FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from
Right Intention: January 2005

Monday, January 31, 2005

Mark Steyn On Iraqi Elections

Mark Steyn does it again:

...but, even so, it surely couldn't be true that the Spaniards so objected to the Iraqi election that they were protesting about it...

...But nevertheless there they were, prosperous, well-dressed Spaniards waving placards showing US missiles and dollar bills going into the ballot box and noisily objecting to the fraud of a so-called election held under American occupation.

Given the fact that the voters of Baghdad and Basra and Kirkuk showed the cojones the Spaniards failed to last March, you'd think those protesters would have been less careless about reminding us that the terrorists got a much better election result out of the Spanish electorate than they did from the Iraqis.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

Like a four-year-old child, the media were so distracted by bright colours and loud noises that they missed the real story. Set fire to a second-hand Nissan and they send a camera crew round to take pretty pictures of the big plume of smoke rising up in the sky.

Mark is being too kind. I'm more cynical about media coverage. I don't believe that the MSM reported only violence because it sells. I believe the unrelenting negative coverage has just as much to do with a concerted effort to undermine support for the war. The left seems obsessed with re-living their glory days of helping us lose Vietnam.

If Theo van Gogh hadn't been killed, he'd doubtless already be working on Submission Part Two, a short film set backstage at a European film festival about a Western culture so reflexively craven that nothing can rouse it to defend itself. Submission Part Three will be about the first Muslim woman to have her unemployment benefit cut for refusing a job as dominatrix in a Frankfurt bondage dungeon.

The Western media might want to rethink their basic narrative: the Iraqi people just took a great leap forward. It's Europe that's looking more like an unwinnable quagmire.

That's my view.

Another Leftist Finally Gets It

He still thinks BUSH LIED!!!!! But unlike any other Democrat I've heard or read in the last 24 hours, he at least can be happy with Iraqi progress.

I still am no Bush fan, and I know that America got lied to. I know we shouldn't have gone, and I think Rove is as evil as they come. But through all this deception and lying, through all this dismemberment and pain, America has wrought a beautiful and fantastic side effect: joy, freedom and peace. Does it take lies and misdirection to bring peace? Is this what the other side of justice is? I feel like such a whiner and I don't know what the fuck to think anymore. I can't tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, and I want a clear cut mandate, some lines to believe along.

But there aren't any. There's just right and wrong and following you heart of hearts. And for the first time in my life, I can say that I was wrong to be compulsively critical of the current administration. Just like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, those "Fuck Bush" signs hurt America and all that it stands for. Even though I don't know what it stands for anymore...but I am so glad those people can vote.

(From Instapundit)

Yet Another Reason Why I Voted Republican

The denizens of the Democratic Underground are truly disgusting. Why? Read this:

The Iraq vote is making me sick this morning

All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how "freedom" has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?

I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit. They have to know that the Americans don't want them to have power, because they know that Bush is in this for the oil, and now that he finally has it he's not going to let it go. This election is a charade. The fact is that the Iraqis have suffered during the past two years more than any people on earth at the hands of the American gestapo. Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. That's the only way I can explain it to myself.

OR--I just thought of this--maybe they're smiling because they're using the Americans own game to defeat them. They're voting in candidates who they know will widen the resistance, take the fight to the streets, and finally drive the occupying forces out of their country. Perhaps they're smiling because--right under the American's noses--they're planting the seeds of a bigger and more effective resistance movement. Wouldn't that be fitting? Use *'s own tools against them?

We can only pray that this is the case. Becuase if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed. Bush's inaugural speech left little doubt that he has other countries on his list to spread "freedom" to. They will be his next targets, and the world will burn because of it.

Let's hope the resistance got voted in, or if not, they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election.

There's way more than this entry on their chatboards. Feel free to look around. Their anger at successful Iraqi elections is pretty widespread.

It's people like this that are driving people like me away from the party. And please, don't pretend these nutjobs are an isolated fringe. They represent a much larger percentage of the Democratic party than the leaders are willing to admit.

(From LGF)

German Women Forced Into Sex Industry

Little Green Footballs found one of the most absurd things I have ever read:

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

Remember this story the next time a europhile leftist is spouting off about the superiority of all things European. If somehow the US government were involved with forcing women into the sex industry, the ear splitting screams of outrage from every protest group, NGO, foreign government, etc. would be enough to rupture your eardrums.

An Ill Wind Blows from Massachusetts

Every state has an official bird, and official song, and the like. But only Massachusetts has an official Windbag. In that illustrious role, Ted Kennedy is at it again. Some pearls of wisdom from his recent speech at Johns Hopkins:

After the mandatory comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, he opines:

"We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe. The war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation".

Earth to Teddy.....have you been at least following events from a distance, maybe watching CNN occasionally? Foreign terrorists (you probably know them by their media nom de plume, "insurgents") are killing innocent Iraqis, including women and children. Please explain to me how a group of Jordanian terrorists killing Iraqi civilians is a "war against the American occupation". Please clarify the Bizzaro logic needed to come to this conclusion.

"We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Couldn't resist reviving a catch phrase from the 60's, I guess. And exactly who is it that thinks we are part of the problem? The Iraqis voting in droves today? I don't think so. Maybe just the leftists that hang on your every word, Senator.

"No matter how many times the Administration denies it, there is no question they misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq".

There's the "Q" word. It wouldn't be a proper Ted Kennedy speech without it. He wants us to think everything is going badly, that we're stuck in a horrible rut, that we have done nothing but make a mistake and waste the lives of American soldiers and Iraqis. But he wants us to believe this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"The cost is also being paid in shame and stain on America’s good name as a beacon of human rights. Nothing is more at odds with our values as Americans than the torture of another human being. Do you think that any Americans tell their children with pride that America tortures prisoners? Yet, high officials in the Administration in their arrogance strayed so far from our heritage and our belief in fundamental human decency that they approved the use of torture and they were wrong, deeply wrong, to do that".

"The Administration's willful disregard of the Geneva Conventions led to the torture and flagrant abuse of the prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and that degradation has diminished America in the eyes of the whole world. It has diminished our moral voice on the planet."

Senator, every day prisoners in the state of Massachusetts are raped and tortured by other inmates. Rape and torture has been institutionalized in the American prison system for decades. Senator, since you are so outraged by torture, what have you done to fix this in your own backyard? Anything? Or do you save your outrage, and spend it only when it benefits you?

"We all hope for the best from Sunday’s election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sunday’s election is not a cure for the violence and instability".

Is there a web emoticon for vomit? I could really use one here.

Sorry, Senator, I just don't believe you . I think you want the U.S. to fail. I think you want violence to destroy the elections so your world view is affirmed. Nothing would make you happier.

Sunday, January 30, 2005

A Sampling Of Iraqi Blogs

From Hammorabi:

...Today we challenged the killers and terrorists and foot on them with our shoes!

Many people walked long distances to vote in a most civilised way!

People asked for more time to enable them to vote!

One woman was crying because she can not reach the requested polling station to vote!

In many parts the police helped citizens to take them with their cars to the polling stations!

As we expected the enemies of God and freedom send their mentally retarded cockroaches in some suicidal attacks.

On the top of our privileged today are those who were killed in their way for voting. Their names should be perpetuated for ever! Their names should be written in Gold in Al-Fordos Square in Baghdad!

Our thanks go to George W Bush who will enter the history as the leader of the freedom and democracy in the recent history! He and his people are our friends for ever!

At this moment the voting closed and we will see the results then!

God bless Iraq and America.

From Iraq The Model

We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear.
We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center.

I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.
From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full!
Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.

The Mesopotamian:

I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming. Behold the Iraqi people; now you know their true metal. We shall never forget the meanness of these bas…s. After this is over there will be no let up, they must be wiped out. It is our duty and the duty of every decent human to make sure this vermin is no more and that no more innocent decent people are victimized.

