|
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Rewriting History
As they've done countless times before, the Liberal Democrats are trying to rewrite history to suit their purposes. We MUST not allow this to happen. This time around, they're doing their best to convince us all that President Bush claimed that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to America in order to convince us all to back his plan to remove this brutal dictator and terrorist supporter from power.
- On 3 June 2003, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat." This is a lie.
- As early as 21 May, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) said, "This administration led this nation into a war based on a pretext that Iraq was an imminent threat, which it was not." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-21-byrd-usat_x.htm) That was a lie.
- Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) stated in his overblown way at the same time, "What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S." (http://www.washington-report.org/archives/july_aug2003/0307012.html) But we knew that before we went in. (Try to keep up, Bob.)
- Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) is also lying. "There was no imminent threat... This whole thing was a fraud," Kennedy said in an interview on 19 September (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/19/politics/main574154.shtml).
- Of course, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) chimed in Thursday with, "it was clear to me that there was no imminence of a threat for weapons of mass destruction." (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/politics/04WEAP.html) No one ever said there was.
- Also reacting to David Kay's Thursday interim report on Iraq's WMD, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi) said, "What took us to war were statements about weapons of mass destruction in the possession of Saddam Hussein and the threat of their imminent use." Another lie. (http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=1469350)
- And the Associated Press itself led off its story of David Kay's report with the lie, "Chief U.S. weapons searcher David Kay reported Thursday he had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a finding that brought fresh congressional complaints about the Bush administration's prewar assertions of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein." ( http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/6912369.htm) There were no such assertions.
- You can even see the lies being told on the fly in UCLA's reprinting of the 29 Jan LA Times news reports of President Bush's State of the Union Address titled, "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat". The Liberals attempted to convince us that President Bush called Iraq an imminent threat even as they reported his speech, in which he said no such thing! (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html)
The actual words of President Bush, the words the Liberal liars want you to believe called Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat", were these:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Remember them. (Hint: This was why the Liberals were wringing their hands over Bush's "Doctrine of Pre-Emption" which was supposed to cause tens of thousands of US casualties at the hands of brave Fedayeen, every Arab country to rise up against us, and waves of crazed terrorists to attack US cities.) David Kay's interim report proves that the danger posed by Saddam's regime was very real, and gathering on the horizon, just as the President stated. If we had waited... what then? See David Kay's interim report, and judge for yourself: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
Posted at Saturday, October 04, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Rush: The Man is Not the Message
Rush: The Man is Not the Message
Detractors of Rush Limbaugh were universally delighted this morning when the New York Daily News ran a story about his maid supplying him with prescription painkillers. (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/122839p-110349c.html) That's purely disgusting... where do Liberals get the nerve to call Conservatives heartless and mean? If you're a fan of his, and were thinking Rush (or anyone) was some kind of ultra-moral super-human hero, better than anyone else, than you were bound to be disappointed eventually. All people are human. THAT'S the mistake the LEFT keeps making, and why they are so damned bitter, cynical and angry all the time... they keep watching their heroes fall off their pedestals. I rarely listen to him, but I never heard him seriously say "I am superhuman", nor did even the muckraking mockers claim that he made such a claim. The man was human. He became addicted to medical painkillers, not crack cocaine or heroin. Keep it in perspective.
The man is not the message. Conservatives know this. It's generally the Liberals who invest too much of themselves in their heroes, and try to make them larger than life... then become bitter, angry and cynical when they inevitably fail. If Rush IS addicted to painkillers (as it surely seems at this time) and gets clean, then more power to him for overcoming it.
Have you ever suffered from crippling ear pain? A couple of years ago, I suffered a massive ear infection over a holiday weekend, and couldn't get myself to a doctor right away. By 4:00 that Sunday morning, as I was staring a hole right through my apartment wall, I seriously began to wonder whether a steak knife down the ol' ear canal would relieve the pressure and MAKE THE PAIN GO AWAY. It took every ounce of willpower I had NOT to do it... I was sweating from the effort of sitting still. If some maid had started talking to me about her husband's painkillers at that point, I would surely have taken them myself. I would have taken a morphine drip from Satan himself that night. I'm sorry, I don't have it in me to blame Rush for taking them, because I'm human too. I'd like to think, though, that I would have taken steps to get off the drugs. Then again, I'm not a national figure who would be raked over the coals by my enemies if they discovered I'm not perfect.
