Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Exploding Liberal Myths: Nigerian Uranium
Liberals have a way of trying to rewrite history, like the totalitarian government in George Orwell's classic 1984. They figure that if they repeat a lie often enough, it will become the truth. They did so with the memory of the hated (by Liberals) J. Edgar Hoover, repeating the story about his dressing in drag so often and in such a smirking stage-whisper that they made it seem like a fact. (It's especially odd in light of the fact that they support any other cross-dresser with equal fervor.) Most people today don't even know it was started by just one person with a personal grudge against him who made up a vicious story about seeing Hoover arrive at a big Washington party in a dress. No one ever corroborated it (especially not the others at that party), yet it's been referred to so many times in newspapers, magazines, and television that it's now almost indistinguishable from the truth.
With the advent of cable news, talk radio and especially the Internet, the "Hoover effect" isn't going to work anymore. Luckily, the Liberals haven't yet figured that out.
One of the dozens of lies created by the Left for the purpose of discrediting President Bush was the Nigerian uranium tale. The Liberal version goes something like this:
"Bush and Blair concocted a story about Saddam trying to buy uranium (in a form called called yellowcake) from Niger. The CIA told Bush it wasn't true even after he sent an ambassador to investigate. Determined to publish this lie anyway, Bush and Blair forged documents to substantiate it, which the CIA told him were forged. Neverthless, Bush inserted the deliberate lie into the State of the Union Address of 2002 to support his rush to war a year later. When the ambassador published the truth about the false uranium story, Karl Rove punished him by having his wife, an undercover CIA agent, exposed by calling a half-dozen journalists and telling them to publish her name. Only one -- Robert Novak -- was low enough to do so."
The only parts of that paragraph that are true were the statements that uranium oxide is called yellowcake, and that Robert Novak was the first person to publish Wilson's wife's connection to the CIA.
(With apologies to Monty Python) And now, for something completely different: the truth.
British intelligence was given proof that a trade delegation Iraq sent to Niger in 1999 was seeking to purchase uranium. This required no stretch of the imagination -- Niger's main exports are uranium, cowpeas and onions, and I don't see Saddam making a secret of his taste for French Onion Soup a la Niger. The problem was, the British were given this information by a third country. By the rules of the international intelligence community, a country may only share source documents with the permission of the original country. As our allies, the Brits shared the information with us, but not the source, and President Bush decided to inform the American public about it. Since the British couldn't turn over the source documents, the CIA was told to find its own proof.
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife had once been an operative for the CIA, though she'd been retired from field work for years. In spite of (or perhaps due to) the fact that she and her husband were among Bush's detractors, she maneuvered to get her husband named as the CIA's choice to investigate this critical information. Unfortunately, Wilson's method of investigation was to sip mint tea with the Nigerian ambassador and ask, "So... did you sign a trade agreement with Iraq?" "Why, no, Mr. Wilson, no agreement was signed." "Well, that settles that, then. Excellent tea." Not exactly Hercule Poirot, is it?
Meanwhile, faced with the inexplicable failure of Wilson to conduct an actual investigation, British and American intelligence questioned other sources to see whether a fourth country -- one that wouldn't refuse to let America have the source -- might have found evidence of the uranium buy. An Italian journalist gave the American embassy documents corroborating the story. Still cautious, perhaps torn between the CIA's and Britain's differing conclusions, President Bush would not definitively state that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The statement in the State of the Union address became, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This was an absolutely true statement, and passed the scrutiny of CIA director George Tenet for inclusion in the speech. A month later, the CIA finally recieved the actual Italian documents, which they immediately recognised as forgeries, and the media witch hunt began. In July 2002, Wilson wrote a vehemently anti-Bush article identifying himself as the investigator into the uranium question, stating with certainty that Saddam had never tried to buy any uranium, and admitting that he never filed a report. It really must have been those onions Saddam wanted, since Wilson did corroborate the trade delegation's visit. British intelligence, by the way, still stands by the story to this day.