There are many more blogs obviously, but this is fairly representative.

A Response To Reporters

Great question at Polipundit:

Democrats have criticized Bush for not admitting mistakes in Iraq. How much credibility do they have to ask that question when they can’t admit any successes in Iraq?

Zero, in my view.

I wish Bush would pull this line out the next time he is attacked with the "admitting mistakes" question.

A Question For The Left

Frontpage asks an interesting question:

This "anti-war" movement has not contributed any effort to the winning of the war on which the freedom of eighteen million Iraqis hangs, and on which the very lives of thousands and tens of thousands of future terrorist victims in Iraq and all over the world may be said to depend. In the war between terror and democracy in Iraq, the political left -- including the entire left wing of the Democratic Party, whose leaders are Kennedy, Carter, Dean and Gore, and the entire left wing media whose leaders are the New York Times and the network news -- have put their weight on the scales of the other side. Never in the history of this country has so great a segment of its population so defected from its national mission. When their children ask "What did you do in the war daddy and mommy?" what will they say?

I'm a big supporter of the war, and am quite optimistic about the prospects going forward. But I think the overall tone of this piece jumps the gun just a little bit because it just feels the author thinks we are farther along in the process than I do. But that's a minor quibble. I think the question is a good one.

Suppose Bush's policy of spreading freedom and democracy have the desired effect of not only stabilizing Iraq but also becomes an effective weapon in the war on terror? What will the left say? Will the left pretend they were supportive all along and conveniently forget all about their massive efforts to undermine the mission? Or will the left claim that these regimes were rotting from within anyway and that Bush, Blair, Howard, Aznar, etc. deserve little to no credit for the changes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and whichever country follows? A variant of both of these responses have been used to obscure the left's opposition to confronting the Soviet Union. Maybe these tried and true formulas will be used again. It will be interesting to see the spin.

The Vote Is In

Reuters reports that Iraqis are choosing to participate in the democratic process, undeterred by the threat of car bombs and other violence. One Iraqi citizen speaks quite eloquently:

Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said, leaning on his metal crutches, determination in his reddened eyes".

They're coming on crutches. They are walking miles despite the dangers. They want to vote. They want to live in freedom. What a surprise...

Evidently, those that thought the good people of Iraq were somehow incapable of embracing democracy were wrong. And I'm sure Mr. Hassan is glad the U.S. did not follow the advice of that ultra-left sage, Noam Chomsky , who thought the best strategy was a U.S. cut-and-run by July 1, 2004. Hey Noam...let me ask you this... Where exactly would Iraq be today if we had done that? Please tell me.

A European That Gets It

Nice op ed in the Telegraph:

To European intellectuals, the term "American democracy" is probably an oxymoron. Though such sophisticated cynicism is contradicted by events in Iraq, where – just like in France 60 years ago – US soldiers have been sacrificing their lives to liberate a people from tyranny, anti-Americanism is now written into the European psyche, the last acceptable prejudice in a culture that makes a fetish of racial equality. Indeed, as I walked through the cemetery, my sense of gratitude at Bill's service was accompanied by deep, almost visceral, anger at my fellow Europeans for their constant sneering at America and their gloating over the body count in Iraq, despite all that the USA has done to free Europe in the past from totalitarian dictatorships, whether they be Nazi or communist.

I wish there were more people like him in Europe. Deep down inside, most Americans just want some acknowledgement for all the nice things we do.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Roger Simon Beat Me To It

I was going to make the same point today.

Yet some are looking for an "exit strategy," as if disaster has struck and we have already lost. I don't get it. I wouldn't want to have been fighting beside those people at the Battle of the Bulge. But more importantly, I don't know how to explain those people to the good citizens of Iraq, those seventy to eighty percent who have indicated a desire to vote. Is the idea to give up now? I wonder if, deep down, what those seeking an immediate "exit strategy" really fear most is that we will actually be successful. They would rather the Iraqis suffer than they be embarrassed or, horror of horrors, lose an election.

What I would add is this question. Are these the same people who loudly proclaimed they would not cut and run in Iraq during the election? And weren't those the same people who were accusing Bush of having a cut and run strategy? Anyone notice this?

Yet again the Democrats are demonstrating why they cannot be trusted with national security and foreign policy issues.

European Population Trends

From Instapundit, I found an interesting article about population dynamics. Here's the conclusion:

The international demographic context will see huge changes: in 2050, Yemen will have more population than, for example, Germany. These people will quite understandably long for the standard of living that currently prevails in Europe. The immigration pressure on Europe will be immense. Given the European liberal laws on family reunification, the exodus from Middle East and North Africa will have enormous dimensions.

Instead of integration of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa into a majority European society, the opposite will occur: the immigrants will integrate the existing European culture into their own civilization. After some time, it will be their civilization that will become dominant. One does not have to be a supporter of Jean-Marie Le Pen to feel a little anxious about that. It is not a problem of ethnics and their mingling. It is a matter of society, its values, and democracy as such. European tolerance competes with Islam, which is not always a religion of peace, as many Europeans would like to believe. Radical Islamic preachers openly condemn democracy. They interpret it not as a social system but as a pagan cult, which prefers the voices of people to the voice of God. This and other theories of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and his conservative fellow-believers are proclaimed in many mosques throughout Europe.

If as a result of demographic trends a large part of future Europeans will have dark skin and go to mosque, why not? But if they become a threat to the European tradition of democracy and tolerance, it will be a tragedy.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Liberals Are Racist, Too

A few days ago in the Washington Post, Colbert King asks the question: Why the Crass Remarks About Rice?

Despite being a Black man, Colbert is no Rice apologist.

...Saddam Hussein clearly was not the threat Rice had proclaimed. Her paper trail of misstatements virtually invited a congressional attack on her record...
...My disagreement with the Bush administration on Iraq has been spelled out in past columns. I'm also a member of an editorial board that has been critical of administration policies -- and by extension, Rice -- on several foreign policy fronts...
...A senator who believes the Bush administration lied about the war, made a mess of postwar reconstruction and ruined relations with long-standing allies would be justified in holding Rice accountable, and in my view, in voting against her confirmation. Senate Foreign Relations Committee members Boxer and John Kerry did as much...

So what does he find offensive? Barbara Boxer implies that she thinks Condi is an idiot who mindlessly parrots Bush's position.

It's hard to imagine a more demeaning and offensive caricature of a prospective secretary of state, let alone the most senior official on the national security staff. It's equally difficult to understand what prompted Boxer to imply that Rice is little more than a diligent echo of Bush's thoughts. There's nothing in Rice's background or in her performance to suggest that she is a mindless follower of presidential orders. In fact, Rice comes across as just the opposite.

As I was leaving a Post dining room after participating in my first off-the-record session with Rice and other Post editors and reporters a couple of years ago, it struck me that Rice could be where Bush gets it from. Subsequent meetings only have reinforced that supposition. Rice's notions of preemption, unilateralism and America's responsibilities as the dominant power in the world are not hand-me-downs from Bush. They strike me as very much her own.

Wonder why Rice stayed close to Bush's policies in her hearings? Consider the possibility that the administration's policies happen to be hers too. Consider too the likelihood that years of study and work in foreign affairs, both as an academic and as a senior foreign policy wonk, are what inform her views -- not George W. Bush.

Colbert, I am also a Black man. And it's about time we stop dancing around the issue. The evidence is piling up and the answer is obvious. Liberals are racist, too.

Over the last few years, I've become quite disappointed with the Democratic party on a number of fronts. I believe the party is too reactionary and offers up no ideas of its own. They more or less just oppose whatever the Republicans want to do. I believe the party is too soft on national defense, and is more worried about opinion polls in France than defending the country. I believe that the Democrats are more worried about pleasing certain special interest groups than implementing worthwhile ideas (teacher's unions vs. school vouchers). And so forth.

But nothing has surprised or saddened me more than to see the overt racism from the left.