Which, of course, is exactly what's happening now.
Posted at Thursday, October 02, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
The Real Spy Kids?
So far, my favorite part of the media feeding frenzy over someone leaking the identity of a CIA employee was Larry Johnson (former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department) asserting that Valerie Plame began working for the CIA when she was ten years old. Johnson told Terence Smith on PBS's NewsHour. "I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst." (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html) According to the Washington Post, however, "As the world now knows, Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson, nee Plame. She is his third wife. She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25492-2003Sep30?language=printer) That would make her ten years old when she began her career as a super-spy. Maybe those "Spy Kids" movies are more based in fact than I'd thought! What was her first undercover assignment, investigating Santa Claus posing as an elf? Exposing Barbie and Ken as Communist agents?
Wilson, it turns out, has pretty deep ties to the Democratic Party, despite working under the current President's father. But hey, why not trust a guy who was wanted to lift the sanctions on Saddam all along? He is a member and keynote speaker for a group called the Education for Peace in Iraq Center ( http://epic-usa.org/), which vocally opposed the war and favored lifting all sanctions against Iraq (on the grounds that the UN, not Saddam, was responsible for his using oil-for-food money to build elaborate palaces, I suppose). Wilson's anti-American views were on the record on 3 March 2003, when he wrote in the (far Left-wing publication) The Nation, "The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme." ( http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030303&s=wilson)
The Washington Times reports that "A Senate Republican staffer jokes that he is already on the short list for secretary of state, no matter who the Democratic nominee is." ( http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031002-122228-5129r.htm) Was that Wilson's price for helping the Democrats derail President Bush's re-election campaign by attacking his campaign manager, saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs"? ( http://www.pacificviews.org/archives/000094.html) Was that what was discussed when, as Wilson admitted on CNBC, he met several times with advisers to John Kerry? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/politics/01REPU.html) Of course, he later backtracked on the Rove accusation when interviewed by Paula Zahn on CNN.
ZAHN: Are you still saying this goes all the way to the top levels of the White House?
WILSON: No, on the contrary, I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/cnna.wilson.zahn/
And on "Good Morning America", Wilson said, "In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove. I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment. I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak. But I have great confidence that, at a minimum, he condoned it and certainly did nothing to shut it down." ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/leak030929.html) Does he think that Karl Rove is or should be present every time a columnist speaks to a source? News flash: accusing people of crimes without evidence is generally a bad thing, unless (it seems) a Democrat does it.
Now, nothing excuses the fact that someone told Bob Novak the name of a CIA officer. That's a crime, and should be investigated -- thoroughly, and without hysteria. In fact, when Novak's column was printed in July, "[the CIA] sent what is called a 'crime report' to Justice on the possible violation of federal criminal law concerning an unauthorized disclosure -- in this case Mrs. Wilson's name and occupation. The CIA sends about 50 such referrals per year." ( http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031002-122228-5129r.htm) In other words, an investigation was already in the works. The ONLY reason this story even REACHED the papers was that the Democrats siezed on it as a chance to attack President Bush.
I'm afraid this is going to be a long, ugly, dirty, nasty, brutal campaign season.
Posted at Thursday, October 02, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Go, Arizona, Go!
As I write this, an issue is being debated in Arizona that could very well decide the future of Homeland Security across the United States.
