March 30, 2003
Quote of the Day
Where's the Ohio National Guard when you really need it? -- A New York Post editorial responding to the pro-terrorism Columbia University anthropology [chuckle] teacher who told a campus audience, "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."
March 29, 2003
Flipper Goes To War
As I'm sure most everyone knows by now, Atlantic bottlenosed dolphins have joined the Coalition of the Willing. The cute-as-a-button sea mammals have assumed mine-sweeping duties near the port of Umm Qasr.
How telling is it that wild animals are more dependable than the French?
March 28, 2003
And The Benny Goes To ...
Sheesh! the Benedict Arnold Award Committee had to put in a rush order for more plaques today; the traitors are exposing themselves at a rate faster than anyone imagined.
Get a load of this quote reported in New York Newsday:
"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus ... we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."
And who dry-heaved this cheesy comicbook villain dialogue?
Osama? Understandable guess but no.
Saddam? Close but no cigar.
The punk who wished a million times over for the slaughter of American soliders and the subsequent abuse of their corpses is a homegrown evildoer hiding in the make-believe world of academia: Nicholas De Genova, an assistant anthropology prof at Columbia University. According to the Daily News, De Generate was speaking to an audience two nights ago at the aptly named Low Library.
De Generate is a traitor in every sense of the word and richly deserving of this Benny Award. Fortunately, he's just an anthropologist and, thus, of no importance.
March 27, 2003
Benedict Arnold Award
A Benny goes to Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York for accusing the president and the U.S. military of massacring Iraqis. The New York Post reports that Hinchey "told constituents that America is 'engaging in what will come to be seen as a massacre in Iraq,' under 'the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, which allows the United States to attack any other country any time . . . for whatever reason the president feels is justified.'"
Hinchey's not only a modern-day Benedict Arnold he's also a hypocrite. While he was busy accusing our troops of massacre, Hinchey's "official Web site now contains a lengthy statement hailing the military and saluting 'these brave Americans' to whom 'we owe our deepest gratitude and support,'" the Post notes. Sheesh! What an asshole.
Hinchey is, of course, a Democrat.
All Bullshit, All The Time
The Iraqi state television station may have been bombed but Saddam's regime can depend on other press outlets--ABC, CNN, BBC for starters--to regurgitate anti-American cud disguised-as-news. A local radio station presents brief war updates from CNN every hour. With rare exception, each report is couched as bad news for the United States. (As if sand storms only affect American troops adversely.) If you went by these reports alone, you couldn't help but believe that the U.S. is losing badly.
But the U.S. isn't losing--far from it. As the New York Post's Ralph Peters points out:
The war in Iraq yesterday was a story of the dog - or many dogs - that didn't bark. Iraqi forces remained unable to launch significant counterattacks. Irregular forces failed to mount serious threats to our rear area. Regime officals continued to wave their arms and tell us that now we've really made them mad. And allied forces continued to move toward Baghdad.
We lost at least one Apache attack helicopter, probably to an aircraft malfunction. But what no one at home got to see was the destruction our strikes left amidst the Medina Division of the Republican Guards - despite the Iraqis positioning many of their combat vehicles in civilian neighborhoods. The pilots of that downed Apache appear to have been captured. Their welfare is of paramount concern. But, otherwise, yesterday was another 24 hours of progress on every front, of remarkably low friendly casualties, and of the continued degradation of the regime's capabilities to resist.
I'm sure you didn't hear news updates about the downed Apache reported in that context. Peters predicts plenty more of the same kind of off-the-mark reporting and speculation:
You may hear some confused, alarmed reporting. We may even suffer our first armored-vehicle losses of this war. But, when the smoke clears, our troops will be rolling on to Baghdad amid the charred hulks of hundreds of Iraqi vehicles and mile after mile of Iraqi bodies. Despite the steady progress of our troops, we continue to hear dire warnings about an impending bloodbath in Baghdad, once Saddam lures us into the streets of his ultimate fortress, his "Stalingrad" on the Euphrates.
Just a minute there, Herr Professor. Calm down, Dr. Think Tank. I'm just a former career soldier, so I don't understand military operations the way academics and pundits do. Explain something to me, slowly and clearly: Why on earth would Gen. Tommy Franks do exactly what Saddam wants, and send our forces charging into the streets of Baghdad?