Columnist Robert Novak was curious about why Wilson -- now a flamboyant Bush-basher who worked as an unpaid advisor to John Kerry as well as contributing $2,000 to his campaign -- had been sent on such a sensitive mission in the first place. One of his sources (yet unknown) told him off-handedly that Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, was instrumental in his choice. According to Novak,
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
When Novak's column came out naming Valerie Plame in July 2003, Wilson was livid. Using the same sort of acute investigative techniques that served him so well in Niger (in other words, "gut instinct"), he determined that not just the Administration, not just the White House, but President Bush's chief strategist Karl Rove must have been Novak's source. He went on record saying, "At the end of the day it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Unable to offer any actual proof that Rove was the source of the leak, he later changed his assertion to say that Rove condoned it. The CIA, as it always does in the case of such leaks, began an investigation (not yet concluded), but Rove was tried, convicted and sentenced by Wilson and most Liberals within minutes of Novak's column hitting the press.
The reason this story is back in the media is that John Ashcroft recused (removed) himself from the investigation. Why? He obviously decided that an independent investigation would avoid any appearance of impropriety, as well as the fact that he has far more important cases to work on personally (we ARE in the middle of a war with terrorism). Unless Novak gives up his source, or the source decides to come forward him- or herself, no one will ever know who told him Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
And yet... if you listen carefully, you can hear the grating wails of those who've already made up their minds without needing all that messy "proof" getting in the way.
Exploding Liberal Myths 11: Home Spying Hogwash
Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name Game
Exploding Liberal Myths 9: The Separation of Church and State
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme
Exploding Liberal Myths 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations
Exploding Liberal Myths 4: Runaway Global Warming
Exploding Liberal Myths 3: Outsourcing Woes
Exploding Liberal Myths 2: The Eeevil PATRIOT Act
* 3 May 04 UPDATE: In his new book, Joe Wilson states that "It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as 'Baghdad Bob,' who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium." So the uranium buy attempt did happen, and he knew about it, and he lied about it to try and prevent the liberation of Iraq. How about that?
Posted at Tuesday, January 06, 2004 by CavalierX
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Well, it's taken long enough, but the New York Times and the BBC have finally found that "blood for oil" story they've been dying to print for over a year. Only... it took place in 1973.
"The United States government seriously contemplated using military force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during the Arab oil embargo 30 years ago, according to a declassified British government document made public on Thursday," reported the New York Times. Not to be outdone, the BBC chimed in, "The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do." Thirty-year-old invasion plans for a war that never took place? Stop the presses!
So, this "story" is predicated on 30-year-old contingency plans drawn up by the British government about what they (the Brits) might do just in case the oil problem in America came to blows? Maybe someone should clue these "reporters" in... governments have entire armies of people whose job it is to draw up contingency plans to cover the most implausible scenarios, just in case. Of course there were British plans for action in case the United States decided to invade the Middle East. There are probably plans for action in case Elvis returns from the Crab Nebula at the head of an invasion force of intelligent bees, too. Does that mean it's a serious possibility? Of course not. Keep in mind this is based on a British assesment of what the Americans might do, not actual American plans. But just on the off-chance it ever did happen, the British government had it covered. Just because the government makes a plan of what to do in case an event takes place, does not mean the event is or was certain to happen. The kind of people who seriously believe that the United States was -- in 1973 or 2003 -- going to invade the Middle East to sieze its oil are the kind of wacko conspiracy theorists that would believe the plans to deal with the bee invasion mean it's coming too. If the government has plans to stop it, it must be real, right?
The New York Times and the BBC are obviously still beating the anti-war, anti-America drums as hard as they can. But if THIS is the best they can do, I think it's safe to say the Leftists are losing their grip.
Well, I'd better go stock up on bacon, peanut butter and bananas for when Elvis gets here.
Posted at Saturday, January 03, 2004 by CavalierX
Thursday, January 01, 2004
When Did Manners Become Offensive?
I was in a mall not long ago (doing my Christmas -- not 'holiday' -- shopping) when I happened to sneeze. A little girl walking nearby, maybe five or six, turned to me and sing-songed, "Bless you!" Before I even had a chance to smile back at her, the woman whose hand she was holding snapped, "No! We say 'gesundheit!" She then turned to me and said, and I quote: "Sorry."
Sorry? I was so shocked I just stared at her until she dragged the confused little girl away.
When did saying "bless you" become such an offense that children are disciplined in public over it, and when did saying it become something to apologise for? What kind of person could possibly be offended by someone saying 'bless you' when he or she sneezed?
Well, it's obvious, isn't it? The same kind of people who work to ban Christmas songs from public schools. The same kind of people who go ballistic over displays of Christian theological imagery during holidays based on Christian theology. (Christmas trees and Santa Claus are secular symbols, according to the Supreme Court. There's not a lot of evergreens in Bethlehem, and that red furry suit would have been too hot even at night.) The same kind of people who want to ban displays of the Ten Commandments from courthouses in which laws based upon them are supposedly upheld.