Does that sound dramatic? It ought to. I meant every word of it. Initiative petition I-03-2004 (http://www.pan2004.com/docs/initiative_petition.pdf) will provide some very important changes to the laws of Arizona, basically the following:
1. Proof of citizenship will be required when registering to vote, and when actually voting.
2. Proof of citizenship will be required when obtaining (non-Federally mandated) benefits like unemployment or welfare.
3. All State employees will be required to report any violations of immigration laws.
Frankly, I can't imagine any American citizen taking umbrage at this proposed series of changes to existing laws. This sort of legislation will ensure that only American citizens can enjoy the privileges of being Americans -- in Arizona, anyway. Only Americans will be allowed to vote in Arizona elections, apply for driver's licenses, or obtain State benefits. Arizona is one of the forty states that requires a Social Security number to obtain a driver's license (http://www.azstarnet.com/border/30910RDriversLicenses-B.html), and you need a birth certificate to get THAT. (Of course, you can get a Social Security number with a driver's license, too. We'll just have to hope that terrorists and criminal immigrants don't figure this out; after January 1, 2004 they can get California licenses with a fake Mexican ID, which will let them apply for Social Security numbers.) Those things are, and should be, reserved for American citizens.
On 26 June 2003, Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill passed by Arizona lawmakers which would have required first-time voters to prove their identitites, despite overwhelming support from citizens of the Grand Canyon state. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030814-110345-7086r.htm) If Arizonans can pass this even more sweeping reform in November 2004, the rest of the country may well take notice... and enact similar laws to protect American citizens from criminals. (Yes, illegal immigrants are criminals. They break our laws to enter this country, or to stay here after their legal stay is over.)
Most supportive of all should be the legal immigrants. These are the people who patiently endured the struggle with the government bureaucracy that these criminals are breaking the law to avoid. How fair is it to the people who went through the proper channels to let others just sneak in and get all the same benefits without having to work for them?
Arizona's state motto is Ditat Deus, Latin for "God Enriches" (I'll bet that drives the Liberals there crazy!). It's up to Arizona voters to decide exactly who is enriched from their tax money.
Posted at Wednesday, October 01, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Feeding Frenzy Over CIA "Leak"
Feeding Frenzy Over CIA "Leak"
Is there anything the Democrats won't spin into an attack on President Bush? Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate the reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy uranium. (The British gave us that information, which they got from some other country... which wouldn't allow them to give us the proof. Do you smell the cheesy reek of France, too? That's the way it works in the intelligence game. That was why the Brits bought the Italian documents to give to us, which turned out to be bogus.) Wilson reported that he couldn't find any hard evidence (receipts, signed trade agreements, pictures of Saddam blowing out candles on a birthday yellowcake... never mind).
After Wilson wrote an editorial in the New York Times bashing President Bush (surprise!), columnist Robert Novak, no fan of Bush's himself, wrote a piece about Wilson in which he revealed that Wilson's wife is a CIA analyst specialising in weapons of mass destruction. Keep in mind that the battle of the editorials happened in JULY. The Democrats didn't become so upset over it until Wilson recently said "It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." (http://slate.msn.com/id/2088471/)
[cue footage of nuclear weapons exploding]
The reaction of Democrats up and down the Hill was measured, reflexive, thoughtful, and proportionate... in another universe. In this one, they launched into "Bush attack mode" without a second's hesitation. Wilson "hinted" that President Bush's advisor Karl Rove was behind the leak, in order to punish him (Wilson) for not falsifying evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium by trying to put his wife in mortal danger. Some accusations even had White House staffers cold-calling reporters to tell them to run a story about Mrs. Wilson's profession! Who the hell IS Rove, the Fiendish Dr. Fu Manchu in disguise? Machievelli couldn't come up with an idea so twisted. Wilson based this accusation on the fact that Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. However, without a shred of evidence, the Democrats began hollering for Bush's (or at least Rove's) head on a platter. Man, if only they hated our enemies as much as they hate our President, the country would be a whole lot safer.
Finally, someone thought to ask Novak himself whether Rove was his source. His reply? "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else." (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm) Those people who leaked Mrs. Wilson's CIA connection should be terminated and barred from ever having a security cleareance again. Or whatever the proper punishment is. But find out who they actually are first, instead of leaping to the attack based on supposition and hate.
The final touch to this ridiculous melodrama? Joe Wilson contributed $2,000 to John Kerry's election campaign. Sounds to me as if he was trying to contribute a whole lot more, in a non-monetary sort of way.
