Click to bookmark this page!

- Contact Me -
Include your email address

<< January 2004 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31


Just in case you weren't sure...
If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

Please sign the Ted Kennedy Resignation Petition!


rss feed

Shameless Self-Promotion

Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com


An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!



Perspective
Joe Mariani

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by precision use of American military force under George W. Bush:
50 million in just two years

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
Zero. Ever.
...

The problem seems to me to be the definition of "free speech". Liberals define it as anything they want to say or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a "peace" march, send money to a terrorist organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
...

Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force.
...

Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat.
...

Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature.
...

Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.

Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."

Top News Headlines

Iraq Blogs

The Messopotamian
Iraq at a Glance
Iraq the Model
Hammorabi
Iraq & Iraqis
Nabil's Blog
Road of a Nation
The Sun of Iraq
Healing Iraq

Iraqi Bloggers Central

The Truth About Iraq
Liberating Iraq
Pictures from Iraq
The Iraqi Holocaust: a collection
Iraq's Mass Graves

Mudville Gazette:
News the media can't use

The Other Iraq:
The Iraq you never hear about in the MSM

Michael Yon - Online Magazine
Dispatches not filed from the Baghdad Hilton hot tub


United States Central Command


Humor

Infamous Monsters of Filmland

Day by Day: Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political bent

The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?

What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble of figuring out what kind of idiot you are

Blame Bush
Because Bush is to blame... for everything

Sacred Cow Burgers
Web Archive

Satirical Political Beliefs Test

Communists for Kerry

Cooper's Protester Guide

Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.


Analysis

When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)

Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism

How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan

Did We Botch The Occupation?
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946 and compare.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq

Pictures from Hate Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate Israel/general wacko rallies
- by Zombie

Jihad Watch


2004 Election Links

Looosers: Sorry, Everybody!
Winners: You're Welcome, Everybody!


2008 Election

Peace Through Strength PAC


Duncan Hunter in 2008
official site



Click to join duncanhunterforpresident2008 at Yahoo! Groups

Useful Links

FamilyWishList
Share your wish list with friends and family

Virtual Tourist
Travel tips from real travelers

RemBot.com
Appointment calendar with email/wireless notification

PriceGrabber.com
Convenient comparison shopping


Reading Material

RightWingNews
The best right-wing news and commentary

GOP USA Commentary Corner

Men's News Daily
The New Media

OpinionEditorials.com
a project of Frontiers of Freedom

ChronWatch
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news

American Daily
Analysis with political and social commentary

The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion

News By Us
...not news bias

IntellectualConservative.com
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics

CommonConservative.com
Practical conservatism for the common man

USASentinel
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World

PhillyFuture.org
Philly news and blogs


Now Reading

The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek



Articles Previously Published at
Useless-Knowledge.com

- When Good Liberals Go Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
- Whining of Mass Distraction: How To Discredit A President - 06/05/03
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 06/10/03
- Liberalism: Curable or Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
- Is Hamas Exempt from the War on Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance, Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On - 07/03/03
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again - 07/13/03
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified? - 07/20/03
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder - 08/06/03
- The Meaning of Right - Why I Supported the Iraq War - 08/10/03
- More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics? - 03/04/04


Blogs to Browse

Across the Pond
AlphaPatriot
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
DowneastBlog
ElectionProjection
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
LogiPundit.com
MarkLevinFan
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
Moonbattery
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
RadioBS.net
Rebel Rouser
RightThinkingGirl
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
The YNC
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
WuzzaDem.com



Locations of visitors to this page


Saturday, January 03, 2004
The Big Story... of 1973

Well, it's taken long enough, but the New York Times and the BBC have finally found that "blood for oil" story they've been dying to print for over a year. Only... it took place in 1973.

"The United States government seriously contemplated using military force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during the Arab oil embargo 30 years ago, according to a declassified British government document made public on Thursday," reported the New York Times. Not to be outdone, the BBC chimed in, "The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do."  Thirty-year-old invasion plans for a war that never took place?  Stop the presses!

