Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Victor Davis Hanson:
The first bold move was to censure and then ignore Yasser Arafat for his complicity in unleashing suicide bombers, his rampant corruption, and his stifling of Palestinian dissidents. At the time of the change in American policy, other members of the quartet — the Russians, the Europeans, and the U.N. — were aghast. The "moderate" Arab world protested vehemently. Pundits here alleged Texas recklessness and clung to the silly idea of the Arafat/Sharon moral equivalence, as if a freely elected democratic leader, subject to an open press and a free opposition, was the same as a thug who ordered lynchings and jailed or murdered dissidents.

Review press accounts from the summer of 2002: Neither ally nor neutral approved of Bush's act of ostracism and instead warned of disaster. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller, whose country then held the EU's rotating presidency, lectured that without dialogue with Arafat "Israel could not stop Palestinian violence through force." A circumspect Colin Powell visited the region often to smooth over hurt feelings and in the process to soften Bush's bold action. Dennis Ross, remember, had met with the American-subsidized Arafat almost 500 times, and it was said that the latter visited the Clinton White House more than any other foreign leader — a fact apparently lost on the Palestinian street, which still spontaneously cheered on news of September 11.
The metamorphosis in the Middle East is remarkable and will astound those who believed that President Bush was making mind boggling mistakes.

Let's all just watch and see what happens. Shall we?

I realize I am late to this, but as they say....

The Weekly Standard takes it's reader through the Eason Jordan controversy.

An excellent read.

See the thing that most people don't know, ignore or forget (I for one never knew it) is that this isn't the first time Jordan has accused the U.S. military of targeting reporters. The Standard article features links to past articles that were dug up to show that Jordan has been accusing the U.S. military of targeting reporters since at least 1993. He also made the accusation in 2002. The British paper, The Guardian, quoted Jordan back in November:
"Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces," Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal
Jordan has also accused the Israeli military of the same thing.

It's said that Jordan was speaking "off the record" when he made his remarks in Davos, Switzerland, but speaking off the record doesn't mean he can make these sort of incredible accusations without taking responsibility. When someone of Jordan's stature makes the charge, whether on the record or off, and it's not challenged, it soon becomes true.

I'm sure many people in attendance were nodding and shaking their heads soberly because their conventional wisdom told them this was true. That reporters were victims of the evil United States and that Eason Jordan was a brave man for daring to have the courage to speak out and say these things.

Now I have to give credit to Barney Frank D-Mass. He was outraged that Eason Jordan had made these remarks and he challenged him right then and there. Good for him.

Whether a person is testifying before congress, a U.N. commission, a separate human rights commission, or speaking before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, these sort of comments can lead to all sorts of insane conspiracy theories.

The accusation just grows and grows as it's peddled around the country or world until it's simply true to millions of people. By then to even argue with people who believe the conspiracy theory means that you, the non-believer, are out of your freakin' mind, ignorant of the facts, are some mind-numbed Rush robot who refuses to acknowledge the truth even when it's staring you in the face, or all three. That's when you become an idiot who voted for George W. Bush. Because you refuse to see the truth. A Jordan-esque version of the "truth."

The longer the idea goes unchallenged the greater chance it has to become accepted fact among a segment of the population. Look at how many people believe that the U.S. government created AIDS and how many people in France believe that no plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. To them you are simply naive and stupid because you don't know the truth.

That's the damage someone like Eason Jordan does. He creates a truth that has little or no basis in reality, but for millions of people it becomes true. You can't change the mind when something like this becomes embedded in the fabric of everyday life.

I've had these sort of conversations with many leftists. We could be talking about any number of things, but I'll use this as an example. It usually goes something like this: "You're simply a moron who doesn't know that U.S. soldiers routinely and remorselessly tortures and murders reporters. Idiot. Jeez. Everybody knows it's true and you're simply stupid or in denial if you don't know it. There's no point in even talking to you if you refuse to admit even this basic fact."

That's the sort of thing that happened just after the most recent election. When it was over, the Democrats just decided that the people who voted for Bush were simply stupid and refused to even consider that perhaps they were the ones who had become mind-numbed and oblivious to reality.

I suspect we'll see a lot more of these kinds of controversies in the coming weeks, months, and years because of the new media. Thank goodness the monopoly of information is over.

Yep. The historical revisionism is already taking place.

A couple of days ago I read in Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column where Jon Stewart said, "We did it!" referring to the elections is Iraq. I didn't think too much of it because Stewart is a well-known smart-ass and I thought maybe that he was being sarcastic. But now Sensei Reynolds features a video link where I was able to see the quote in context. Stewart clearly meant "we" without sarcasm. His allusion was that through our collective support we had been successful in introducing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East.