We're not stupid - or Russian - for God's sake. We're not going to slug down a couple of bottles of vodka apiece and drive straight into Grozniy while Chechens pick off our tanks and troops at their leisure. We are going to make the rules in Baghdad, not Saddam. I simply cannot understand why anyone outside of Ba'ath Party headquarters imagines we would feel compelled to fight house-to-house in Baghdad, destroying the city, putting civilian lives at risk and throwing away our soldiers.
Peters concludes, "The final destruction of this regime may take more time than impatient souls would like. But it isn't going to end in a bloodbath of our soldiers." Much to the disappointment, I'm sure, of CNN, the BBC, Peter Jennings, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder, Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein.
"My Gift To You"
Shortly after September 11, David Fribley, bound for boot camp, wrote his friends in Indiana. He called his decision to join the Marines "my gift to you" and an opportunity to "honor you and my fellow countrymen ..." David then promised his friends, "With all the strength of my fellow Marines, we shall always provide you with the comforting feeling of safety that you have each day.”
Lance Cpl. David Fribley kept his promise. And his friends now honor him. The Times-Union (via Drudge) has the details.
March 26, 2003
"Good And Noble"
Some of the most insightful, timely and affecting observations about the war on terror are blogged by America's brave warriors themselves. Glenn Reynolds notes one such blog post by a member of the U.S. Air Force.
Above a poignant photograph of the flag-draped coffins of Lt. Col. John Stein, 1st Lt. Tamara Archuleta, Master Sgt. Michael Maltz, Staff Sgt. Jason Hicks, Staff Sgt. John Teal and Senior Airman Jason Plite, the Air Force blogger writes:
Look. These are the coffins of six members of the United States Air Force. They did not die as a result of enemy fire. They died while attempting to transport Afghani children to a US medical facility for treatment. That is what the United States does. To all those who say, "...but what about Afghanistan? We haven't fixed it yet..." and other such whining, I say: screw you. Six brave airmen died trying to make life better for children and their families who were brutalized under a tyrannical theocratic regime. Show me any other nation that does this as a matter of routine, 99% of the time without any press or media attention. The United States is, quite simply, good and noble...and these six airmen are proof of same.
March 25, 2003
Lileks' Life Lesson
The world's greatest living observationist, James Lileks, is, among other things, author of The Bleat, a Monday thru Friday web journal. Most online journals and blogs--mine included--are somewhat predictable in terms of content. Not so with The Bleat. Lileks may feel like contemplating politics, Target's air freshener inventory, his toddler daughter's latest hijinx or the weird life of horny Hogan's Heroes star Bob Crane.
After watching Auto Focus, a movie biography of Crane, Lileks offers the moral of the story:
When your TV show has been canceled, you’re doing dinner theater, your wife is about to leave you and you find yourself in the basement watching grainy B&W pornos while wanking with your best friend, and he looks just like Willem Dafoe, something’s not right in your life. Check the map. You may have taken a wrong turn back at the intersection of Groin and Life.
Good point! To learn other life lessons, read the rest of today's Bleat.
March 23, 2003
Reagan And SDI
"Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them?" Ronald Reagan asked 20 years ago today in announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative. The answer is a resounding yes.
Today's Washington Times marks this important anniversary with an editorial describing how Reagan's bold vision pulled the rug out from under the Soviet Union and continues to strengthen America's defenses. Be sure to read it.
March 21, 2003
Benedict Arnold Award
Today was a busy day for the Benny Award Committee. Earlier today the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed HR 104. Here's the gist:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation--
(1) to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism;
(2) to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery; and
(3) to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.
392 House members voted for the resolution. Nice.
But who would vote against such a fundamental statement of patriotism? 11 modern-day Benedict Arnolds, that's who:
John Conyers, Michigan
Michael Honda, California
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ohio
Barbara Lee, California
Jim McDermott, Washington
Charles Rangel, New York
Robert Scott, Virginia
Pete Stark, California
Edolphus Towns, New York
Maxine Waters, California
Diane Watson, California
Pete Stark has the shameful distinction of becoming the first two-time Benny winner. And he managed to do so in one week!
All 11 of today's Benny winners are, unshockingly, Democrats. The two previous Benny winners--Sad Tom Daschle and Pete Stark--are also Democrats. A definite pattern is emerging, wouldn't you say?