Of course, there's one question nobody seems to be asking: What did MRS. Wilson report on Niger?
Posted at Tuesday, September 30, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Sunday, September 28, 2003
What Is an "Exit Strategy"?
What Is an "Exit Strategy"?
One of the loudest Democratic attacks on President Bush at the moment* is that we don't have an "exit strategy" from Iraq yet. Liberals, as usual, parrot the words handed down from their higher-ups without really understanding what they mean. When I hear one complaining that Bush has no exit strategy, I ask him or her what, exactly, that means. My question is nearly always met with a blank stare, or at best a muttered "Umm.. we need to bring the troops home right now?" That's not an exit strategy, that's a "turn tail and run" strategy. News flash: there is no "magic number" of casualties which will make the United States run away from Iraq. Honestly, does anyone REALLY think the most powerful nation on Earth ought to run away from some sniper attacks after only a few months? If so, you ought to be writing editorials for Al-Jazeera. Or speeches for Al Franken.
We still don't have an "exit strategy" for Germany or Japan, for crying out loud. We still have troops stationed in both places, because neither nation was allowed to have anything more defensive than stern newspaper editorials for decades! We've ALREADY surpassed the rebuilding of Germany by several orders of magnitude at a tiny fraction of the cost. The Marshall Plan, converted to today's dollars, cost US taxpayers $120 billion... President Bush has asked Congress for approximately $20 billion to get Iraq back on its feet. ($66 billion of the $87 billion he requested is for the military, not rebuilding.) And after FIFTY-EIGHT years, we still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan. Why aren't these people screaming "Where is the exit strategy for Germany?" Frankly, it's because they can't blame George W. Bush for our presence in 134 out of the 137 countries we currently have about one million troops deployed in. (It was 136 countries before we sent Marines into Liberia: http://www.orbat.com/site/agtwopen/us_trooprotation_iraq.html) If they could think of a way to blame Bush for troops deployments that happened before he got into office, I'm sure they would. They're probably dreaming up ways to do that right now.
So what do they mean by an "exit strategy"? Have any of them advanced one for our consideration? Have they considered what will happen to the Middle East, our own future and that of the entire world if we abandon our responsibilities in Iraq before they're ready to go it alone, and leave the Iraqis to a certain civil war? When demanding that the US shift the responsibility for Iraq to the UN, they could compare Iraq with Kosovo... but lack the nerve to do so. After YEARS in Kosovo, the UN certainly lacks an exit strategy, but no one complains. They still micromanage every aspect of daily life there. Is that what Democrats want to do to the poor people of Iraq... saddle them with an international bureaucracy on the grandest possible scale?
Have some pity... those poor people suffered enough under Saddam and the Ba'ath party rule for so many decades.
* Attacks subject to change without notice. Not subject to laws of reason or logic. No evidence of wrongdoing required. See your nearest Democratic Presidential candidate for details.
Posted at Sunday, September 28, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Friday, September 26, 2003
What Do Democrats Report From Iraq?
What Do Democrats Report From Iraq?
If you've never heard of the National Democratic Institute, they are (according to their web site at http://www.ndi.org/), "a nonprofit organization working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide. Calling on a global network of volunteer experts, NDI provides practical assistance to civic and political leaders advancing democratic values, practices and institutions". Their Chairman is none other than Madeleine Albright, and their board and senior advisors include Walter Mondale, Mario Cuomo, Michael Dukakis, Bill Bradley, and Dick "this President is a miserable failure" Gephardt.
Given these famous members of the NDI, you would think that the report they recently released concerning Iraq would have been more widely publicised. It wasn't, of course. Perhaps that was because it might interfere with the Bush-bashing rhetoric the Democrats have been engaging in, like drunken sailors on a wild spree... only they're spending their credibility, since they themselves are fielding focus group reports like the one found at http://www.ndi.org/front_page/1626_iq_focusgroup_072503.pdf. Here's a few excerpts:
Iraqis are grateful for the ouster of Saddam, universally reviled as a criminal whose principal legacy is "mass graves."
