If Afghanistan can prosper with none of the attributes of Iraq, just imagine what Iraq can accomplish.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Iraq has the potential, and I believe it will achieve that potential, to be the crown jewel of the Middle East. Saddam always wanted Iraq to lead the Arab world. Well, ironically, it's beginning to look like that is exactly what's going to happen.

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Three examples of media bias in one editorial:
Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek, offered this confession on media bias on the PBS program "Inside Washington."

"The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox — as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow."

Whereupon his magazine published a — how best to put this — glowing cover story dubbing the Democratic duo "The Sunshine Boys."
I remember when that was reported. What Thomas had said.

The internal memo written by ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin that popped up right before Friday night's Bush-Kerry debate.

Halperin, described by the network as "responsible for the planning and editorial content of all political news on the network," issued new orders.

Both sides distort the truth, he said, adding in effect that Kerry's lies don't matter — but that George W. Bush's most certainly do.

"Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win." In contrast, he wrote, "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done" — a point he said was echoed by reporters from such paragons of objectivity as the above-mentioned Newsweek and The New York Times.

Then came the instructions:

"We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

"It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public in- terest, now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right."

That is, voters need skillful, strong "help" evaluating information because they are too stupid, too ignorant or too benighted to figure out the "right" way to vote all by themselves.
Finally, the best example of all. Dan Rather's ham handed attempt to get even with the Republicans for the Swift Boat book even though he didn't see fit to report that story in his news show. That's right. The Swift Boat book about Kerry's service in Vietnam was not news and didn't warrant any coverage on Dan's nightly news, but somehow, convolutedly, President Bush's service in the National Guard was news.

No wonder people don't trust the media.

I meant to post this the other day after reading yet another report of tolerant Democrats attacking Republican campaign headquarters.

Ralph Nader better be careful. Democrats are becoming increasingly violent and unstable as the election draws near. They will view him more and more as an obstacle to John Kerry's campaign and may indeed try to kill the man.

Hell, even after the election is over Nader may still be a target for disgruntled Democrats especially if Kerry loses. Nader may never be safe from tolerant peace-loving nuanced Democrats.

It's considered gospel among leftists that the United States armed Saddam Hussein. Never mind the fact that France, China and Russia supplied Saddam with 82% of the total weapons he purchase. Never mind that the U.S. was responsible for around 1% of those total sales and actually placed 11th on the above linked chart that was compiled based on the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's data. Never mind any of that.

The gospel among the left and even many on the right is that the U.S. armed Saddam when that distinction clearly goes to the countries who opposed our war against Saddam Hussein and who are now shown to have been bought off by that brutal mass murderer.

What brought all this to mind was a piece I just read at National Review by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky. An excerpt:
One of the most significant developments in Chirac's political career was the close personal bond he formed in the 1970s with an ambitious Iraqi official. Vice President Saddam Hussein had come to France during those years to shake hands and sign oil contracts — and few were as keen to accommodate him as Chirac. Over several years, the two men met frequently in Baghdad and Paris while brokering a massive set of trade agreements that had Iraq supplying France with 700 million barrels of oil over ten years and spending billions on French military equipment, including tanks, missiles, and Mirage F-1 fighters. In addition, Iraq agreed to buy 100,000 French-made cars and invited French companies to develop a billion-dollar resort complex near Baghdad. Hussein, of course, wanted something in return: French assistance in building a nuclear reactor plus a source of weapons-grade uranium to use as starter fuel. Chirac was so eager to oblige that Hussein's infamous Osirak nuclear reactor earned the nickname O'Chirac among French critics of the deal.

There was ample cause for concern. "The agreement with France is the first concrete step toward production of the Arab atomic bomb," said Hussein, ominously.
Yet the lie persists that it was the U.S. that armed Saddam and that it was the U.S. who created this monster. The left just doesn't want to admit that one of their very own was much closer to the madman than any U.S. official ever was.

If anything, France armed Saddam and created that monster. Let's set the record straight.

Larry Kudlow makes an excellent point:
John Kerry, as we know, has a fondness for Europe. But their GDP is growing by less than 2 percent. Their unemployment rate is close to 10 percent, compared to only 5.4 percent in the U.S. Surely we do not wish to Europeanize the American economy.

Bush has nothing to be ashamed of. The resilient, durable, free-market U.S. economy, bolstered by supply side tax cuts, has in fact delivered the jobs and the goods. This is especially remarkable in view of all the negatives thrown at us, such as a busted technology bubble, massive corporate scandals, the 9/11 attacks, two wars, and more recently an oil-price shock. With all that, the U.S. economy is growing almost four-times faster than Europe’s, with an unemployment rate that is only half what it is on the other side of the pond.
Think about that: ".... a busted technology bubble, massive corporate scandals, the 9/11 attacks, two wars, and more recently an oil-price shock." We really do have a great economy.