(Thanks to Sus for taking a break from conquering France to bring this matter to the award committee's attention.)
Anybody Gotta A Light?
Two words suffice to describe this development: kah boom.
What's the status of coalition efforts to liberate Iraq? A picture is indeed worth a thousand words. Check it out.
Just hours before the United States initiated the liberation of Iraq, Democrat Robert Byrd took to the floor of the Senate and slurred, "Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper."
Conveniently, Byrd's white hood soaked up his tears.
Was It Saddam?
If that was Saddam on Iraqi television just hours after the U.S. remodeled his bunker, then it was old footage of him doing his famous Harry Caray impression at last year's Ramadan office party.
A U.S. government source tells the Washington Times that Saddam's unspeakably evil son, Uday, was killed when an F117 stealth fighter, several Tomahawks and a bunkerbuster unexpectedly showed up for dinner last Wednesday. Uday, who's wheelchair-bound from injuries sustained during an assassination attempt, is Saddam's eldest son and personally murders, rapes and tortures dissidents and failed Iraqi athletes.
Uday must be exceptionally miserable now--Hell has no wheelchair ramps.
March 20, 2003
Giving Our Troops 'A Touch Of Home'
The current issue of Reader's Digest publishes a letter from reader Trisha Dotson:
Our family is stationed in Spain, where my husband is a C-130 pilot in the U.S. Air Force. My husband loves his job and has trained his entire career to help protect our great nation. He's been deployed to Afghanistan twice and will return there shortly.
Today we received a Reader's Digest with a note explaning that a "grateful American" in Connecticut is sending us a free subscription for a year. What may seem like a small gesture offers a real touch of home.
The Digest says that readers have already contributed 67,500 subscriptions to U.S. military members fighting overseas. To contribute "a touch of home" in the form of a one-year Reader's Digest subscription to a member of the military overseas, send $10 per subscription to:
Armed Services Gift Subscription
Red Oak, Iowa 51591-1288
The Benedict Arnold Awards Will Go On
After much consideration, the decision has been made to proceed with the latest Benedict Arnold Awards. However, the red carpet entry ceremony has been cancelled due to security concerns.
As you may remember, the Benny is awarded to those Americans--like inaugural winner Sad Tom Daschle--whose opposition to the war on terrorist nations goes beyond legitimate opposition to actually aiding--inadvertently or intentionally--the cause of those seeking to destroy the United States. Today the Benny goes to Congressman Pete Stark for the following anti-U.S. rant as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:
In one of the most brutal critiques of the administration's policy toward Iraq by a member of Congress, East Bay Rep. Pete Stark said President Bush would be responsible for "an act of terror" by launching a massive bombing campaign to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "I think unleashing 3,000 smart bombs against the city of Baghdad in the first several days of the war . . . to me, if those were unleashed against the San Francisco Bay Area, I would call that an act of extreme terrorism," said Stark . . .
Stark, obviously, is a Democrat.
March 19, 2003
The 9-11 Culprit
The Washington Post's Michael Kelly is at the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division headquarters in Kuwait and files this report on preparations for the invasion.
An incidental fact Kelly mentions strikes me as particularly significant:
Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, the division commander, who was told to prepare the division for war with Iraq when he took command a little more than a month after Sept. 11, said: "We are very ready."
A month or so after September 11, 2001, most people were focused on Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, yet General Blount was ordered to prepare for war with Iraq. This is a strong indication that the Bush Administration had reason to believe that the events of September 11 were an attack by Iraq on the United States.
There's much more to America's war on Iraq than just disarming Saddam, ousting a terrorist-sponsoring regime and liberating the Iraqi people. At its core, this war is about avenging the death of over 3,000 Americans--and rightly so.
Last July, Tony Blair had high hopes for the UN Security Council's ability to disarm Saddam. It didn't take long for the prime minister to see his hopes were misplaced. To his credit, he adopted a new (and correct) policy. And, despite growing opposition in his own party and in polls, Blair courageously refused to bow to intense political pressure.
Matters came to a head yesterday when the prime minister made the case to the House of Commons for military action against Saddam. "This speech is one of the finest any prime minister has given in the House of Commons," writes Andrew Sullivan. And he's right. Facing political ruin, the prime minister threw down the gauntlet, made a hugely convincing case for using military force against Saddam and then threatened to resign if the Commons voted to withdraw British troops. The Commons voted overwhelming to approve military action and Blair's compelling speech was a major factor in the lopsided tally. Read the text of his historic speech here.