In three words: Liberals, of course.
I'm not a religious person by any means; I'm agnostic. That's my choice. You make yours, other people make theirs, and we all live with that. That's America; that's the First Amendment. When someone says "bless you" to me, or tells me they'll pray for me (my grandmother surely wore out several sets of rosary beads that way), or wishes for "the Goddess", Buddha, or any other divine or semi-divine being to watch over me, I'm not offended. I always thank them for their good wishes. I understand one important thing that Liberals don't seem able to grasp.
It's not about me or my faith (or lack thereof)... it's about THEIRS.
When someone expresses a wish that a divine Being in whom they actually believe might take the time to do something nice for me or mine, how could it possibly be offensive unless I'm so wrapped up in my own self that I think my worldview is the only one that matters?
Saying things like "God Bless America" or "Merry Christmas" causes Liberals to sneer condescendingly about easily-led sheep blinded by religion. Well, what about those driven by hatred of religion? Are they any less blind?
Posted at Thursday, January 01, 2004 by CavalierX
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Some Predictions for 2004
It's the time of year for predictions. There are plenty I could make that I'd consider less prognostication than pragmatism: Bush wins in November, the Dow hits 12,000 by Easter (though I feel there will also be a slump after that as the bears move in for the summer), jobs rebound, and another successful terrorist attack takes place on US soil (probably soon before the election). Syria desperately staves off disaster by following in Libya's footsteps, giving up WMDs and terrorism support, the situation in Iraq improves drastically and dramatically, and Iraqis participate in free elections in the summer. Those are almost certain to come true, barring some disaster -- like Iran's nuclear "power" program being allowed to come to fruition, and the biggest supporter of terrorism suddenly acquiring nuclear weapons. There's one prediction, however, that I'm particularly interested in... the breakup of the Democratic Party due to the 2004 election.
There's three possible scenarios involved, and it's not yet possible to predict which will take place. The groundwork is already being laid, the process exposed by Howard Dean's comments about the DLC. When complaining about the other contenders for the Democratic nomination criticising him, Dean said, "even the Democratic Leadership Council, which is sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party... the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, we're going to need them too, we really are." This reflects the thinking of his followers, and will reflect back in their actions this year.
Howard Dean is the darling of the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party. They've dragged the party as a whole so far to the left of center as to make a general election unwinnable. The Classic Democrats, those who still have sense and care about America's future (and there are a few still around) are so appalled by this as to vote against their party line. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) and Senator John Breaux (D-LA) are among the most conservative Democrats, considered "traitors to the party" for supporting the defense of America and other sensible policies. As one ranting Liberal wrote in April, "helpers to these traitors to democracy who will join the ranks of Stalin, Hitler and Saddam include centrist Democrats like Zell Miller and John Breaux. And we should also identify the voting districts that send the evil ones and their assistants, and we should boycott their products and services."
Well, at least he had the grace to identify Saddam Hussein as a bad man.
The first possibility is that Howard Dean becomes the Democratic candidate for President. If this happens, the angry rhetoric from the Left will get more vitriolic and vociferous as we draw closer to November. If you think Howard Dean's "Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and did nothing" conspiracy theory sounds wacko, just wait! Not only the "swing voters" but many Democrats will vote for Bush (or not vote at all) rather than support that kind of ranting, raving lunacy. Bush will be re-elected, of course. The more centrist Democrats will blame the Liberal Democrats (or, as Howard Dean calls them, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party") for the loss, and they'll form their own fringe party. The Classic Democratic party will take years to recover.
The second scenario is that Dick Gephardt (D-MO) will actually do quite well in the 2004 Democratic primaries, especially Iowa (19 Jan), New Hampshire (27 Jan) and Michigan (7 Feb). That will give Terry McAuliffe, head of (that is, Bill Clinton's mouthpiece in) the Democratic National Committee, the grounds he needs to declare Gephardt the official Democratic Presidential Candidate. After all, Gephardt's an affable, long-time politician who's done his time in the trenches. His biggest gaffe so far has been to state off-handedly, "When I'm President, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," but most people missed that one (or so McAuliffe and Gephardt hope). Howard Dean's Liberals will, over the course of the summer, grow more bitter and angry at their own party, until they declare Howard Dean the "real" Democratic candidate. With the Democratic vote badly split, President Bush will easily win. Again, the Classic Democratic party will take years to recover.