Examples? Fine. Let's start with Pat Oliphant's cartoon. It's pretty clear that Oliphant believes that Rice is a brainless step 'n fetch it Black.

Here's a good one. Jeff Danziger portrays Condi Rice as the stereotype of an uneducated Black woman who has too many children. Oh, and she can't speak properly. Somehow, this cartoon is supposed to be about the aluminum tube controversy.

Ted Rall had the best one, however. He called Condi Rice a "house nigger". Ted Rall, who I've heard say he is offended by anti-French commentary- I guess he's of French descent- apparently sees nothing wrong with calling the National Security Advisor and future Secretary of State a "nigger". Kind of reminds me of a joke I used to hear in the 70s:

Q: What do you call a Black person with a PHD in Physics from MIT?
A: A Nigger!

But I was gratified to hear the Democratic leadership loudly condemn these people and say there is no place for this in the party. Didn't hear the Democrats do that, you say? Neither did I. I guess since these attacks were aimed at a Black Republican it was okay.

Let's go on. Michael Moore thinks that 9/11 could have been prevented had there been more Blacks on the hijacked airplanes.

"Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the Sept. 11 planes were scaredy cats because they were mostly white," Alibhai-Brown writes. "If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody."

Tell that to Todd Beamer's wife.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive. Perhaps I should enjoy being stereotyped as a raging brute that is useful to have around to protect White people from terrorists. Better to be feared than respected, I suppose.

And who could forget Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's month long assault on Clarence Thomas's intelligence? Here he is on Meet The Press:

Russert: Let me turn to judicial nominations. Again, Harry Reid on National Public Radio, Nov. 19: "If they"--the Bush White House--"for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they give us Antonin Scalia, that's a little different question. I may not agree with some of his opinions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind."...

So Scalia is smart and Thomas is stupid according to Reid. But, in case it wasn't clear enough:

Russert: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?

Reid: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

Does Reid have any evidence to back up his assertion of Thomas's lack of intelligence?

Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?

Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.

Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.

Go to the site and read Thomas's opinion. It won't take long. The entire thing is all of one paragraph.

It's pretty clear that Reid doesn't know what he's talking about. Reid simply assumes that Clarence Thomas is stupid because he is Black. And because Thomas is conservative, these types of comments are fair game.

But it's not all bad. If you're Black and a Democrat, then you are lionized. Take the case of Barack Obama, freshly minted Senator and keynote speaker at last year's Democratic convention. He hasn't really done anything yet, but he's already being touted as a future Presidential candidate.

Look, Obama is an impressive individual with great credentials. And I hope he develops into Presidential material. But I think it's a little early to give this much adulation to someone who lost a Congressional race in 2000 in Illinois as a Democrat. How difficult is that?

Now, if you are White and a reformed racist, then it's okay as long as you are, once again, a Democrat. Take the case of Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator from West Virginia and former Klansman. Here's what Christopher Dodd said
early in 2004:

Senator Christopher Dodd, said in a tribute to Robert Byrd, that he would be a "great leader" for any portion of American history. In fact Dodd went on to elaborate that Byrd would have been a great leader at the founding of this country. He said he would have been a great leader in the present days of turmoil. He went so far as to say that he (Dodd) could not think of a time when Robert Byrd would not have been a great leader for our nation. Dodd even cited the era of the civil war specifically.

Do you remember the outrage that followed Dodd saying this? Neither do I. In fact, I'll bet you didn't even know that Dodd said this. Let's continue:

In his youth Byrd was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. You know...the organization that during the civil war era raped black slave girls, tortured black slave men, and mutilated the bodies of any who resisted. The KKK burned bodies of disobedient blacks, burned the houses of their loved ones, and burned crosses on the front yards of any who would show sympathy to the maltreatment of blacks. And Senator Dodd said Byrd would have been a "great leader" for America during the time of the civil war?

But his youth was not the only place where Byrd showed great agitation towards African Americans. In the midst of the 1960's as America was facing the truth about its darkest secret, the civil rights movement took center stage. As a nation confessed its sin and after far too long put the issue of equality and freedom for all back into its core of public policy Mr. Byrd was again lined up against these principles. As an elected democrat, when the civil rights act came to the floor for a vote, Byrd found himself advancing the cause of a filibuster to prevent African Americans from enjoying the same civil rights that he enjoyed.

Fast forward to the later part of the Senator's career. In 2001 one would have thought that Senator Robert Byrd would have learned his lesson. After all these many years of having made mistake after mistake on the issue of the equal treatment of men created in the image of God, he struck again. Appearing on a nationally broadcast television news show Robert Byrd dropped the always offensive "N" bomb right into America's living room.

I guess a leopard can't change his spots. But as long as he's a Democrat, it's okay.

Compare and contrast what happened to Trent Lott:

Now remember with me if you will the episode of December 6, 2002. Making an appearance at a private birthday gathering (not paid for by tax-payers), then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott spoke words of praise to Strom Thurmond. Thurmond, who was turning one hundred years old was praised by Lott as someone that "more Americans should have voted for" when he had run for president on a segregationist ticket at the peak of segregation. Lott's remarks went unnoticed for two days by the media but eventually created such a stir that Republican leadership recognized the pain his comments had caused thousands of Americans and thus removed him from his leadership post.

In only two days the story had jumped onto the front pages of American newspapers. Black Entertainment Television aired special programming relating to the issue - including bringing Lott on to try to explain. And within a two week time period Lott was out as leader and replaced by Senator Frist, a man whose record on race has no question marks above it.

So the Republicans removed Lott from his leadership post while Byrd is considered the Dean of the Democratic party and is widely respected.

But Democrats need Blacks to vote for them in disproportionate numbers or else they will lose elections. So to the ones who don't stray from the "plantation", the Democratic strategy is to just keep us riled up during election season, with disingenuous commercials and bogus claims of disenfranchisement.

And then after the election, we are more or less ignored. But then, like clockwork, every two years Democrats try to elicit a Pavlovian response with these tactics to ensure voting loyalty.

So here's what I think, based on what I've observed over the last few years. Democrats do not hold the moral high ground over Republicans on racism. For the most part, you do not hear the racist bile spewed from high profile Republicans that you hear from Democrats. Even if Republicans believe these things, they do not say it out loud. On the other hand, when Democrats make racist statements, there is no criticism from fellow Democrats. The silence is deafening. It's more than hypocrisy; it's a fundamental lack of respect. And it makes the Democratic cry of "Racism!" when an unapproved person makes a remark look like little more than public posturing for a voting block they can ill afford to lose.

One of these days, we Black Americans need to seriously reassess our allegiance to the Democratic party. I know I have.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Counter Inauguration Turns Stomach Of Liberal


Unfortunately, this brings the grand total of liberals who get it up to the high single digits. But it's progress.

Having attended college in New York City, I know what it's like to be confronted with some of the more irritating forms of campus leftism. Yet I never quite understood why, ultimately, such leftism should drive sensible people away from liberalism. But yesterday's display made it a little more understandable: Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy.

US Is Not Superman

This is excellent. No commentary necessary.

We're Sorry

"The United States is not the 'Superman' of the world."

OUR CANADIAN FRIEND CHRIS ALEMANY comments in a post below:

"Freedom is a Human Right"
That's exactly right... but no Human being should be subjected to all out war by foreign country in order to gain that right.

*Some* Americans need to learn that the United States is not and need not be the "Superman" of the world.

Chris has a point -- the United States needs to stop "playing Superman." Furthermore, we should apologize to each of those nations that we have “liberated” by force of arms.

To the good people of Cuba, we humbly apologize. We helped you fight for your “independence” from Spain in 1898, but considering how badly things have gone since then, we should have left well enough alone. The same goes for the Philippines, which remained a U.S. possession for 40 years after “liberation.”

At various times in the past century, we’ve attempted to “intervene” in several Latin American and Caribbean countries, including Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Haiti. In retrospect, this was a bad idea. Please accept our apologies.