March 18, 2003
The Vatican Sides With Saddam
"The Vatican said on Tuesday countries that decide to wage war on Iraq without a global consensus must take responsibility before God and history--making clear the Pope would not endorse their actions," Reuters reports. "'Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history,' said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls."
I'm no theologian but I don't recall a passage in the Bible or any other Christian doctrine which holds that nations conducting military campaigns without the UN's approval risk God's damnation. What God must think of the Vatican hurling harsh spiritual threats at America for leading efforts to stop a maniac who not only funds terrorism but, for starters, puts political dissidents feet-first into giant shredders while forcing family and friends to watch is something Navarro-Valls should pause to consider. I doubt he will; after all, this isn't the first time the Vatican has given a murderous mustached dictator a pass.
I would never profess to know the mind of God. But I'm confident that the spiritual leaders of a church which defended genocidal maniacs and ignored, covered-up and enabled the ongoing criminal acts of pedophilic priests will have much more to answer to God for than the liberators of Iraq.
Support Our Troops
Whether they're stationed in South Korea, Bosnia, the Middle East, the Philippines, other foreign bases or at sea, the men and women in the U.S. military voluntarily risk their lives to defend our freedom. The pay is lousy. The work conditions suck. Their daring achievements are often unappreciated.
Here's how you can make our military's job a little easier. Click on the websites listed below for ways to directly assist the troops. To name just a few, you can "adopt" a platoon or a soldier, send emails of support, become a pen pal, support the USO, send a care package or even donate a prepaid calling card, toiletries, pillow cases, sugar, magazines and fans.
One program coordinator writes, "The thing that I hear most from our military personnel is that they want to know that their country is behind them."
These websites offer very simple, inexpensive ways to let the troops know that you appreciate their efforts to defend America:
Operation Military Support
Support Our Troops Programs
Operation USO Care Package
Operation Uplink (calling card donations)
Defend America (email thank-you cards)
DoD's 'Support Our Troops' Links
A New York Post editorial today lowers the boom on Benedict Daschle:
The ugliest comments dripped from the mouth of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a weasel: "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
When Saddam is gone and when the United States and its brave allies are victorious, Americans will remember the winners - and the weasels.
"The Future We Choose"
The president's speech last evening is a keeper. A few highlights:
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep ...
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities ...
The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.
That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
March 17, 2003
Let's rid our minds of the likes of Tom Daschle and consider the words of a patriot. Lt. General James T. Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, is in charge of a joint force of about 85,000 Marines and British troops in Kuwait. Earlier today, General Conway gave a rousing pep speech to his troops. Here are excerpts from a Washington Post report:
Conway talked tough for his young Marines, many of them teenagers facing combat for the first time. He noted that the Marines have "the reputation of being the baddest sons of bitches in the valley. I gotta tell you, when Abdul in the 51st Mechanized Division north of the border heard that he was taking on the 1st Marine Division followed by the 1st UK Division, he said something like, 'Ana felaka beluchi,' which is Arabic for, 'Ain't that a bitch!' "
Conway told his troops not to worry about peace protests at home, pointing to a poll showing that 71 percent of Americans want to get the Iraq situation resolved now. "When we invade Iraq," he added, "that'll go up to 91 percent. And you know how I feel about it? Piss on everybody else."
After detailing the overwhelming force his troops will unleash on Saddam, General Conway concluded, "It's not a fair fight. We didn't intend for it to be."
The Benedict Arnold Award
Announcing the Benedict Arnold Award. Named in dishonor of America's most famous traitor, the "Benny" will be awarded to those Americans whose opposition to the war on terrorist nations goes beyond legitimate opposition to actually aiding--inadvertently or intentionally--the cause of those seeking to destroy the United States. Though it's doubtful Blogger affords enough bandwidth to accomodate a complete list of those meriting such an award, let's give it a shot.
The always "saddened" and "concerned" Tom Daschle made this reprehensible remark today:
I'm saddened ... saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war.
The motive behind Daschle's comment is suspect considering that Congress twice voted to authorize the president to use military force in conducting the war on terrorist nations.
The first vote was cast on September 14, 2001 and broadly granted the president the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." The second congressional authorization, passed on October 10, 2002, granted the president power to make war on Iraq should Saddam refuse to disarm as mandated by UN resolutions.