At the same time, the recurring attacks against Coalition forces find virtually no support among Iraqis, despite signs that some Iraqis’ patience with the occupation is wearing thin.
Iraqis want foreign military forces to depart, yet many are also very worried that if Coalition forces leave too soon, Iraqis will turn on one another and there will be widespread violence.
Iraqis are excited about their newfound freedoms, yet anxious that too much freedom may lead to chaos. Many Iraqis want to be sure that there are "rules" and "limits" in the new democracy that emerges in Iraq.
There is broad support among average Iraqis for creating space and respect for Iraqis to practice their own individual religion.
There is strong support for a woman’s right to vote, but Iraqis are divided on the question of whether women are qualified to hold senior leadership positions in politics and government.
Even as they rejoice in the demise of Saddam Hussein, the people of Iraq are still encumbered by much of the vitriolic propaganda he drummed into them over the past decades. Despite Iraqis’ hatred for Saddam, they still believe much of what he told them. Absent a vigorous, persuasive information campaign -- on behalf of the CPA, the new Governing Council, or even on the virtues of political democracy itself -- this distorted worldview will shape the way Iraqis interpret events and rumors.
Political parties and civil society organizations are forming each day, dozens of new media outlets have emerged, and Iraqis have opportunities to express themselves more openly than they have in decades. Still, a great deal needs to be done to foster the development of a knowledgeable citizenry capable of exercising its rights with some wisdom.
If men and women across the country come to believe their voices will be heard and their basic needs met in a new Iraq, then the liberation of the country from Saddam may yet lead to the establishment of a recognizably democratic country.
We had to stop the session in Karbala briefly when one woman wept at the mention of Saddam Hussein’s name -- she said that Saddam had her son killed right before her eyes. The list of the regime’s crimes seems endless.
Out with the old and in with the new, Iraqis are saying. They have high hopes about what the new government will provide, though several participants express dismay that the formation of an Iraqi government was delayed for a while.
Iraqis are ready to move beyond their grisly past and build a new country based on the rule of law and some form of democratic rule. Although Iraqis’ feelings about democracy combine excitement, fear, and concern for defending their culture, there is a consensus for the basic elements of a democratic system: a society governed by fair rules, and not the ruthless authoritarianism they knew under Saddam; a government that listens and is responsive to citizens, rather than Saddam’s closed system of government which responded only to the interests of a select few; and a government that creates opportunities for all to share in the country’s wealth, rather than a corrupt government that stole the country’s wealth and built palaces while average Iraqis got the bare minimum.
Does that sound like the kind of place the media has been describing? The US Military has been meticulously detailing the ongoing humanitarian efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan at http://www.centcom.mil/, but Liberals, Democrats and other Bush-bashers deride all their reports as propoganda. Well, now you have a report from the Democrats themselves, endorsed by some of President Bush's harshest critics.
What's for dinner? Perhaps a heaping helping of crow, with a nice French whine.
Posted at Friday, September 26, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Who's Rebuilding Iraq, Anyway?
Who's Rebuilding Iraq, Anyway?
In an interview today in New York, Mr. Chalabi professed gratitude to the Bush administration for toppling Saddam Hussein's government, but his specific proposals were directly at odds with the policies Washington is pursuing in Baghdad and at the United Nations. He demanded that the Iraqi Governing Council be given at least partial control of the powerful finance and security ministries, and rejected the idea of more foreign troops coming to Iraq.
Mr. Chalabi has sent representatives to France and Germany to discuss putting Iraqis back in charge under a new United Nations mandate that would end American control of the occupation, even if American troops remain in Iraq. His aides say he also plans to tell the Senate that the United Nations could save billions of dollars on Iraq's reconstruction by allowing an Iraqi administration to handle it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/international/middleeast/23CHAL.html
I wonder why Ahmed Chalabi has suddenly started demanding the US turn over sovereignity to the Iraqi governing council immediately... just as the French started doing the same. Coincidence? I doubt it. I wonder whether our wandering allies have offered him a little incentive? As current President of the Council, does Chalabi assume he'd be able to keep the title in the long term? Is THAT what the French offered him? Though he DID bring the INC to the table, many still question his appointment to the governing council. How will Jordan be able to deal with him as its President?