The third possibility, as likely as the others, is that Gephardt is pronounced the official candidate, but the Democrats manage to hold the party together until after the election. This will result in a much closer race, but a much more violent split after their defeat. The Democrats might never fully recover from this scenario... at least not until 2008 when they rally behind Hillary Clinton. And the only thing that would stop her from running would be a defeat in her re-election bid for New York Senator in 2006.
Who's the one person that could beat her with his hands tied behind his back? Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, it's time to rise to the occasion again! But I'm getting ahead of myself... one election at a time.
Posted at Wednesday, December 31, 2003 by CavalierX
Monday, December 29, 2003
I was going to write a satire about the recent discovery of a cow with "mad cow disease" (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, to be exact) in which leading Democrats blame President Bush for it. Unfortunately, they (Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Clark and Edwards) really did attack him over it, beating me to the punch line! What a world.
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean says the Bush administration missed an opportunity to soften the impact of the country's first mad cow scare and that the American beef industry should receive federal aid to weather the crisis.
The former governor, whose state has a large dairy cow population, said the Bush administration failed to aggressively set up a tracking system that would allow the government to quickly track the origins of the sick cow, quarantine other animals it came in contact with and assure the marketplace the rest of the meat supply is safe.
"What we need in this country is instant traceability," he said.
WHAT CRISIS? That's what I'd like to know. A single cow with this disease has been discovered. "Look, the system is working! It must be a crisis! Throw money at it!" If a hundred sick animals had been found in different areas, I might agree that perhaps it wasn't detected as quickly as it should have been. But one single cow? And one that was imported from Canada, at that?
Dean's comment that the beef industry must immediately recieve government money (that is, yours and mine) to "weather the crisis" is nothing more than another pathetic attempt to pander to an interest group in order to recieve their endorsement. Is there anyone who actually thinks Dean is genuinely concerned about beef farmers and wants to help them? No, I meant anyone not in a mental institution, or the Democratic party. Let's get something straight: if some countries ban beef imports from the US, the role of the Federal government is NOT to make up for the lost income with other peoples' money. It's to put diplomatic pressure on those nations to halt the ban. That's how it's supposed to work.
As for Dean's "instant traceability", we can't get the Democrats to agree on that for immigrant humans, much less cattle! Which is more important to keep track of, al-Qaeda terrorists planning to blow up buildings full of innocent people or a single sick cow? Maybe we ought to declare terrorism a disease. Then people like Howard Dean, John Kerry (who called for "a national system to make diseased livestock easier to track and contain"), and Wesley Clark (who said the Bush administration needs to "take proactive steps to improve tracking and testing that should have been taken months ago") will finally get on board with the war against terrorism.
The deal with mad cow disease is that the virus resides in the nervous system of an infected animal -- brain and spine. These parts, in many other countries, are commonly ground up (you've heard of bone meal?) and used in feed for other cattle, spreading the disease. However, we don't do that in the US; it's illegal. Cow brains are eaten as a delicacy in some parts of the world. Most people don't do that here, either. Spread of disease checked, "crisis" averted.
Time for a thick juicy steak with President Bush.
Posted at Monday, December 29, 2003 by CavalierX
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Howard Dean: Suddenly Spiritual
Howard Dean seems to be trying a new tactic to win the "hearts and minds" of Americans. Having completely failed so far in his quest to convince Southerners that he's the right person to represent them, he's decided to pose as a deeply religious man to appeal to churchgoers as his campaign makes its upcoming Southern stops.
Have you ever heard anything more deeply cynical? This is the man who left his church because he had a dispute with them over a bike path, of all the insignificant things. Suddenly, he's the religious candidate? Watch out, Reverend Al!
After alienating the entire voting population of the South when he chastised them for basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays," Dean still apparently thinks he has a chance to get a single Southern vote by pretending to be a religious man himself. "Keep your religion out of the vote -- but vote for me because I'm religious," seems to be Dean's message. More than any of his others so far, this latest lie shows Dean's deeply-rooted elitism, his belief that people are just ignorant sheep to be led around by the nose. Stupid rednecks, what do they know about running the country?
Polls report that President Bush enjoys an even higher percentage of support from regular churchgoers (by 38%) than from the population in general. Is that because they see him as a genuine person of faith? Because they see him as someone with a moral compass? Because they see him as someone who tries to do what's right (though not always what's Right -- many Conservatives are deeply disgruntled by his Medicare package, for instance)?