And Tom Daschle voted for both authorizations.
Daschle's statement today is not compatible with his voting record. And since his remark serves no purpose but to comfort Saddam Hussein and Saddam's French, German and terrorist allies, Sad Tom Daschle is richly deserving of the inaugural Benny Award.
Good News For Hans Blix
Bush spokeman Ari Fleischer announced today that the United States has abandoned diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam. Citing the UN's failure to "enforce its own demands," Fleischer declared, "The diplomatic window is now closed." This development startled UN personnel in Baghdad into getting the hell out of Dodge before the camel poop hits the fan.
This is good news for Euroweenie Hans Blix. Now he can get back to the matter which he declared to MTV News[chuckle] threatens the world more than Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: global warming. Seriously.
Perhaps in the coming days, as America and its allies save the Iraqi people and eliminate a principal patron of terrorism, Blix will look to megamoron Sheila Sonnenschein for inspiration and plant a Stop Global Warming Garden. If Blix does that as competently as he managed Iraqi arms inspections, then he'll probably plant lots of coniferous trees.
March 14, 2003
Weakening The United States ... On Purpose
Bill Clinton is like a herpes sore; just when you think he's gone away for good, he flares up again to annoy the hell out of you.
In a speech yesterday, the same man who declared "No one cares about foreign policy" just days before he assumed the presidency made what may be the most jaw-droppingly stupid remark ever uttered by an American politician:
We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block.
Consider that remark in the context of the Clinton Administration's record on foreign policy and national security:
* Gutted the Dept. of Defense
* Emasculated the CIA
* Supported the Kyoto Treaty
* Offered only symbolic retaliation when Saddam attempted to assassinate former President Bush
* Did nothing when Islamist terrorists bombed the World Trade Center
* Blamed talk radio for the OKC bombing and ignored credible reports that agents of Iraq were involved with McVeigh and Nichols
* Looked the other way as China stole America's most sensitive nuclear secrets
* Knowingly accepted campaign contributions from China
* Assisted North Korea in building nuclear power plants in exchange for Pyongyang's obviously false assurances that it would abandon efforts to acquire nuclear weapons
* Subordinated American troops to the UN in Somalia
* Refused three offers to hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S.
* Did nothing when Islamist terrorists bombed two American embassies in Africa
* Repeatedly allowed Saddam to circumvent the terms of the Persian Gulf War surrender
* Appeased PLO kingpin Arafat
* Ordered cruise missile attacks on innocent people in The Sudan and deserted terrorist training camps in Afghanistan to divert attention from domestic scandal
* Gave into the demands of a murderous Marxist dictator by ordering the INS to kidnap a little Cuban boy in Florida and send him back to the island death camp of his birth.
* Did nothing when Islamist terrorists bombed American troops at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia
* Did nothing when Islamist terrorists bombed the USS Cole
The Clinton Administration's foreign policy was so overtly detrimental to American interests that it was difficult not to wonder if diminishing the power of the United States was Clinton's goal. I recall his secretary of State, Madeleine "Not At" Albright, implying that it wasn't right that the United States was the world's sole superpower.
Clinton's remark yesterday leaves no doubt as to the underlying premise of his foreign policy: hasten the day when "we're not the biggest power on the block."
The So What? Doctrine
UPI reports that Islamist terrorists in the Philippines recently went shopping. Their purchases include:
". . . millions of rounds of ammunition for M30 machine guns; 10,000 pieces of T65K2 M-16 rifles; 200 pieces of T75 assault machine guns, 1 million rounds of T65K2 armored pricing bullets; 250,000 rounds of tracer bullets for M-16 rifles and 250,000 rounds of M-16 ammunition for training; and 1,000 different types of hand grenades."
And who's the retailer? North Korea.
This report puts to rest notions that President Bush included North Korea in the Axis of Evil to give himself plausible deniability against accusations that he is making war on Islam. North Korea earned its membership in the AOE because, like Iraq and Iran, it's making war on the United States by proxy.
The question is what to do about North Korea arming Islamist mercenaries. Far starters, intercept the shipments. We all know that America's eyes in the sky can easily track such shipments. Surely the shipments can be seized shortly after leaving North Korea or just prior to delivery. The North Koreans will whine and complain and threaten to destroy the United States. But, so what?
