Predator Intelligence

PredatorBDU.com

2010-06-15T14:28:00.003-07:00

If you are looking for quality tactical clothing look no further than PredatorBDU.com

Offering clothing from Propper. Military clothing, EMT clothing, public safety, etc.

Climategate

2009-11-30T13:05:00.001-07:00

Here are the problems I have.

Over the life of our planet we know the following:

- The planet has been much hotter vs today and the planet has been much colder vs today.
- As such we know that it is normal for the planet to vary in temperature
- We also know that during periods when it was much warmer and much cooler those periods were not associated with mass extinctions, etc. The planet did just fine.

So we are left with the following questions.

If it is normal that the planet changes temperatures, why are we concerned now that it is changing again?

If in the past these changes did not bring about catastrophe, why do we think that a change in temperature this time will?

If the planet is known to vary in temperature why do we think that this time it is NOT NORMAL but man made?

Since the normal state of the Earth is to change temps...how is it that we are 100% certain that this time it is different...IE not normal but man made?

And getting to the CRU if it is man made this time...and as a whole our governments are attempting to make massive changes...then the following is necessary.

- All raw data purporting to show man made warming must be available for scrutiny.
- All models used to show man made warming or make future predictions about the state of the planet in the future must be open to all scientists for verification.
- Science requires testing and validation. It seems that the process currently has not been open.

If the science is settled then I would imagine that those who believe so and have done the research would LOVE to show the full foundations of their work.

Yet over the years they have seem reluctant to do so.

Why?

If they are correct then their data will show it.

If they are unwilling to, then that would be a cause for concern.

Why The White House Should Not Control The Census

2009-02-10T08:59:00.003-07:00

A power grab we should not allow. There is no good reason why the White House (Democrat or Republican controlled) should be in charge of the census. To much opportunity for meddling. Imagine the outcry if Bush had tried this....

"There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."

Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools.

Government Health Care Disaster

2009-02-10T08:50:00.002-07:00

Inserted into that bill are items that could fundamentally change our health care system in a way that limits our choices and rations our care.Do we really want government managing our health care? How could anyone assume that after watching how the government handles the so called Stimulus Bill.

Inserted into that bill are items that could fundamentally change our health care system in a way that limits our choices and rations our care.

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Read that again. Pretty scary stuff.

And this....

and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs.

The arrogance of the left. They know what is best for us. While our system is far from perfect it is better that what they are proposing.

Geert Wilders' Film

2008-03-27T15:53:00.006-07:00

Many consider this film to be contoversial...ie anti Muslim and did not want it shown.

I don't consider it anti Muslim. Unfortunately it does show what many in the Muslim world are exposed to...and of course out of those exposed...some act upon what is said.

I think our press does a bad job in showing us what is said in many of these places. Many people have no clue that this stuff is said in front of mass audiences.

UPDATE: As of March 28 Live Leak has removed the video. If you click on the video link you will now see their reasons. Simply put they were threatened with violence.

Ironic isn't? Many people thought/think this film is controversial because it puts Islam in a bad light and shows that it has a violent strain to it.

So what happens?

Many Muslims where outraged and threatened violence. Isn't that what the film was pointing out...the violent nature of certain elements of Islam?

At some point and time people have to stop apologizing for this behavior and say enough is enough. We should not be intimidated into restraining our free speech.

UPDATE TO UPDATE: Live Leak has now put the video back up. Good for them.

Hillary Clinton & Sniper Fire

2008-03-26T12:41:00.003-07:00

Well I always found the story amusing and unbelievable.

Why?

Does anyone really think our security forces would allow any First Lady to land in an area that was targeted by snipers? I don't.

Anyway this new video is amusing. Hat tip to Ace

Some Rev Wright Quotes

2008-03-21T10:58:00.003-07:00

Two things strike me as I watch some of these and other videos.

- The seemingly racist tone of the comments. Imagine if that guy was a white preacher...
- The negativity this guy has for the USA.

Obama has stated this guy has been a mentor, and advisor, a role model, etc. to him. Really?

Do we want someone who implicitly approves of this negativity towards the USA?

Here are two videos. They are Fox News compilations. I have seen them elsewhere as well.

Obama, Racism and the MSM

2008-03-20T13:15:00.002-07:00

One of the things that bothers me the most about this situation regarding Sen Obama and the Rev Wright is the vastly different way the MSM handles this vs the way it handles this issue as it relates to Republicans.

In the case of Sen Lott or Sen Thurmond, any hint of racism, association with racism, etc., was completely unacceptable.