Twice in the past hundred years, the United States sent troops to Western Europe to fight for “freedom.” To the people of France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Austria, we offer our most heartfelt apologies for interfering in your affairs. Please rest assured that it won’t happen again.

To the peoples of Polynesia, Micronesia, Indonesia, Indochina, the Philippines (again), China, and Korea, for whom America spent so much blood and treasure to free from the “oppression” of the Japanese Empire, we’re sorry. We’re sure that you could have handled the matter much better without our “assistance.”

After subjecting their citizens to all-out war, the United States forced Germany, Japan, and Italy to “democratize.” We apologize for being so presumptuous. In retrospect, we should have trusted you to come up with your own form of government -- we’re certain you would have been much better off in the long run, left to your own devices.

We apologize to the people of South Korea for “defending” you from your brothers to the north. This was clearly an internal matter for Koreans to decide, and we had no business meddling in your affairs.

Similarly, we apologize for “interfering” with the socialist revolution in Vietnam. It is indeed fortunate that we ultimately failed in establishing a viable democratic state in the South – as any one of the 1.5 million Vietnamese now living in America will eagerly attest.

We apologize to the people of Eastern Europe for working for 45 years to undermine the Warsaw Pact. In retrospect, you were probably better off under Soviet domination. Please forgive us.

To the good people of Kuwait, whom we forcibly separated from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: please accept our apologies – it was all a horrible misunderstanding.

To all the Bosnians, Croatians, Albanians, and Kosovars that we “rescued” from so-called Serbian “ethnic cleansing,” we are truly sorry.

We apologize to all the people in Afghanistan for putting an end to the Taliban regime. We now understand that you preferred to use your soccer stadiums for public executions, rather than, well, soccer.

Finally, we apologize to the people of Iraq for deposing and imprisoning Saddam Hussein. Clearly, you were better off with a good “disciplinarian” running your country – we’ll just set him free, pack up our stuff, and go home.

That is what you want, right?

P.S. If you need any help in the future, please call Canada.

Hollywood Hates A Loser

I'm actually sad about this:

Michael Moore's gamble to hold his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" out of the documentary category - to boost its best-picture prospects - backfired. The movie was shut out across the board.

I was looking forward to the psychotic, hate filled left continuing to marginalize itself by pumping up this piece of discredited propaganda. But then again, the public made it pretty clear that it doesn't care what elitist liberals think. Maybe they are licking their wounds and waiting to try again at some future date.

Victor Davis Hanson

A reality check for those who are hoping the US is in decline:

All civilizations erode, but few citizenries are as sensitive to the signs of decay as Americans, who constantly innovate, experiment, and self-critique in a fashion unknown anywhere else. When we develop a class system based on British aristocratic breeding, accent, and social paralysis, or sink into a multicultural cauldron like the endemic violence of an India or Africa, or cease believing in either God or children like an Amsterdam or Brussels, or require the state coercion of a China to maintain harmony, or become a racialist state such as Japan, then it is time to worry.

But we are not there yet by a long shot.

Read the whole thing.

Mark Steyn

Another brilliant op ed from Mark Steyn:

According to a poll by the University of Bielefeld, 62 per cent of Germans are "sick of all the harping on about German crimes against the Jews" - which is an unusually robust formulation for a multiple-choice questionnaire, but at least has the advantage of leaving us in no confusion as to how things stand in this week of panEuropean Holocaust "harping on". The old joke - that the Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz - gets truer every week...

..."Enforced" is the operative word. If most Germans don't feel guilty about the Holocaust, there's no point pretending they do. And that's the problem with all this week's Shoah business: it's largely a charade. The European establishment that has scheduled such lavish anniversary observances for this Thursday presides over a citizenry that, even if one discounts the synagogue-arsonists and cemetery-desecrators multiplying across the Continent, is either antipathetic to Jews, or "sick of all the harping on", or regards solemn Holocaust remembrance as a useful card to have in the hand of the slyer, suppler forms of anti-Semitism to which Europe is now prone...

...They ran a reminiscence by Anthony Lipmann, the Anglican son of an Auschwitz survivor, which contained the following sentence: "When on 27 January I take my mother's arm - tattoo number A-25466 - I will think not just of the crematoria and the cattle trucks but of Darfur, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Jenin, Fallujah."

Jenin? Would that be the notorious 2002 "Jenin massacre"? There was no such thing, as I pointed out in this space at the time, when Robert Fisk and the rest of Fleet Street's gullible sob-sisters were going around weepin' an' a-wailin' about Palestinian mass graves and Israeli war crimes. Twenty-three Israelis were killed in fighting at the Jenin camp. Fifty-two Palestinians died, according to the Israelis. According to Arafat's official investigators, it was 56 Palestinians. Even if one accepts the higher figure, that means every single deceased Palestinian could have his own mass grave and there'd still be room to inter the collected works of Robert Fisk. Yet, despite the fact that the Jenin massacre is an obvious hallucination of Fleet Street's Palestine groupies, its rise to historical fact is unstoppable. To Lipmann, those 52-56 dead Palestinians weigh in the scales of history as heavy as six million Jews. And what's Fallujah doing bringing up the rear in his catalogue of horrors? In rounding up a few hundred head-hackers, the Yanks perpetrated another Auschwitz? These comparisons are so absurd as to barely qualify as "moral equivalence"...

...But, if I were a European Jew, I would feel this week's observances bordered on cultural appropriation. The old defence against charges of anti-Semitism was: "But some of my best friends are Jewish." As the ancient hatreds rise again across the Continent, the political establishment's defence is: "But some of our best photo opportunities are Jewish."

More From The Patriotic Left

I'm disgusted, but not the least bit surprised:

Magnetic Yellow Ribbons that say "Support The Troops" have been surreptitiously banned by the administration at the University of Oregon.

The origin of the policy was a complaint from a fellow employee and the claim was that the sticker was in fact a "political statement".

The employee who had the magnetic ribbons had put them on his vehicle months previous - but Friday a university employee complained.

So let's review...
1. University employees at the University of Oregon are not allowed to support the troops who defend those employees' freedoms and the security they live under.
2. "Supporting the troops" is deemed a political much for the "We all support the troops" talking points.
3. Even if this WAS political expression - university employees are not allowed to express themselves politically? (Can Instapundit weigh in on the legalities of University Campus political expression?)

From Polipundit

Ted Turner Is Losing It

Yet another leftist using Nazi comparisons:

Ted Turner called FOX an arm of the Bush administration and compared FOXNEWS's popularity to Hitler's popular election to run Germany before WWII.

Turner made the controversial comments in Las Vegas before a standing-room-only crowd at the National Association for Television Programming Executives's opening session.

His no-nonsense, humorous approach during the one-hour Q&A generated frequent loud applause and laughter, BROADCASTING & CABLE reports.

While FOX may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said.

He followed up by pointing out that Adolf Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany prior to WWII. He said the network is the propaganda tool for the Bush Administration.

"There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is dumbed down," leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff," he said.

A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well."

In 1996, Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing FOX head Rupert Murdoch to Hitler.

KKK Opposes Rice Nomination

I defy anyone to say this isn't true:

Former KKK Leader Opposes Black Female Secretary of State Nominee

Go there and check out the links.

Larger Implication Of US Tsunami Relief Effort

Thoughtful piece at Eurosoc:

The United States, Australia and India are all countries with a strong Anglo-Saxon heritage, further adding to their status as natural allies. Along with Britain, Australia was the Americans’ staunchest ally in the Iraq war, and, unlike Spain, we see that this alliance did nothing to harm the electoral success of Australia’s ruling pro-American government. From time to time, the notion of the Anglo-Saxon bond has been floated as a basis for a global alliance, and of course this alliance did figure prominently in World War II which, along with Russia, was largely fought by Americans and members of the British Commonwealth.