Jimmy Carter, of course, will come to North Korea's defense. But, so what?
France and Germany, North Korea's silent partners, will pitch a bitch. But, so what?
Congressional Democrats, who at the moment are demanding the president deal with North Korea before Iraq, won't hesitate to criticize Bush for dealing with North Korea unilaterally. But, so what?
Gaggles of goofs around the world will take to the streets chanting all kinds of nitwittery. But, so what?
And the U.N. will insist that the United States is acting illegally. But, so what?
Consider how much faster the United States can fight and win the war on terrorist nations if the president addressed the objections of the world's anti-American element with a dismissive "So what?"
March 13, 2003
Yoko? Oh, No!
Well, I guess our troops should pack it in and come home. I read somewhere yesterday that the world's only living mummy, Yoko Ono, announced her opposition to a war on Saddam and pleaded for peace. That's a laugh coming from someone whose singing voice is a weapon of mass destruction.
A Blooming Idiot
James Taranto links to a Kansas City Star op/ed written by America's Stupidest Person, Sheila Sonnenschein:
I finally got my hands in the dirt today for the first time since fall. Each time I'm outside planting, I can't help but think of world peace. This might seem strange--world peace when you're gardening? Yes. I think that if presidents, dictators, kings, queens and prime ministers took a course in gardening, maybe they wouldn't have thoughts of war or amassing weapons that destroy life and our environment.
The class would start with leaders gardening in their own country, on their own soil. They couldn't help but take note of the sounds around them or the silence as the wind rushes by while they practice digging holes for tulips.
Or the sound of that wind blowing through Sheila's ears.
March 10, 2003
"Russia May Vote Against Iraq Resolution" -- AP headline
An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal poses this question: "Why are Democrats who voted for war now siding with France?"
Mr. Daschle is in particular beating the antiwar drums, declaring last week that the Bush Administration is "rushing to war without adequate concern for the ramifications of doing so unilaterally or with a very small coalition of nations."
Asked by reporter Major Garrett if anything had changed since last fall, Mr. Daschle replied this way: "Oh, absolutely. I think what's changed mostly, Major, is the extraordinary disintegration of support in the international community. I assumed last fall that we would be able to build the same coalition that we had in '91. That has not happened. In fact, if anything, our situation has put us into a more isolated position than I ever anticipated."
This is rewriting history. We don't recall hearing last fall that Democratic support was contingent on the right of French first refusal. We've re-read the Joint Resolution on Iraq and nowhere can we find the words "France" or "Germany." Nowhere does it say that the President has to clear his decisions with Gerhard Schröder or Vladimir Putin.
In answering the original question as to why these Democratic leaders are now siding against their own country, the Journal says "It's hard to find any answer beyond naked partisanship and opportunism."
That's only a partial answer. Since 1972 the Democratic Party has been dominated by what Jeane Kirkpatrick called "the blame America first" crowd. These are people driven by a fundamental opposition to America's founding principles and free market traditions. (See Marcy Kaptur and Patty Murray.) They believe that the profit incentive at the heart of American capitalism and freedom is the source of world suffering. But while they promote policies to curtail the profit incentive for everyone else, they personally pursue profit and shamelessly bask in its luxurious benefits. (See Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller and Pat Leahy.) And since, in their view, America is the source of international suffering and angst, it has no right to preempt attacks of which it's richly deserving. (See Jimmy Carter, Marcy Kaptur and Carl Levin.)
This is the mindset which has given us American political leaders opposed to America.
The Journal's concluding paragraph opens with this disclaimer: "We are not, let us stress, questioning the patriotism of any of these Democrats." Then how about this question: would a patriot put "naked partisanship and opportunism" ahead of national security?
I am, let me stress, questioning the patriotism of these Democrats.
March 09, 2003
Predictable Ol' France
Surprised to learn that the French have been illegally selling fighter jet replacement parts to Saddam? Don't be. What do you expect from a country that cheats to win Olympic figure skating matches?
March 07, 2003
W's Press Conference
What's all this crapola about the president appearing tired, exhausted and distracted during last night's press conference? The Washington Post's genetic clone of Roger Ebert, Tom Shales, seems to think the president's job is to provide televised entertainment:
George W. Bush kept seeming to lose interest in his own remarks last night as the president did that rarest of rare things -- for him -- and held a prime-time news conference. Televised live on all the major networks from the East Room of the White House, the occasion found Bush declaring this to be "an important moment" for America and the world, yet he spoke with little urgency and no perceptible passion . . . Have ever a people been led more listlessly into war?