Yet in the case of Obama, the MSM is already saying hey that speech solved everything lets move on. No real interest in asking questions about the church, the Rev Wright or way Sen Obama was a member for 20 years.

As you watch the MSM deal with this issue just remember how they dealt with it in the past when it had to do with a Republican.

Media Bias. You bet.

The Rev. Wright and Obama

2008-03-20T11:24:00.002-07:00

I will state it up front that I am not a fan of Obama and have no intention of voting for him if he becomes the nominee for the Democratic Party.

That said, even if I were a fan of his I would still have problems with the fact that he has been associating the Rev. Wright for close to 20 years. While Obama states that he was not present at many of the more controversial sermons, it suspends belief to think that over 20 years Obama was not fully aware of the sentiments of Rev Wright.

This man was not only his pastor, but advisor, mentor, etc., etc.

Here are a couple of thoughts for you. This comes from a piece written by Lanny Davis

These two questions are:

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?

Good questions and something worth thinking about.

If Obama was a Republican the MSM would be all over him, and rightly so.

Nanny State

2007-07-16T08:17:00.000-07:00

I came across this earlier today. I admit I haven't read the book...yet. But by looking at the overview written by the author he sums up what I have been worried about for a long time. Slowly but surely we are giving away our rights to politicians, bureaucrats and activists. It all sounds good...IE eat less, don't drink too much, etc. But year after year, law after law...guess what happens? You and I have less freedoms. We also become more reliant on the state to tell us what to do. In the long run that is not a good thing.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Nanny State details the rise of the busybody -– those who act as our parents, making decisions for us in the name of health, safety and decency. Nanny State asks: Why are we allowing politicians, bureaucrats, and social activists to dictate what we eat, where we smoke, how much we drink or what we watch and read? The book argues that allowing government intervention in its citizens' private lives not only denies us freedom of choice, but also erodes our national character by promoting a culture of victimhood and dependence.

The target of the nannyists are never-ending: It could be Girl Scout cookies, swing sets, bicycles, cigarettes, alcohol, cartoons … In some Massachusetts towns, school-yard tag is banned. San Francisco has passed laws regulating the amount of water you should use in dog bowls. In California, some towns now ban smoking -- outside. Each day a new, more intrusive, law is proposed. And each day we lose a little more of our freedom.

Link to book site here

Link to author blog here

Hat Tip to Powerline for this story.

Global Warming Authoritarianism

2007-07-11T08:20:00.000-07:00

You are going to see more and more of this crap in the future. If you let them tell you what you can and cannot drive, it is not a stretch to imagine more restrictions in the future. How big your house can be, the type of appliances you can purchase, etc, etc.

Do we really want this to happen?

Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide.

Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive?

In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard.

Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.''

Full Story

The science behind global warming is not settled. Sure the planet is getting warmer, but it has been colder and warmer at different periods of this planets history.

We also don't know that a warmer planet is a bad thing.

Do you ever wonder why that the only scenarios you hear about a warmer planet are bad? Things would change that is for sure. But how do we know that a warmer planet is a bad one?

We don't.

Thoughts On Gas Prices

2007-07-11T08:06:00.000-07:00

At least a couple of times per year gas prices will spike.

As sure as the sun will rise, Democrats will want to investigate oil companies and propose taxing "excess" profits.

First off this is politics at its worst. Prices rise and fall based on supply and demand. Additionally they are affected by government policies...for instance the US has not built a new refinery in decades.

Here is my thought for the day.

Most of the politicians that scream about the high gas prices...tend to be the ones saying we have to do something about global warming.

If that is the case...shouldn't they be FOR higher gas prices? Higher gas prices over time forces people to reduce their consumption of gas...which means less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...which of course is as they claim a leading cause of global warming.

Those Scientific Studies

2007-07-10T08:10:00.000-07:00

Who would have thought?

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Muscular young men are likely to have more sex partners than their less-chiseled peers, researchers at the University of California Los Angeles said on Monday.

They attract females looking for a virile mate.

"Women are predisposed to prefer muscularity in men," said study author David Frederick of UCLA.

We needed a study to determine that?

I suppose next you are going to tell me that somehow men are more attracted to in shape women with nice breasts? Crazy stuff this science.

I wonder if it is hotter during the summer? Any chance we can get a study done on that one too?

WHY DON'T AL QAEDA ATROCITIES GET MEDIA ATTENTION?

2007-07-03T20:30:00.000-07:00

From Instapundit

Pretty screwed up mindset. Do we win or do we want to score political points against the Republicans?

Call me crazy...but I prefer that the US wins (that means all of us...not just Republicans or just Democrats). It is in our best interest isn't it?