Not if you're someone like Howard Dean. To elitists like him, people who spend their lives striking a pose, there's no such thing as a genuine person who actually believes in what he or she says. Every speech is a sham, every position, a posture. It would never occur to them that Bush actually does what he thinks best for the country instead of what's best for his poll results. For instance, the elite media gleefully reported that President Bush's surprise Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Baghdad didn't significantly raise his approval ratings (although they actually DID rise immediately afterwards; I guess it just wasn't "significant"). Frankly, I don't think Bush gave a damn. Rather than understand why he appeals to so many people, the elitists just think they can emulate him and "steal" his votes. To them, people are too stupid to tell the difference.
So get ready for the newly-religious Howard Dean, Man of Faith, coming soon to a stump near you.
Posted at Saturday, December 27, 2003 by CavalierX
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Democrats and Liberals and Terrorists, Oh My!
It amazes and frightens me how much Liberals have in common with the terrorists we're fighting. I'm not saying they're in league with them or anything like that (most of them), I'm merely observing that they share a great many aims (for different reasons, to be sure). Take the following similarities, for instance...
- Terrorists hate the PATRIOT Act because it curtails their freedom to move in and out of the USA at will, gives terrorism investigations the same powers as drug or organised crime investigations have had for years, and makes their activities against the USA harder to commit.
- Liberals also hate the PATRIOT Act. They rail against it at every opportunity, usually without an understanding of its provisions or effects, only a vague charge that it "destroys civil liberties". I've been waiting since it was first written for a single instance of an actual civil liberty that has been impacted by the Act. Even the infamous "library clause" -- which allows an investigation in progress to examine what books a suspect has checked out of a library -- is already in use for drug investigations.
- Terrorists would love it if law-abiding Americans were unable to own and carry weapons. They might actually use them when an act of terrorism is in progress, making the terrorists' lives harder and putting them in danger!
- Liberals also favor rigid gun control. They don't believe any private citizen could have a legitimate excuse for owning a working weapon. They seem to forget that we don't NEED an excuse or reason; it's our right to do so according to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. If citizens have no guns, how are we supposed to ensure that the government doesn't really take our rights away (as in the mythical depredations of the PATRIOT Act)?
- Terrorists, being religious extremists, hate Judeo-Christian religions and want to see them destroyed. They hate any sort of religious display or paraphernalia (Christian and Jewish, that is). They see their struggle as Islam against Christianity, although they've twisted the basic tenets of modern Islam to make it seem that way.
- Liberals, many of them anti-religious extremists, also hate Judeo-Christian religions and want to see them banished from the public view. They use the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, to attack any Christian exercising that right. They also vehemently hate religious displays, including attacking a public-school teacher's aide who wore a small gold cross around her neck. Liberals are working to ban Christmas and all Judeo-Christian religious holidays, even forcing people to say "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas", because someone might be "offended" by another person's offering them good wishes or even mentioning the name of the holiday in a song.
- Terrorists are inflamed by our wealth in the West. Instead of asking themselves "what have they done right?", they decided that we should die for having more than they do. As a symbolic strike at our wealthy economic system, they attacked the World Trade Center.
- Liberals also hate the fact that the West is wealthy. The capitalist system combined with the work ethic bequeathed us by our more religious predecessors has brought America as a whole to a level of prosperity unmatched in the world, and this drives the Liberals mad. They want to raise taxes, regulate and restrict corporations into the ground, and generally create an unfriendly environment overall for business and capitalism, where everyone works for and depends upon the government.
- Terrorists hate the US military. Osama bin Laden declared his jihad against us because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, in "occupation of the land of the holy places" (Mecca and Medina). Our military drove al-Qaeda from its stronghold in Afghanistan, and is engaged in striking them down around the world.
- Liberals have hated the US military since the sixties. To them, our modern, intelligent, educated, trained, all-volunteer military are the same violent conscript scum portrayed in Oliver Stones's anti-war, anti-military flick Platoon, just itching to stomp on any non-American for any reason. Or none.
- Terrorists hate President Bush because he's actually doing something about global terrorism. They hate the fact that he's working to spread democracy to the Middle East, and remove the threat of WMDs from the arsenals of the terrorists. They hate the fact that he's working to undermine support for terrorism, even going so far as to apply sanctions against countries that support it. They hate the fact that he took the fight to Iraq, a known supporter of terrorism, including al-Qaeda.