Tom, put down that bag of Ruffles and pay attention: this press conference was not The West Wing; it's real life.
One comment repeatedly made by network pundits is that the press conference wouldn't change any minds. Well, duh. Of course not; changing minds wasn't the reason for the press conference. This press conference had a two-fold purpose: 1) call the UN Security Council's bluff by informing them that the United States will call for a vote on a resolution authorizing military force against Iraq and 2) telling the Security Council that regardless of the outcome of the resolution vote, the United States and its allies will open a can of whoop-ass on Saddam. (Though I don't think the president actually used the phrase "whoop-ass".)
I listened to the press conference on the radio and thought the president's opening remarks were characteristically direct and precise and, thankfully, entirely lacking in spin. And his tone was somber but adamant. When the issue at hand is war, such a tone is appropriate.
So why did so many in the press find the president's performance lacking?
Because it wasn't a performance.
Many in the American press miss the days when they marveled at the ease and grace with which Bill Clinton would look them in the eye and tell an obvious lie. They swooned in admiration of Bill Clinton's ability to be simultaneously likeable and dishonest. They long for the return of such a president.
So now we have a president who doesn't set out as a matter of policy to bullshit everyone whenever he opens his mouth. To Clinton's groupies in the press, such a trait betrays "listless" leadership. To those who understand that the presidency is not prime time entertainment and that America is engaged in a war for survival, that trait is the hallmark of a great leader.
Just When Did This War Start?
James Taranto writes in Opinion Journal that "Historians may one day debate just when Gulf War II began in earnest. 'U.S. and coalition warplanes have dramatically increased the number of missions they fly over southern Iraq, focusing on mobile missile systems being moved into the area,' CNN reports. 'Officials said as many as 750 missions a day are now being flown by all types of aircraft, including fighters, refueling and reconnaissance aircraft. That number is about two to three times what had been the routine.'"
So, when did this war begin? Find what day in early 2002 that President Bush signed an intelligence directive ordering the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and that's it.
March 06, 2003
Another Dem Congressskirt for Osama
Other than that they're both anti-American Democrats and resemble the head coach of any girls softball team, what do Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo and Senator Patty Murray have in common? They're both secret admirers of Osama bin Laden.
Think that's an overstatement? Read this article from the Toledo Blade to find out why Coach Kaptur compared Osama to America's Founding Fathers.
Well, maybe I jumped the gun; it could be the other way around. It could be that Kaptur thinks so lowly of the Founders that she likens them to Osama bin Laden.
Either way, she's a traitor in my book.
March 05, 2003
Great Headlines From The Onion
"U.S. Capitol Cleaning Turns Up Long-Lost Constitution"
If You're For War, Eat More!
The pope is urging the masses to fast today to demonstrate opposition to the war on Saddam Hussein. (How in the hell fasting prevents war, the good pontiff didn't explain.)
By the same token, I want to urge those in favor of defending America and liberating the Iraqi people of the scourge of Saddam Hussein to pig-out today. That's right, gorge yourselves at Freedom's All-You-Can-Eat Buffet. Super-size your Wendy's meal...hells bells, super-duper size it! Try to set a Guinness record for woofing down the most KFC honey barbecue wings. And no American feast would be complete without pizza. Lots and lots of pizza...so order two: one for the main course and one for dessert.
Then, when you can't eat another morsel, lean back, unbutton your pants, belch and bask in warmth of the knowledge that you nullified the efforts of the pro-Saddam fasters by eating the food they didn't.
Take that, Your Holiness.
March 03, 2003
Oooooh, That War! Part II
And now the Washington Post has noticed.
Opinion Journal's James Taranto notes a report by Thomas Ricks in the March 1 edition of the Washington Post:
If you're getting impatient with the slow pace of prebattle diplomacy, we feel your pain. We're certainly sympathetic to the view that if Saddam stays in power for one more day, the weasels will have won. But here's another way of looking at it. The Washington Post's Thomas Ricks suggests the liberation has already begun:
"Without much public notice, its first phase is already underway. Special Operations troops are executing missions inside Iraq to prepare the way for later attacks. U.S. and British warplanes ostensibly enforcing the 'no-fly' zones in northern and southern Iraq have increased the number and intensity of airstrikes, and recently expanded their list of targets to include Iraqi surface-to-surface missiles. They were attacked, defense officials said, not because they were in the 'no-fly' zones and threatened U.S. aircraft but because they were in range of U.S. troops mustering just over the border in Kuwait."