WHY DON'T AL QAEDA ATROCITIES GET MEDIA ATTENTION?

Because that might help Bush.

UPDATE: A journalist whose name you'd recognize emails:

Yon's story doesn't get attention because it is humiliating.

It is humiliating because it is obvious that we media – and our allies in the state department, the legal trade, the NGOs, the Democratic Party, the UN, etc., - can’t do squat about such determined use of force.

Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.

So we pretend Yon’s massacre – and the North Korean killing fields, the Arab treatment of women, the Arab hatred of Israel, etc. - doesn’t exist, and instead focus our emotions and attention on the somewhat-bad domestic things that we can ‘fix’ with our DC-based allies. Things such as Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, etc. When we ‘fix’ them, then we get status, applause, power, new jobs, ego, etc.

Please don’t be surprised. We media are an interest group not much different from the automakers, the unions, and the farmers.

Stuck Mojo

2007-07-03T13:28:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to LGF on this one.

They are a band called Stuck Mojo This song is called I'm American. They take a decidedly pro-American standpoint. Even if you don't like rap metal...you can read the lyrics at the bottom of the video...and enjoy the later images.

And here is their other one called Open Season. It is considered to be controversial...I guess by those that don't agree that we should stand up to Islamic terrorists.

4th of July

2007-07-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

It is going to be a little slow around here this week during the 4th due to some pressing issues that have to be dealt with.

Here is the to do list of pressing issues....

- Lots of golf (started off strong with a 76 earlier today). 2 doubles and a 3 putt killed what could have been a great round. Still...at 4 over I can't complain too much.
- Bass fishing for a couple of days
- Lots of refreshing cold beverages

And that will do it.

The Trunk Monkey

2007-06-30T15:17:00.000-07:00

This is a group of commercials that you may enjoy.

Here is the first one they came out with:

The rest of the videos can be found here:

AP Bias Again

2007-06-30T13:51:00.000-07:00

Many complain about the rather obvious bias in the MSM. Of those organizations the AP has to be one of the worst.

Check out this AP story printed in the Washington Post. Here is the lead sentence. Notice anything?

When President Bush's "grand bargain" on immigration fell apart, Jeff Sessions, the Republican senator from Alabama who is named after a pair of famous Confederates, was very proud.

Full Article Here

That is a straight down the middle news article? That my friends is bias. Apparently the only people against the immigration bill are racists from the Republican party...at least that is what is implied by that lead sentence.

Despite what you typically have read in the MSM a majority of people in the US were against this immigration bill.

A lead sentence like that has no business in a "news" story. If it was an opinion piece that is fine.

This is just bias showing its not so subtle head again.

Global Warming

2007-06-30T13:45:00.000-07:00

Call me skeptical regarding all the disaster scenarios regarding a warmer Earth.

I do not discount the fact that temperatures are rising. I find it hard to believe that the warming can only lead to disaster.

In the past the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler.

Overall I think the science is still not strong...and predictions of what might occur even weaker.

Here is an interesting article:

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Full Article Here

Mickey Mouse Is Dead

2007-06-29T15:21:00.000-07:00

Or at least the perverted Hamas version:

In the final skit, Farfour was beaten to death by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, Farfour called the Israeli a "terrorist."

Full Story

This is a sick mindset. When will the left wake up and realize that we are dealing with a medieval mindset here. They worry about Bush...I worry about the radicals that want to stifle everything that the West stands for.

You can't negotiate with these people.

No Amnesty

2007-06-28T15:36:00.000-07:00

Nationalized Health Care?

2007-06-28T11:46:00.000-07:00

Remember when the debate was raging about the formation of the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security?

One of "compelling" arguments for the creation of it was that it would create new efficiencies by combining bureaucracies and save us money.

So far none of that has come to pass.

Note today's headline from the Washington Post:

Costs Skyrocket As DHS Runs Up No-Bid Contracts
$2 Million Security Project Balloons to $124 Million
Full Story Here:

Those of us against it were very skeptical of any improvement in the bureaucracy and definitely discounted any potential savings. Quite the contrary. It should have been obvious that this would be less efficient and cost more.

Why would I go out on a limb and state this?

Simple really...just go back and look at how government runs things currently. Virtually every program or bureaucracy created costs substantially more now than estimates put forth prior to their creation.

Which brings me to my main thought of the day....

Why the hell would we want government to take over the health care system?

Do we really want a top down approach to our health care? Do we want some official in DC telling us what we can and cannot get medically?

Based on how the government currently works...what gives any proponent of universal health care the idea that government can do it better than private industry?