That this alliance seems to be coming to the fore is not lost on its most vehement critic: the French. France has long derided the dominance of les Anglo-Saxons in the world, though this dominance largely came about through deft interventions on the part of the British during attempts by France to dominate its continental neighbors. In response to the Anglo-Saxon alliance, France has once again attempted to dominate Europe through the EU while interfering with American foreign policy goals when strategically possible. Chief among such actions is the effort by the French to curry favor with the Chinese dictatorship, as well as with left-leaning Latin American nations, most notably Brazil. The problem with this traditional French strategy is that it leaves the pays des droits de l’homme in league with the world’s most reprehensible regimes. On the other hand, the strategy does pay off somewhat with nations like Brazil, but unfortunately for France it’s a strategy that requires more resources than France is able to muster.

I Like This Idea

If only this letter were real....

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. ,20016

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Our administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear in Washington.You'll be pleased to learn that thanks to concerned citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.

Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.

Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him, and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that Ahmed will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure the women in your household will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka - over time. Just remind them that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" - wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job.

You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching. Good luck!


Your Buddy,
Don Rumsfeld

This Is Just Pathetic

From the Daily Demarche, I found yet another article about just how pathetic the UN is:

The UN General Assembly commemorated the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps with a special session yesterday, and survivor Elie Wiesel and world leaders confronted a question that has long haunted the United Nations: whether the world body has the will to stop genocide.

The commemoration also was meant to eradicate the notion that the UN General Assembly is anti-Semitic, an accusation frequently made by Israel.

But there were signs of division and clear evidence that much of the Arab world was not participating. The General Assembly auditorium was less than half full even for the start of the commemoration, while just one Middle East country -- Jordan -- was scheduled to deliver a speech commemorating the liberation of the camps.

Why do we bother? You know, if the session was titled "Let's Just All Get Together And Bitch About The US & Israel" I'm sure the session would be overflowing with participants and would have to span several days.

Wait a minute. What am I talking about? Every day already is one giant bitchfest about the US and Israel. Silly me.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Soldiers Question Media Over Iraq

Jack Kelly has a very good op ed. Soldiers are becoming very frustrated at the news coverage in Iraq.

Marine Cpl. Isaac Pacheco, who works in the Coalition public affairs office in Baghdad, wondered why no one in the "mainstream" media has seen fit to do a story on Sgt. Addie Collins, an Army reservist from Los Angeles, who -- through donations from friends back home -- has supplied 10,000 pairs of sneakers, sandals and boots to children in Ar Ramadi.

Wait. There's more.

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the 'failures' in the war in Iraq," Lt. Col. Tim Ryan, a battalion commander in the First Cavalry Division, wrote in an email to friends.

"Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq, and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones," said Ryan, who is now stationed in Fallujah. "Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq."

Ryan wondered why journalists devote so little attention to atrocities committed by the resistance, and so much on scandals like Abu Ghraib.

Ryan, here is a fact of life. For whatever reason, journalists do not support this war. And therefore, either consciously or subconsciously, they are doing what they can to subvert it. A journalist's job these days is more akin to a Joseph Goebbels propaganda machine than real journalism. It's that simple. The American public would be just as well off with no professional "journalists" in Iraq as with these people. Either way we would be just as informed about the realities there.

Friday, January 21, 2005

The UN Is Soooo Worthless..

The Diplomad found another witness to the uselessness of the UN in the tsunami region:

It has been three weeks since my ship, the USS Abraham Lincoln, arrived off the Sumatran coast to aid the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Dec. 26 tsunami that ravaged their coastline. I’d like to say that this has been a rewarding experience for us, but it has not:

Another eyewitness account. Let's see what he has to say.

What really irritated me was a scene I witnessed in the Lincoln’s wardroom a few days ago. I went in for breakfast as I usually do, expecting to see the usual crowd of ship’s company officers in khakis and air wing aviators in flight suits, drinking coffee and exchanging rumors about when our ongoing humanitarian mission in Sumatra is going to end.

What I saw instead was a mob of civilians sitting around like they owned the place. They wore various colored vests with logos on the back including Save The Children, World Health Organization and the dreaded baby blue vest of the United Nations. Mixed in with this crowd were a bunch of reporters, cameramen and Indonesian military officers in uniform. They all carried cameras, sunglasses and fanny packs like tourists on their way to Disneyland.

My warship had been transformed into a floating hotel for a bunch of trifling do-gooders overnight.

What? No 5 star hotels? And these people lowered themselves to bunking with the evil, prisoner abusing, smug, arrogant, US military?

As I went through the breakfast line, I overheard one of the U.N. strap-hangers, a longhaired guy with a beard, make a sarcastic comment to one of our food servers. He said something along the lines of “Nice china, really makes me feel special,” in reference to the fact that we were eating off of paper plates that day. It was all I could do to keep from jerking him off his feet and choking him, because I knew that the reason we were eating off paper plates was to save dishwashing water so that we would have more water to send ashore and save lives. That plus the fact that he had no business being there in the first place.

Remember, the UN and other NGOs are organizations we should look up to. This gentleman is a fine example of the type of person they employ.

My attitude towards these unwanted no-loads grew steadily worse that day as I learned more from one of our junior officers who was assigned to escort a group of them. It turns out that they had come to Indonesia to “assess the damage” from the Dec. 26 tsunami.

Well, they could have turned on any TV in the world and seen that the damage was total devastation. When they got to Sumatra with no plan, no logistics support and no five-star hotels to stay in, they threw themselves on the mercy of the U.S. Navy, which, unfortunately, took them in. I guess our senior brass was hoping for some good PR since this was about the time that the U.N. was calling the United States “stingy” with our relief donations.

There it is again. We are hated until we are needed. Then we are expected to help.

As a result of having to host these people, our severely over-tasked SH-60 Seahawk helos, which were carrying tons of food and water every day to the most inaccessible places in and around Banda Aceh, are now used in great part to ferry these “relief workers” from place to place every day and bring them back to their guest bedrooms on the Lincoln at night. Despite their avowed dedication to helping the victims, these relief workers will not spend the night in-country, and have made us their guardians by default.

When our wardroom treasurer approached the leader of the relief group and asked him who was paying the mess bill for all the meals they ate, the fellow replied, “We aren’t paying, you can try to bill the U.N. if you want to.”

The expectations game again. And it really makes my blood boil. I wonder what the Chinese or Russian navy would do in this circumstance? Throw them overboard, perhaps? But not the good ol' US. Someone please explain to me why we are so nice? What is the benefit to us?

In addition to the relief workers, we routinely get tasked with hauling around reporters and various low-level “VIPs,” which further wastes valuable helo lift that could be used to carry supplies. We had to dedicate two helos and a C-2 cargo plane for America-hater Dan Rather and his entourage of door holders and briefcase carriers from CBS News. Another camera crew was from MTV. I doubt if we’ll get any good PR from them, since the cable channel is banned in Muslim countries. We also had to dedicate a helo and crew to fly around the vice mayor of Phoenix, Ariz., one day. Everyone wants in on the action.

As for the Indonesian officers, while their job is apparently to encourage our leaving as soon as possible, all they seem to do in the meantime is smoke cigarettes. They want our money and our help but they don’t want their population to see that Americans are doing far more for them in two weeks than their own government has ever done or will ever do for them.

And if our Navy told these idiots to stop wasting their time, the negative pr would be deafening. There is no winning in this situation. Forget positive press, the best we can hope for is an absence of negative press.

To add a kick in the face to the USA and the Lincoln, the Indonesian government announced it would not allow us to use their airspace for routine training and flight proficiency operations while we are saving the lives of their people, some of whom are wearing Osama bin Ladin T-shirts as they grab at our food and water. The ship has to steam out into international waters to launch and recover jets, which makes our helos have to fly longer distances and burn more fuel.

Sickening, but typical.

What is even worse than trying to help people who totally reject everything we stand for is that our combat readiness has suffered for it.