AMMAN, August 17 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - A group of 21 Jordanian MPs are to call on Washington to extradite Ahmad Chalabi, a key U.S.-ally on the Iraqi Governing Council, to serve out a 22-year prison sentence for fraud, Amman press reports said Sunday, August 17.
In a public motion, 21 MPs called for an extraordinary session of parliament to discuss Chalabi's involvement in financial irregularities and his extradition to Jordan via Interpol in order to serve his sentence, Agence France-Presse (AFP) said. Chalabi, leader of the U.S. picked Iraqi National Congress, a pro-Western anti-Saddam Hussein faction which provided troops for the U.S.-led war, built and lost a banking empire in Jordan in the 1980s.
After he fled the country in 1989, he was convicted in absentia of fraud and embezzling 288 million dollars from Petra into Swiss bank accounts.
Jordanian MPs now want him to face a second trial, on additional charges of defrauding the central bank and Petra clients of 900 million dollars.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-08/17/article12.shtml
I think we need to keep a close eye on Dr. Chalabi. As President Bush said in his speech to the UN, first Iraq needs to write a Constitution, then have elections, and only THEN can power be truly handed over to the duly-elected government.
The Bush-bashers hate it when Iraq is compared to Germany after WWII. So do I, in a way... we allowed Germany to be rebuilt by committee, instead of running the show as we did in Japan. And look what a beautiful mess an international body made of Germany. They gave us East and West Germany, and a Wall in Berlin that became a symbol of oppression. Is THAT what we want for Iraq? While keeping the UN from interfering, we've already outstripped the rebuilding of Germany by orders of magnitude. Consider that it took three years to establish a central bank in Germany... Iraq did it in two months. It took two years for Germany to field its own police force... Iraq did it in two months as well. It took over a year for Germany to appoint cabinet positions... but it only took four months in Iraq.
I think it's best for the Iraqis as well as ourselves if we keep the United Nations out of the government processes for a while longer.
Posted at Tuesday, September 23, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Monday, September 22, 2003
What's Wrong With Wesley?
What's Wrong With Wesley?
What is wrong with Wesley Clark?
This is the man who nearly plunged us all into World War III when Russian troops -- our NATO allies -- entered the airport in Pristina (Kosovo) ahead of the Americans on 12 June, 1999 (at the end of the Bosnian conflict). Enraged, Clark ordered British General Sir Michael Jackson to send his paratroopers to prevent the Russians from advancing any further. "Sir, I'm not starting the Third World War for you," replied the general. Clark then turned to an American, Admiral James Ellis (head of NATO's southern command), ordering him to occupy the airfield with his Apache helicopters, stopping the Russians. Ellis, too, refused to confront our allies with military force. Clark was relieved of his duties as NATO commander three months early. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/409576.stm)
His constant and very public whining about his percieved "ill treatment" caused Secretary of Defense William Cohen to order him (through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton), to "get your f---ing face off of the TV." (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030917-104541-4712r.htm)
As for the liberation of Iraq, Clark first told the New York Times, "I probably would have voted for it"... then changed his mind, saying "I would never have voted for this war, never" (http://www.msnbc.com/news/969466.asp?0si)... then temporised, saying that he would have voted for it, but ONLY to gain "leverage" with the UN. By any dictionary you can find, that boils down to lying about our willingness to go to war in order to convince the United Nations to go to war. Ahh, no wonder he's being compared to Clinton. He's already established himself as a man who would lie to gain his ends. I wonder why Democrats demonise President Bush for (they claim) doing the same thing regarding Iraq?