March 01, 2003
Oooooh, That War!
The New York Times may be waking up to the fact that the war to liberate Iraq has been underway for some time now.
Well, maybe not.
After detailing U.S. and British attacks on a variety of Iraqi military sites, the Times article concludes with this: "Beyond the legal arguments and alliance politics, however, the Iraqi deployment of the missiles and the allied counterblows appear to be part of the process of shaping the battlefield for a war that seems increasingly likely to come." [Italics are mine.]
Huh? After reading -- let alone writing -- that article, how could anyone conclude that the war hasn't already started? At what point does it officially become a war?
You have to hand it to President Bush and Tony Blair. For nearly a year, they have -- thank God -- waged war on Saddam Hussein; and during that time, most of the world seems to think that the US and Britain are waiting for UN authorization before using military force against Iraq. As I mentioned earlier this week, this is a masterpiece of military diversion.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Islamo-vermin who directed the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and other terrorist attacks, was captured in Pakistan today and turned over to U.S. officials.
An excerpt from the AP report:
"It's hard to overstate how significant this is," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "It's a wonderful blow to inflict on al-Qaida." A naturalized Pakistani who was born in Kuwait, Mohammed is on the FBI's most-wanted list and allegedly had a hand in many of al-Qaida's most notorious attacks. The U.S. government had offered a reward of up to $25 million for information leading to his capture. Mohammed was arrested along with two other men in Rawalpindi, a city near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said. The raid was the work of both U.S. and Pakistani agents ...
The most insightful reaction comes from noted commentator Nelson Muntz: "HA-HA!!"
Defend The Faith, Ya Wuss
The heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, doesn't like the idea that the monarch is also designated "Defender of The Faith". "The Faith" refers to the Church of England. A few years ago, Charles -- who's an Islamophile and reportedly prances around at home dressed in Islamic robes -- suggested that the 500-year-old title be changed to "Defender of Faith."
As this Wall Street Journal editorial notes, the newly elected Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has, in no uncertain terms, thrown cold holy water on Charles' suggestion and bluntly reminded him of his future legally-mandated obligations as a monarch.
Whether Charles "likes it or not," the archbishop said, "he is Defender of the Faith and has a relationship with the Christian church which he does not have with other faith communions." In other words: Tough tittie, Chuck. This a remarkable statement given that archbishops of Canterbury have watched their Ps and Qs ever since Henry II, following the rules of Jeopardy!, ordered the murder of Thomas à Becket in the form of a question. "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest, Alex?"
This spiritual rebuke comes on the heels of a politcal rebuke last month. Downing Street let it leak that Charles is kept in the dark regarding foreign policy because he's in bed with terror-linked Arab royals, openly opposed to plans to disarm Saddam and vociferously anti-American.
The British monarchy's symbolic power is based soley on tradition; more precisely, it's based on the political and religious traditions of the United Kingdom. If Charles, driven by a mindless multicultural fervor, seeks to strip away those traditions, the monarchy will cease to exist. I suspect the archbishop and the prime minister understand this and will do whatever is required to protect the British crown from another simpleton Windsor king.
LinksSFC Paul R. Smith MoH Tribute
CPL Jason L. Dunham MoH Tribute
LT Michael P. Murphy MoH Tribute
MA2 Michael Monsoor MoH Tribute
MSG Woodrow W. Keeble MoH Tribute
PFC Ross McGinnis MoH Tribute
Coalition to Salute America's Heroes
Statues of Servicemen Fund
VFW Military Assistance Program
Wounded Warrior Project
Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund
Adopt A Platoon
Marines-Law Enforcement Foundation
Special Ops Warrior Foundation
America's Heroes of Freedom
Adopt A Sniper
Operation USO Care Package
Operation Military Pride
Books For Soldiers
Vets For Freedom
Gathering of Eagles
Faces of the Fallen
Reagan Presidential Library
Creditsdesign by maystar
template via blogskins
powered by blogger