An aircraft carrier is an instrument of national policy and the big stick she carries is her air wing. An air wing has a set of very demanding skills and they are highly perishable. We train hard every day at sea to conduct actual air strikes, air defense, maritime surveillance, close air support and many other missions – not to mention taking off and landing on a ship at sea.

Our safety regulations state that if a pilot does not get a night carrier landing every seven days, he has to be re-qualified to land on the ship. Today we have pilots who have now been over 25 days without a trap due to being unable to use Indonesian airspace to train. Normally it is when we are at sea that our readiness is at its very peak. Thanks to the Indonesian government, we have to waive our own safety rules just to get our pilots off the deck.

Some of our soldiers are going to die because of this. Let's just leave now. Our efforts are not appreciated and in the end we are going to be hurt by it.

Military Recruitment On College Campuses

Here is a lovely picture of a military recruiter being harrassed for recruiting at a local college in Seattle.

But whatever you do, do not say these protesters are unpatriotic or don't love their country. That would be out of bounds.

Liberals Journalists Don't Get It

CBS is pondering some changes:

The CBS chairman, Leslie Moonves, said on Tuesday he is planning to introduce significant, potentially revolutionary changes to the format of "The CBS Evening News" when Dan Rather departs as anchor in March.

Radical new changes? Fair and balanced reporting, perhaps?

Mr. Moonves said the moves were likely to include a shift toward multiple anchors and away from what he called the "voice of God, single anchor" format that has been used throughout most of the history of network television news.

Oh well, one can always dream.

I've got news for you Les. It's not the format. The reason your ratings are sliding is that virtually all of the network, cable, and print media is liberal. And promoting news coverage that tilts severely to the left leaves you competing for less than half of your potential audience. Jim Geraghty explains it here:

It's interesting that CNN has lagged behind Fox for a couple of years now, and tried a variety of approaches (remember the ads touting Paula Zahn as "a little sexy"?). There's one approach that CNN hasn't tried, as far as I know. Nor has CNBC tried it, or MSNBC: Emulating Fox by trying to attract the right-of-center audience.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the results of this year's presidential election represent the news-watching and news-reading population as a whole. This would mean that 51 percent or so of the public is right-of-center in one way or another, and 49 percent is left-of-center in one way or the other.

If you're a conservative, chances are you prefer Fox News. You often sense that the "mainstream" networks don't give a fair shake to your leaders, your party, your views, or your beliefs.

Simple isn't it? If you play it straight, you will gain viewers.

But it's striking how much that message is resisted by the MSM. Despite their protests to the contrary, it's almost as if the MSM believes it is their obligation to spread liberal dogma, regardless of the cost. How else do you explain it? Their customers are telling the networks that they don't like the product. The networks are saying "F*** You. We know better. We will tell you what you should think." So the viewers go to Fox. If Fox had the reach of the ABC, CBS and NBC, I bet their ratings would be equal to the other three combined. Rupert Murdoch is laughing all the way to the bank.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

EU To Break Up/

CIA has a dire warning for Europe:

THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.

The report by the intelligence agency, which forecasts how the world will look in 2020, warns that Europe could be dragged into economic decline by its ageing population. It also predicts the end of Nato and post-1945 military alliances.

In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

Given the track record of the CIA lately, I wouldn't take this prediction to the bank. But it's clear that Europe has serious challenges. One would think that with all the issues Europe has to tackle, they would have something better to do than obsess over the US and direct non stop hatred towards us. But then again, maybe its because Europe cannot face up to reality that makes them lash out at America. It's a cheap way to make them feel better about themselves.

(From Instapundit)

Is Jimmy Carter Linked With Oil for Food?

What does Jimmy Carter know and when did he know it?

Samir Vincent admitted on Tuesday to receiving allocations for more than 9 million barrels of oil between 1996 and 2003 in return for serving as an agent of Saddam Hussein's regime. Vincent worked at Hussein's direction, lobbying U.S. and U.N. officials to end sanctions and to instead implement the oil-for-food scam....

...The first documented contact between Former President Carter and Samir Vincent was in September 1999. Vincent had organized a tour of Iraqi religious leaders to meet with individuals in the United States who might be persuaded to speak out against the sanctions against Iraq. The trip also included discussions of ways to oppose U.S. and U.K. air strikes against Iraqi missile batteries in southern Iraq, which had fired on American and British aircraft engaged in enforcing the southern "No Fly Zone."

The meeting with Carter was one of the highlights of the trip. Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, welcomed the Vincent-organized delegation into their home in Plains, Georgia.

The weekly Iraqi newspaper, al-Raee, reported that Carter expressed his sympathies with the Iraqi people and railed against the "stringent" sanctions imposed against Iraq as a result of the nation's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The report claimed that Carter had promised to send his wife and son to Iraq. Along with the story was a photograph of Carter with the three religious dignitaries who were part of Vincent's anti-sanctions lobbying tour.

I'm no fan of Jimmy Carter, but even I can't believe he would knowingly participate in something like oil for food. But this is something that should be looked into.

And could you imagine the MSM reaction if Carter were a Repbulican? The networks would Abu Ghraib the coverage. No proof necessary.

Michael Moore

An update from our favorite tub of lard.

Michael Moore's Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge

Snicker. Seems a bit at odds with Bowling for Columbine, doesn't it?

I'm not fond of guns myself, but the hypocrisy is too good to ignore.

Update: AAARRRGGGHHH!!! It turns out this story is not true. Too bad.

Leftists Over The Top

Medienritik has found some more idiocy in the German media. It's a fantasy obituary of Bush. I wonder if this author had a conversation with Nicholson Baker?

Nicholson Baker wrote a book titled Checkpoint which, if you haven't heard, is a fantasy book about the assassination of Bush.

Get The UN Out Of The US

I love it. Here is another sign of a backlash against relentless anti Americanism. This is a webite that is calling for kicking the UN out of the US. Check out these ads.

I just saw the UN ad on television. I really hope this movement grows.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Where Are The Human Shields?

Instapundit found this great blog piece. Be sure to follow the links to the BBC article.

Wanted: Human Shields

Back in January '03, you may remember a group of Western liberals who volunteered to go to Iraq as human shields in case the US enforced UN resolutions that Saddam violated. Key graf:

"...they are willing to put themselves in the firing line should US and British forces bomb Iraq. They plan to identify potential bombing targets such as power stations and bridges and act as human shields to protect them."

Well, I think I have just the job for these globe-travelers: Iraq Election Poll Worker. They are familiar with the terrain and people, they have a self-professed desire to help and they seem very articulate. However, their biggest asset is bravery. If they are willing to hunker down between Coalition Forces and a bridge, standing between a foreign terrorist and a polling precinct should be no big deal. Any takers?

C'mon lefties. Put your money where your mouth is.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Kerry Voters Are Crazy

James Taranto at the Opinion Journal found this:

The tens states (including the District of Columbia ) with the highest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents, were, with the exception of Colorado, all blue states which supported John Kerry (D.C, Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, in rank order from one to ten). The ten states with the lowest ratio of psychologists per 100,000 residents, all were red states supporting Bush (Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, Indiana). Louisiana with the lowest ratio is listed first.

I suspected Kerry voters were mentally ill. And now there's proof.

Bush & Zapatero

Barcepundit found an update on the state of relations between Bush and Zapatero.

Bush has so far not returned Zapatero's call to congratulate him on his re-election. A White House spokesman said that the two leaders had not connected because of problems with their respective agendas; but that was on Nov. 10, and the call remains unanswered. Eight days after his re-election, Bush met Aznar at the White House. "I went to the White House to speak to President Bush for one reason -- because he is my friend," Aznar was quoted as saying later. "I have various friends in America, and one of them is the president."