We, my ass, Jon Stewart. It was people like you who did what they could to keep that day from ever happening. You couldn't go fight against the U.S., but you did the one thing you could do: You sought to build public support against our efforts.

Stewart tried to stop this with a very powerful weapon. Though not designed to kill, a weapon nonetheless. In case anyone forgets, it was this same weapon that caused our defeat in Vietnam and the subsequent deaths and "re-education" of millions of South Vietnamese. This was after the North lost battle after battle. It is well-known that the North held out until their allies in the United States forced, with public pressure just as Jon Stewart and his ilk tried to do in Iraq, our withdrawal.

We must never let those leftists forget just which side they were on then and whose side they are on now. It's too late to switch teams.

As the years go by the revisionism will continue. Many years hence leftists will be saying "we" casually and matter of factly and I for one intend to never let people forget just what they tried to do.

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Good grief. Refusal to force Saddam to comply with it's mandates, Oil-For-Food, Rwanda, Darfur, Yugoslavia, and now this tidbit from the Congo all add up to the fact that the United Nations is a sick and disgusting organization in serious need of reform.

Only Democrats and world leftists, like in Iraq, want to maintain things just as they are. They want the status quo while American conservatives are the ones demanding a radical rethinking.

Who are the conservatives and who exactly are the progressives anyway? It seems those titles have been switched.

Nothing to see here. Move along. There is no institutional leftwing bias at CNN. Keep moving.

While I disagree with most of Progressive Policy Institute's conclusions and beliefs vis a vis Iraq, I do respect the attempt by a leftwing organization to instill some sanity into the Democratic party.

The lunatic fringe who have taken control of the Democratic party would probably call the PPI a rightwing neoconservative organization if that gives you any idea just how far left the core Democrats have drifted.

Few things interest me more than the the war in Iraq. One of the things that does interest me is the cultural divide between Democrats and Republicans. Or, universally, between left and right.

The gap is huge and I am naturally drawn to the examples of leftwing insanity. At least in my mind the left has completely lost their mind. To them, perhaps, they are quite sane. However, in my opinion, in their myopia they fail to see that they are aligned with the most fevered haters of liberalism, freedom, democracy and tolerance the world has seen since the rise of post-World War I fascism.

To deny the alliance the world left has developed with totalitarians the world over is to deny the obvious. The world left openly hopes the United States loses in it's attempts to bring democracy to the Arab world mostly because a Republican is the one leading the cause, but also because, ideologically speaking, they hate western values.

The leaders of this movement, of the Democratic party and world left, are the Michael Moore's, Noam Chomsky, and true believer types at They are the ones who have taken control of and perverted what it means to be a liberal.

Clearly a minority of those who call themselves liberals would say openly that, yes, they do hope for the defeat of western style democracy because we are the source for all the world's problems. Far more of the faithful simply don't know who they are following. The anti-war protests prior to the Iraq war are a good example. Millions of people world-wide took part in those protests which were orchestrated by ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism); a bunch of communists whose ideology directly led the the deaths of a hundred million people last century.

Who in their right mind would protest under the communist banner? Lots of folks. And not just the die hard leftwing ideologists. Many ordinary people who simply don't know who they are following joined right in on the parade and gave legitimacy to a movement that expressly represents totalitarianism, repression, denial of civil rights and even murder in the name of doing what is best for people.

That's exactly what many well-intentioned people are doing now and I'm increasingly led to believe that it's simple habit. They think they are part of the same ideology they were part of 50 years ago.

I've got news for many old-time Democrats like my mother: This ain't the party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. Those men trusted America and believed it was right to fight to defend our principles and democratic ideals. Your Democratic party today is the party of socialists like Castro and communists like Lenin. Your party today uses the courts and non-governmental organizations (the United Nations, etc.) to enact undemocratic laws that the majority of Americans do not support. Your party lends legal legitimacy to unelected world bureaucrats who seek veto over our national security decisions and seeks to have judges install laws that would never win approval at the ballot box.

No. This is not my mother's Democratic party. THAT party was unafraid to utter God's name and to speak in terms of moral absolutes. Today's Democratic party is no different from the world left who once embraced communism as the wave of the future and in style trying to make it work.

The new communism is creeping socialism. "New and improved", as they say. Or for the truly gullible, "advanced formula."

Sadly, many old-time Democrats simply have no idea who is leading them and where they are headed. On the other hand they are old-time Democrats and time will eventually lead to a generational shift as the former Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy supporters are gone.

I probably would have been just like them had I been born 60 years ago. I would probably believe the contemporary Democratic party is still the party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.

Fortunately, I'm younger and I can see the obvious differences between the Democrats of 60 years ago and Democrats of today. They are the same in name only. All other comparisons are gone and only people like my mother, God love her, believes it's still the same party.

With nary a word of explanation I begin again.