- Liberals hate President Bush, too. They're mobilising their efforts to get someone -- anyone -- else into the White House in 2004. Liberal organisations such as MoveOn.org attack the president daily, with the willing cooperation of the "news" media. Billionaires like George Soros pledge obscene amounts of money ($15 million so far) to the fight to elect a different President. They, too, hate the fact that he took the War on Terrorism to Iraq, refusing to believe that Saddam supported and trained al-Qaeda operatives at Salman Pak, possibly even those who flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on 9/11. The Liberals hate President Bush more than they do al-Qaeda.
How do you think the terrorists feel about that?
Posted at Wednesday, December 24, 2003 by CavalierX
Saturday, December 20, 2003
The Dominoes Begin to Fall
For all the negative rantings from President Bush's detractors, the War on Terror has resulted in yet another positive development for the entire world. Colonel Moammar Ghaddafi, President of Libya, has announced that he is giving up his clandestine nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. He announced that he will allow international weapons inspectors to verify all of this, unconditionally. Furthermore, he renounced his country's long-time support of terrorism, and called upon other Arab nations to do the same. He's been negotiating all of this with President Bush and PM Blair for the last nine months, in secret. (Yes! "Unilateral" action; no French, no UN! Won't Kofi be furious?)
What a pragmatist. Ghaddafi is the first Middle East dictator to clearly see that all those things will not be tolerated by the rest of the world any longer, and that pretty words and promises will no longer suffice to appease the West. Supporting terrorism and concealing illegal weapons are no longer a guarantee of power in the world. They are a guarantee of one's own destruction.
It turns out that Ghaddafi approached President Bush and Prime Minister Blair as our troops were entering Iraq. After the last time he was on the wrong end of US weaponry, it seems, he learned how to read the writing on the wall. Five days after seeing Saddam Hussein getting his head checked for lice on international television, Ghaddafi decided he just doesn't want that free medical exam the US Army would offer. Smart man.
Let's hope other supporters of terrorism turn out to be as smart, or at least as pragmatic.
Note: I wrote about this at greater length in a new article for Useless Knowledge, an online magazine. It's called Libya: The First Domino Falls.
Posted at Saturday, December 20, 2003 by CavalierX
Friday, December 19, 2003
We ARE Being Misled... By the Media
The "mainstream", by which I mean "mainly Liberal", press has been bending over backwards to be especially kind to the groups of people blowing things up in Iraq lately. I'm surprised their spines haven't snapped by now... but it might be more accurate to wonder whether they have any at all.
That there are groups in Iraq deliberately causing the deaths of innocent men, women and children (when they can't get Americans or other Coalition troops) is undeniable. The media seems to look forward to reporting the daily body count of innocent civilians and troops killed. Whenever a soldier dies, their barely-hidden satisfaction is almost palpable. The total number of military deaths is invariably calculated using the words "...since President Bush declared major combat operations over in May". Is there anyone so blind as to be unable to see the point they're trying to make of this? Unless you just dropped in from the Twilight Zone, it should be obvious that the media is conducting a propoganda campaign of its own. Why are we condoning the media's use of the deaths of our soldiers to score political points against our President?
At the same time, all American media outlets, as if by common agreement, are refusing to name these groups of people for what they truly are, going out of their way to lend these groups legitimacy in American minds. The killers of innocent Iraqis are not insurgents. They are not rebels. They are not freedom fighters, anti-Coalition forces, the "opposition", former regime supporters, or simply criminals.
They are TERRORISTS.
Anyone who targets non-military personnel in an attempt to cause fear and sow mistrust, as well as make a political statement or gain attention for a cause, is a terrorist. Haven't you wondered why whenever an explosion occurs anywhere but Iraq, even in nearby Turkey, the American media immediately begins discussing terrorism... but when discussing events inside Iraq, that word is hardly ever uttered?
The latest terrorist attack in Iraq was upon the headquarters of the Shi'a, the religious group savagely oppressed by Saddam Hussein. As reported by ABC News, for instance, the word terrorist never appears except in a single direct quote... even though the attack is almost identical to other terrorist attacks around the world. "An explosion destroyed a Baghdad office of Iraq's largest Shi'ite party on Friday in an attack the movement blamed on Saddam Hussein supporters." the story reports.