Wesley Clark, in fact, believes Saddam Hussein should have been left in power in Iraq, since his mass murders of Shi'ites took place over ten years ago, and his mass murders of Kurds fifteen years ago. No one has yet asked him what the Statute of Limitations on genocide is in Clarkworld, and I don't think I want to know. Fortune Magazine, after a September 2003 interview with Clark (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,480208-3,00.html), concluded that "He does not believe Saddam was a threat to anyone -- not even, it seems, to his own people." Clark believes that intervening in Kosovo was a worthy humanitarian endeavor. He believes we should have intervened in Rwanda to prevent more deaths. Yet the five thousand children killed every month by Saddam Hussein (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html) apparently didn't make a meaningful impression on him. (The usual Liberal response to that news is that the UN sanctions were killing those children. Let them remember that the same sanctions were imposed upon the Kurdish northern region, which Saddam didn't control... and the children thrived. Also, Saddam could have had the sanctions lifted at any time.)
Clark claimed that the White House pressured him in a phone call on 9/11 to claim that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. When directly asked about this by Sean Hannity, the phone call was suddenly from "a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank" instead. (http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/002zlaay.asp)
More recently, Clark claimed that he would have run as a Republican, if only Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. Checking the phone logs shows NO calls from Clark. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.asp)
Clark's backing by Hillary and Bill Clinton is not surprising, since his relationship with the former President goes back to 1993, when -- as commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, TX -- he sent American tanks to kill American citizens on American soil at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9889) (His supporters cry, "He was only obeying orders!", but the "Eichmann Defense" didn't work for Nazis, and it won't work for Clark.)
Wesley Clark has established his bona fides as a liar and a waffler before even getting the Democratic nomination. They don't seem to care about his situational morality or shifting memories.
Maybe the real question isn't 'what's wrong with Wesley Clark?'. It should be 'what's wrong with THEM?'
Posted at Monday, September 22, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Economics and Terrorism
What President Bush has done, no one else was able -- or willing -- to do. Faced with the problem of a downward-spiraling economy (which began with the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, before he even took office: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble), most Presidents would have asked Congress to authorise Federal subsidies to companies from large to small, to encourage the creation of new jobs. While this would have provided a quick-fix band-aid and satisfied Liberal Democrats, it would not have helped the problem. Congress would be forced to keep authorising more and more subsidies, or face watching those newly-created jobs disappear again. Instead, Bush has applied a patch not to the symptoms, but to the foundation. By giving every taxpayer (private and corporate) tax breaks, he has put money where it can do the most good -- in the hands of businesses and individuals who will cause the economy as a whole to grow. Unfortunately serious repairs, unlike quick fixes, take time. In my opinion, only one thing is still missing from the economic growth landscape: Companies with headquarters in the USA need to pay a head tax for every employee who works outside the country.
President Bush has applied the same strategy to the War on Terrorism. Anyone could go after the foot soldiers, the button men, the poor idiots willing to commit suicide for their leader's cause. Most Presidents would have gone after the leaders themselves. But few would have asked "Why are they angry? What can we DO to defuse that anger?" Fewer still, upon hearing that the two root causes of Arab hatred for the US were the Palestinian situation and the 30,000 US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia would have taken serious action to FIX the problems themselves. Why were those 30,000 troops stationed where they were? To defend Saudi Arabia from, and to enforce the sanctions against Iraq. To remove that root, the Cause that swells the ranks of al-Qaeda, it was necessary to remove the reason for the troops' deployment. It was as necessary to remove Saddam Hussein as it was the Taliban. Freeing fifty million people from tyrannical dictatorships was a terrific dividend.
The attempt to remove other root cause of the terrorists' anger has suffered some terrible setbacks. Surely by now it's clear to even the most hardened apologist that groups like Al-Aqsa, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah will not allow any peace process to take place. By not letting us FIX the problem, they have BECOME the problem. We cannot win the War on Terror while terrorist groups are still allowed to exist openly. Once Iraq is stablised, it will be time to stop holding the Israelis back and let them turn terrorism from something celebrated in the streets to a stain on the history of the Arab people, gladly forgotten.
Posted at Sunday, September 21, 2003 by CavalierX
Permalink
|
|