The fact that Aznar still has access to the White House irks the Zapatero government. On the other hand, observers say Zapatero has not helped his own case with his public criticism of the war in Iraq, which he has described as "illegal." And while Zapatero never publicly said that he supported Democratic candidate John Kerry in the presidential elections, Spanish officials were quoted as saying that relations would certainly improve if Kerry were elected president.

Good. Screw Zapatero.

Abu Ghraib Coming Back To Haunt US

Nicely done, liberal media.

U.S. military interrogators in Iraq tell Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin prisoners are doing far less talking since the publicity of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the crackdown on harsh techniques used in questioning them.

"Do you want to know why there are so many successful attacks – attacks that are not averted because of good intelligence?" asked one military source familiar with the situation. "Because we're getting next to nothing out of the prisoners. Our information flow has dried up."

This was easy to see coming. Thanks to the ridiculous overreaction to Abu Ghraib that was played 24/7 all over the world, we are putting the gloves on when interrogating head chopping, disemboweling terrorists. And it looks as if the terrorists are impressed with our civility. Way to go, MSM. Americans and Iraqis are dying because of you.

And its the same with Guantanamo. The relentless negative coverage of Gitmo has led us to release terrorists who should not have been released and who have gone on to rejoin the fight. Again, people are dying because of the government's fear of bad press. Somehow, though, the MSM always escapes any responsibility for its excess. No one ever seems to make the connection.

But the answers are relatively simple. In Iraq, just turn the terrorists over to Iraqis for questioning. It's a sovereign country, let them slap the terrorists around for info. Americans can even be in the same room. Don't touch, just observe. I'm sure it's either happening now or will be soon. With Al Qaeda types, continue to turn them over to Jordan or Egypt or whoever to get the necessary information. If that's not possible in some cases, kill them. No prisoners, no hysterical screeching from the MSM.

I'd rather not do this. But I don't see how we have a choice. It's either let others do the tough questioning or allow the MSM to continue to indirectly cause deaths.

German Press

Medienkritik has a good round up of anti Americanism in the German press. Read it.

Secret Plan for Iran

Seymour Hersh has written a pretty lengthy article about "secret plans" to deal with Iran:

The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me.

Some of the missions involve extraordinary coöperation. For example, the former high-level intelligence official told me that an American commando task force has been set up in South Asia and is now working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists and technicians who had dealt with Iranian counterparts. (In 2003, the I.A.E.A. disclosed that Iran had been secretly receiving nuclear technology from Pakistan for more than a decade, and had withheld that information from inspectors.) The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan, has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations. The task-force members, or their locally recruited agents, secreted remote detection devices—known as sniffers—capable of sampling the atmosphere for radioactive emissions and other evidence of nuclear-enrichment programs.

Seymour Hersh has a mixed record at best when it comes to investigative journalism so who knows how true any of this is. Personally, I want Bush to figure out what to do about Iran's nuke program. That's part of the reason I voted for him.

But here's what I don't understand. Why on earth is Hersh writing this? If he really has secret information about the US sending commando teams into Iran to get a better handle on their nuke program, why is he telling the world? Why is he alerting the Iranians? Why is he endangering the mission and putting our special forces lives at risk? Why is he giving fuel to the anti American wackos around the world?

Nonsense like this is exactly why few trust the left on military, security or foreign policy matters. But God forbid anyone say that out loud. Pointing out questionable judgement or clear cut acts of disloyalty will be shouted down with hysterical shrieks of "How dare you question my patriotism!!!" Absolutely unbelievable.

Welfare for the World

Here is yet another article on how cheap the US is:

Global poverty can be cut in half by 2015 and eliminated by 2025 if the world’s richest countries including the United States, Japan and Germany more than double aid to the poorest countries, hundreds of development experts concluded in a report Monday.

Oh is that all? Just double the amount the US gives now, which is multiples of anyone else? And I'm sure the editor forced the journalist to include Japan and Germany, to give the illusion of balanced reporting. But the target of the article is the US.

I have tremendous sympathy for the world's poor. That said, I cannot sign on to the welfare concept. It doesn't work. Simply giving people stuff ultimately fosters dependency, resentment and a sense of entitlement. The best way to help the world's poor is to help their countries create responsible governments so that the private sector will invest. Why the left puts so little value on economic development I'll never understand.

But trying to get the United States and the other rich nations to double or triple the amount of development assistance they give is expected to be an uphill struggle — and the target of a major lobbying effort.

Good luck trying to convince the American public to double or triple our already generous contributions. I get the sense that Americans are growing weary of the demands constantly placed upon us.

“The required doubling of annual official development assistance to $135 billion in 2006, rising to $195 billion by 2015, pales beside the wealth of high income countries — and the world’s military budget of $900 billion a year,” the report said.

The United States now spends only about 0.15 percent of its GDP on development aid, well below the 0.7 percent figure, Sachs said.

Considering the US military budget is around half the world figure, it's clear the author is complaining about us again. Spend less on the military and more on welfare for the world. Oh, and by the way, keep all your existing military commitments. Keep defending Europe for free, keep all the sea lanes open, give our soldiers and equipment to the UN for peacekeeping duties, etc. Again the expectation is for the US to do everything.

And don't you just love the calculation the NGOs use for generosity? The "0.15 percent of its GDP on development aid" nonsense? It conveniently ignores all other types of aid such as food aid, or our exceedingly generous private donations, or our military, which is more or less an international police force. The twisting and contorting that these NGOs have to go through to find a statistic that makes the US look stingy would make a gold medal winning gymnast look stiff. I wish I had a girlfriend that flexible when I was single. The fun I would have had. Sigh.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Good Summary of CBS Report

This is probably the one hundredth article expressing an opinion on the investigation into the CBS Nat'l Guard story. But it's one of the best.

The evidence that reporters and producers working for CBS desperately wanted to land a knockout punch on the president's reelection campaign is right there in the panel's own 224-page review of how the Bush story went so grotesquely wrong.

They wanted it so much that they ignored evidence that their story was wrong, not only in its details but also in its fundamental assumptions. They wanted it so much that they slandered anyone who challenged them and plotted a book deal for a key source. They wanted it so much that they lied on the air and in their press releases. And they wanted it so much that even now, when the story has been disproved as a tissue of fictions and falsehoods, they continue to insist it's true.

The most stunning single disclosure in the report may be that Dan Rather told the panel his on-air apology for the Bush story last September was phony, a sop to his bosses. Rather told the panel that he believes in the story to this very day: ``The facts are right on the money.''

Read the whole thing. It's a very good summary.

(From LGF)

Iraqis Hopeful About Election

Andrew Sullivan points to an optimistic article about the upcoming Iraqi elections in the Washington Post. Yeah, I'm surprised too. But the Wapo is not as leftist as the NYT. Every so often you'll find real journalism there.

In Shahbandar, a storied Baghdad cafe whose name evokes a time (the past) and a milieu (the highbrow), three men sat over cigarettes and hourglass cups of sweet tea Thursday and debated what the coming elections meant for a country scarred by three decades of tyranny, war and bitter disillusionment.

"Going to the polling stations is a victory for the Iraqi people," said Ali Danif, a 45-year-old writer.

"The elections are more important than the candidates," insisted Jamal Karim, his garrulous friend.

Not to be outdone, a smiling Suheil Yassin jumped in. "It's one of my wishes to die at the gate of the polling station," he said, a gesture that was self-consciously dramatic. "I want to be a martyr for the ballot box."

US Does Not Do Enough

This op ed irks me more than most. It starts out talking about the tsunami disaster:

The natural catastrophe caused by last month's underwater earthquake and ensuing tsunami is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions. The scope of the disaster makes it extremely difficult to coordinate relief efforts, but world leaders have gathered in the Indonesian capital Jakarta for a one-day summit.