Mohsin al-Hakim, a Shi'a party official, actually said "The men of the regime and terrorist elements are behind the attack." Even so, the news agency reported that, "The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq which works with U.S. occupiers, blamed Saddam loyalists, as it did after Wednesday's assassination of one of its leaders." Why is the word "terrorists" missing?
Isn't it fascinating how they manage to discount the terrorist elements at the same time as they work in the reference to the US as "occupiers"? It's as if most Iraqis don't favor the coalition and condemn the attacks on them as terrorist acts, as the latest poll by Baghdad's Cultural Association shows they do.
Ahh, that's journalism at its finest. In a single well-turned journalism-school sentence, ABC News manages to bash the US, denigrate the SCIR for working with us, and delete the actual word "terrorism" from a direct quote to push its view of who murdered Iraqi civilians. Allow me to edit that single sentence. Make it "The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq which works with U.S. rebuilding efforts, blamed Saddam loyalists and terrorists, as it did after Wednesday's assassination of one of its leaders." Is that less truthful, or far more so?
Any objective observer, even the Twilight Zone visitor, would be forced to wonder why "news" agencies openly favor the terrorists over the Coalition.
I wonder that myself. So should you.
Posted at Friday, December 19, 2003 by CavalierX
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
The Liberal Spin on Saddam Begins
The frantic spinning and denial of the magnitude of Saddam's capture by the Left is, in fact, dizzying. For months, I have been predicting a massive split in the Democratic party as the Classic Democrats -- people like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller -- finally throw off the yoke of the Leftist Democrats -- people like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. It looked as though this would happen after their defeat in the 2004 election, but the shocking statements by prominent Democrats may help to accelerate the process.
In an interview Monday with a Seattle radio station, [Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash)] said the U.S. military could have found the former Iraqi dictator "a long time ago if they wanted."
Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said, "Yeah. Oh, yeah."
McDermott went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."
When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.
"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."
Howard Dean, darling of the Left, has decided to completely ignore all the evidence -- some old, some recently uncovered -- which points to Saddam's long-running support for terrorists and terrorist networks, including al-Qaeda. He, and those like him, want to pretend that the capture of Saddam -- which they have been attacking President Bush for not accomplishing from the outset of the war in Iraq -- now means nothing.
"The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."
What might be funny, if war itself weren't so tragic, is that most Democrats were calling for the removal of Saddam all these years to ensure the security of America... right up until it looked as if something might finally be done about it. Remember, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated in part, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime". (It passed both houses of Congress easily, by 360-38 vote in the House, and unanimously in the Senate.) As late as the beginning of 2003, most Democrats were hollering about the threat of Saddam's WMDs... until it seemed President Bush was about to heed their warnings. Their policy is clear... whatever GWB does is wrong, no matter what, even if he does what they demand.
Even if it's good for the United States, or the world. Maybe especially if. If you wonder what I mean by that, read some of the posts at the Liberal website Democratic Underground regarding the capture of Saddam (under the topic How Do You Feel About the News of Saddam's Capture?) and what it means to them. Some of the best quotes have been collected at Right Wing News. Here's a few of my favorites. Are these twisted rants in any way different from the hate-Bush drivel coming out of the candidates the democrats want to put in office?
But I think in cold, crass political terms. I think it's good for Bush so I think it's bad for me. So I'm not happy, and I don't care if it's politically incorrect to say so.
- Magic Rat
By what authority do we invade and occupy another country and arrest its citizens?
but it still doesn't justify the war. Thats how I feel. They can gloat all they want. Our soldiers will continue to die over there. This war is hardly over.
The whole future of a nation hangs in the balance and we just removed the one man all Iraqi's feared.
I'm tired of the Bush sideshows, and I don't like what America has become. This is a very temporary coup for Bush, but once they keep showing the weary and pathetic-looking Saddam complicently being taken into custody, I think it's going to backfire. They should have cleaned him up, gave him some PCP, waited until it kicked in good and hard, and then arrested him. But hell, I'm not going to tell Rove how to do his job.
The capture of Saddam is all fine and good, but does how does this help someone facing a bleak Christmas because they lost their job? How does this help someone with an illness who just lost their insurance coverage? How does this help someone who's underemployed, working several jobs and struggling to pay the mortgage? It just don't make me any money.
That last is the "best" one. "It just doesn't make me any money."
And the Liberals call Conservatives cold-hearted, greedy and grasping. When did Conservatives and Liberals switch brains?
Or maybe it's just the hearts.
Posted at Tuesday, December 16, 2003 by CavalierX