So, this "story" is predicated on 30-year-old contingency plans drawn up by the British government about what they (the Brits) might do just in case the oil problem in America came to blows?  Maybe someone should clue these "reporters" in... governments have entire armies of people whose job it is to draw up contingency plans to cover the most implausible scenarios, just in case.  Of course there were British plans for action in case the United States decided to invade the Middle East.  There are probably plans for action in case Elvis returns from the Crab Nebula at the head of an invasion force of intelligent bees, too.  Does that mean it's a serious possibility?  Of course not.  Keep in mind this is based on a British assesment of what the Americans might do, not actual American plans.  But just on the off-chance it ever did happen, the British government had it covered.  Just because the government makes a plan of what to do in case an event takes place, does not mean the event is or was certain to happen.  The kind of people who seriously believe that the United States was -- in 1973 or 2003 -- going to invade the Middle East to sieze its oil are the kind of wacko conspiracy theorists that would believe the plans to deal with the bee invasion mean it's coming too. If the government has plans to stop it, it must be real, right?

The New York Times and the BBC are obviously still beating the anti-war, anti-America drums as hard as they can.  But if THIS is the best they can do, I think it's safe to say the Leftists are losing their grip.

Well, I'd better go stock up on bacon, peanut butter and bananas for when Elvis gets here.

Posted at Saturday, January 03, 2004 by CavalierX

Virtus
January 4, 2004   06:15 AM PST
 
Funny how the newspapers make big news of this.

But the anti-terror rallies in Iraq and the pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong get little to no publicity.

It's selective journalism
JM
January 4, 2004   06:34 AM PST
 
Yes, those anti-terrorism rallies... sad to think that a Baghdad dentist scooped every news media outlet in the world with his reports and pictures of the event!
Joe M.
January 5, 2004   02:30 PM PST
 
"are the kind of wacko conspiracy theorists that would believe"

"have finally found that 'blood for oil' story they've been dying to print"

I trust I don't have to point out the irony present in these two statements.
JM
January 5, 2004   03:45 PM PST
 
I trust you've actually taken the time to NOTICE the rampant anti-Americanism in the New York Times and the BBC. No conspiracy theories need apply there.
Joe M.
January 5, 2004   09:19 PM PST
 
Anti-American to whom?

I do enjoy these types of forums if only to see the broad range of thoughts on any given subject. But questioning one's commitment to the United States simply because they disagree with you on policy is -- at best -- sophistry of the highest form.
JM
January 5, 2004   09:43 PM PST
 
Let's dissect the phrase "anti-American". Anti means "against", doesn't it? If your position is that America is doing the wrong thing, that means you are against what we're doing, does it not? Therefore, taking an editorial stance -- as most "news" media have done -- against America is, technically, anti-American. The phrase was precisely chosen for its meaning.
Joe M.
January 6, 2004   01:11 AM PST
 
Without delving into particulars, I will concede the NYT's editorial page is very much against a majority of the administration's policies. However, most people are able to distinguish between a country and the people who are running it. Asserting that this is Anti-American is intellectually dishonest and woefully misrepresentative in my opinion. Or am I mistaken in thinking that the use of such hyperbole is meant to cast left-leaning people in a poor light?

I apologize if this is unwelcome criticism on a blog obviously dedicated to a conservative viewpoint. I like to think that at some point we can move towards more civil discourse in the political arena, rather than polarizing each and every issue for political 'gain'. In the end, nobody wins.

</soapbox>
JM
January 6, 2004   05:15 AM PST
 
Fortunately, conservativism is all about thinking for one's self and speaking one's mind. The problem is that major media outlets like the NYT and the BBC are running editorial NEWS, deliberately casting our actions in Iraq in the worst possible light, (for instance) screaming "quagmire!" as our forces raced through Iraq to take Baghdad in three weeks! I repeat that to set one's self against the actions taken by America is to be anti, or against, America. (On the Right, even those who might disagree with the reasons for our actions still hope we win!) It's NOT synonymous with traitorous or evil, though attempting to demoralise the troops in combat comes AWFULLY close.
Lucy
January 11, 2004   08:21 PM PST
 
Cav, This was just another Bush hit piece. If this is the best the looney left can do, you gotta laugh. By the way, anyone who doubts that the main stream media elites do not intentionally distort the news to make President Bush look bad, are either ignorant or blinded by the same hatred.
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments




Previous Entry Home Next Entry