But quickly degenerates into a demand that the US do more:

On Wednesday, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said Berlin was increasing its pledge to half a billion euros. Calculating the amount of financial aid the world's rich nations should contribute to such a tragedy is always tricky, however, Germany's offer is an encouraging sign. Shortly thereafter, Australia said it would donate AUS$1 billion (€578 million) in aid. Both pledges easily top Washington's pledge of $350 million, highlighting just how stingy the United States -- the world's wealthiest nation -- is being with its financial aid.

Once again you see that the hated, evil US is expected to do more than any other country when a problem arises. Furthermore, notice how there is no mention of the more than $500 million in private aid raised so far. Somehow this doesn't count.

Of course, no one is arguing rich nations should get into a race to trump each other with ever increasing aid amounts simply for PR reasons.

Oh really? Could have fooled me.

After appearing to be slow to react in the immediate wake of the catastrophe, the United States has now ramped up its relief operations across South Asia considerably.

Slow to react? We were amongst the first on the scene with our military, supplies and infrastructure to distribute aid. What is he talking about?

The US armed forces have also deployed a fleet of naval ships and military aircraft. That increased logistical aid is crucial, since the United States is one of the few nations that can organize such help.

Thanks for noticing. But in the author's view, this type of help doesn't really count. The US is expected to provide this type of assistance, but receives no credit for it. I have news for you genius, a military costs money. You might not realize this since Europe depends on the US for its security and most European countries refuse to develop a functional military of their own.

But US President George W. Bush would now do well to double his financial commitment to all the affected countries. Washington's pledge of $350 million is a vast improvement over the embarrassing $15 million initially offered, but it is dwarfed by the billions America pledged to help relief efforts for far less devastating hurricanes in Florida last year.

Spending American tax dollars to take care of American problems is in bad taste. Don't you know that? It is our responsibility to use American resources to care for the rest of the world. Spend money on rebuilding after the Florida hurricanes? What selfish bastards we Americans are.

Washington's leadership is also needed to ensure money that is pledged at the donor conference eventually shows up.

Now we are supposed to be bill collectors too? Anything else you want? And how are we supposed to do this and keep our noses out of business of other countries, a key complaint about our foreign policy now?

If the international community can coordinate humanitarian aid, debt relief and financial help for a catastrophe of such an immense scale, perhaps new standards can be set for the future.

The only standard the author is interested in setting is increased demands on the US. Demands that, if met, will ultimately be resented.

Why Is It All On Israel?

A reasonable op ed with a typical European slant:

Mahmoud Abbas will need a massive amount of support if he is to reach these goals. And it would be disastrous, were Israel to now solely concentrate on demanding an end to the violence from him. Abbas has spoken out against violence, he wants to reform and democratize Palestinian society -- his two-thirds majority shows that the Palestinians support this. They also think it's right for Abbas, as he promised, to begin negotiations with Israel.

For Israel, this means a quick completion of its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip -- as a precursor for further withdrawals. Additionally, Israel should dismantle the restrictions it has placed on the Palestinians' freedom of movement, for example, the monstrous separation barrier of walls and fences.

Nobody is telling Israel to give up its right to security, but true security can only come from a free and democratic Palestine.
The first step has been taken with the elections; now, further steps must rapidly follow.

Why do Europeans expect Israel to give up the one thing that has helped save Israeli lives? Why do Europeans expect this unilateral disarmament? Are Israeli lives so cheap to them? And furthermore, are these the same people who demanded that the US disarm unilaterally in the 1980s as a way to seek peace with the Soviet Union? Isn't unilateralism, as a concept, bad? Has no one made this connection?

Saturday, January 15, 2005

France Admits Humiliation With Tsunami Relief

This is awesome!!!!!

France 2 Humiliates French Government

The expeditious and professional deployment of US troops on humanitarian assistance missions to areas devastated by the Boxing Day Tsunami has quite publicly embarrassed the French government — on live television, no less. Yet another reason to thank the US Armed Forces. To see what is sure to be one of the most exceptional moments broadcast on the French evening news all year long, make sure that you click here to watch this evening's news. (Latest version of Windows Media Player required. Before 2 PM Eastern time to-morrow, it'll be the first displayed. After that, click on the one labeled 10/01/2005 - JT 20h.)

For days now, the US military has been getting favorable coverage on the French nightly news due to its response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami. But tonight's broadcast was simply astounding. At 8 minutes into the broadcast, anchor David Pujadas begins a discussion of the disaster response and introduced a report on the American deployment:

I'm genuinely stunned. A non negative news item about the US in France. Here's more:

We learn that 100 French firefighters as well as rescue and response workers have been sent to Meulaboh to establish a field hospital but that 8 days after their deployment and 15 days after the disaster, only 25% of their supplies have been delivered "because France has no helicopters [to deliver them]." (NB: during the Afghanistan war, France had to rent ALL of its helicopters from the Russian army.)

"The good will of the rescuers is not in question," says Pujadas. "This is well and truly a foul up."

Yes, those were his words. Watch the damn video if you don't believe me.

The report tells us that France has only 1 helicopter on the scene, a Dauphin. However this one is on loan from the manufacturer, Aérospatiale, and is normally used to shuttle around executives, not to move large amounts of cargo.

Read the whole thing. It made my day.

One question though. Why on earth do leftists (and the rest of the Democratic party) believe that France or Germany was actually capable of helping us in Iraq? They don't have the military, which is now obvious for everyone to see. And it makes the lie from Kerry during the campaign of how he'd replace American soldiers with European ones even more contemptible. But anyway, Europe is weak because we allowed them to be weak. European weakness doesn't benefit anybody. Time to cut Europe loose and make them stand up on their own two feet. No more free defense.

(From LGF)


Another great article by Victor Davis Hanson:

Heads You Lose, Tails We Win

Indeed, from the oscillating analyses of Iraq, the following impossible picture often emerges from our intelligentsia. It was a fatal error to disband the Iraqi army. That led to lawlessness and a loss of confidence in the American ability to restore immediate order after Saddam's fall. Yet it was also a fatal error to keep some Baathists in the newly constituted army. They were corrupt and wished reform to fail — witness the Fallujah Brigade that either betrayed us or aided the enemy. So we turned off the Sunnis by disbanding the army — and yet somehow turned off the Shiites by keeping some parts of it.

Massive construction projects were hogged by gargantuan American firms, ensconced in the Green Zone that did not engage either local Iraqi workers or small companies and thus squandered precious good will. Or, indigenous contractors proved irresponsible and unreliable, evidence for why Iraq was in such bad shape to begin with. And when we did put exclusive reliance on them, it ensured only lackadaisical and half-hearted reconstruction.

We also lost hearts and minds by using GPS bombs to obliterate houses full of killers and take out blocks of insurgents. And yet we lost hearts and minds by failing to act decisively and de facto turning over large enclaves to terrorists and Saddamites whom we were afraid to root out. Elections should have been held earlier; no, they must be delayed since they come too soon when the country is still unsecured.

The Bush administration has reached the rarified status of being so hated that it's enemies no longer feel the need to make sense when being critical of the administration. Critics spout completely contradictory positions about Bush's policies and no one calls them on it. No one except VDH.

Kerry & Chirac- A Match Made In Heaven

Couldn't he just stay there?

PARIS (AP) - Sen. John Kerry, who has relatives in France and speaks French, was traveling Friday to the country that was treated like a liability during his bid for the U.S. presidency.

But this was not a social call for the Massachusetts Democrat. He was meeting with President Jacques Chirac to discuss the Middle East and, later, holding talks with Foreign Minister Michel Barnier.

It's clear that Kerry's position on the Senate Foreign Relation committee gives him the right to have these types of meetings. And I would like to believe that Kerry is trying to advance official US policy in his meeting with Chirac. But I seriously doubt it. Kerry's actions throughout his life have shown him to be a shameless opportunist, willing to do pretty much anything to advance his own career. It's just as likely that he and Chirac are discussing ways to further undermine Bush. Harsh assessment? Perhaps, but considering his borderline treasonous activity after he left Vietnam and in Central America during Reagan's years he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. At least from me.