Examples please?

What can you point to that the government runs that costs less then what private industry can do?

All you have to do is watch the way government runs things like the Department of Homeland Security to get an idea of what will happen if they were to ever take over health care.

And may I remind you that the Department of Homeland Security would be very small in comparison to the bureaucracy needed to run universal health care.

Un-Fairness Doctrine

2007-06-27T08:14:00.000-07:00

Another bad idea that infringes upon our rights.

Feinstein says she is “looking at” reviving the Fairness Doctrine to counteract the decidedly conservative bent of talk radio. Former President Reagan and a Democratic Congress repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
She wants to bring it back because she thinks “one-sided programming” pushes the American people into “extreme views” — such as their current opposition to the Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigration bill. She wants “an opportunity to present the other side” by forcing radio stations to offer more liberal fare.
Full Story Here

The end result of something like this is the end of talk radio. Prior to the termination of the Fairness Doctrine in the late 1980's there was very little talk radio and AM radio was dying. With the end of it, radio stations were allowed to put on people who brought in ratings. In this case it happened (and still is) to be conservative style programming.

If this doctrine was brought into force it would make radio stations have (for instance) one liberal program to offset one conservative program.

For whatever reason there really are not many popular liberal talk radio hosts. As such the end result would be less conservative talk radio which of course is the reason the liberals want to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine.

Some of the excuses given for the dominance of the right on the AM radio is that the corporations who control the radio stations want it that way.

I disagree. Remember these are the greedy capitalists the left complain about...

I am pretty damn sure that if radio listeners wanted and would listen to left leaning talk radio they would put that on in a heartbeat. Remember it is all about the greenbacks baby.

It is not as if there have not been attempts to get liberal leaning programs on the air. The most resent failure is Air America. So it is not like there haven't been attempts.

It is not as if there are already plenty of media outlets are dominated by left leaning types already. I look at this attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine as an attempt to eliminate or severely reduce right leaning or conservative influence.

In the early 30's or 40's one could make the case that there should be fairness in what is broadcast due to the limited sources where one could get their information.

Today on the other hand that is not a problem.

- We have network news
- We have countless cable news outlets
- We have print version newspapers and countless online newspapers
- You have the internet where you can read and get news from around the country and the world.

As such, outside of political motivations there really is no reason to try to have government get involved in decided the makeup of what is on AM radio.

If we allow this doctrine to get re-instated we are allowing the government to increase its control over us, and to reduce our free speech.

Besides who the hell gives these people the right to regulate what type of opinions are broadcast?

If the roles were reversed...I might not like the fact that AM radio was dominated by the left...but I could NEVER IMAGINE myself trying to get the government to regulate that.

It goes against my very nature.

Let the market decide baby!

Remember this (this is to you guys on the left)...you may think the Fairness Doctrine is a great idea. However if you allow government to control one aspect of what is said (political free speech) it is not inconceivable that at some time in the future the government will want to regulate some aspect of political free speech that is dear to you.

It is much better to keep politicians of either stripe from deciding on what constitutes mine (or yours) free speech.

Latvia & Tourism

2007-06-26T09:40:00.000-07:00

Well scratch Latvia off my list of places to visit:

Latvian girls are being urged to steer clear of one-night stands with tourists as part of a campaign to prevent the capital, Riga, turning into the "Bangkok of the Baltic".

Full article

First Aid Myths

2007-06-26T09:34:00.000-07:00

I was disappointed to see this one is a myth. Somehow I always feel better after a couple of shots...

3. Drinking Booze to Ease a Toothache

“A shot of whiskey is not going to kill the pain of a toothache,” says Charles Wakefield, D.D.S., director of advanced education in general dentistry at Baylor University medical school. Instead of a whiskey on the rocks, just order the rocks: A Canadian study found that rubbing an ice cube on people’s hands killed tooth pain in 50 percent of them. Wrap the cube and rub it on the V-shaped soft spot of your hand, where the bones of your thumb and index finger meet. The cold, rubbing sensation travels on the same pathway to the brain as tooth pain, and by icing your hand, you override the signals from your mouth. When you’re finished, call a dentist. And pour yourself that whiskey.

Here is the full list of myths

Afghanistan Next?

2007-06-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

For years we have heard many on the left say we need to get out of Iraq so we can focus on the terrorists and win in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has always been the "good war". Those who want to retreat in Iraq imply that they want to win in Afghanistan.

I have always been skeptical of this position.

Today you can see the first of what will be more calls for retreat from Afghanistan as well. Early on it was politically stupid to mention this. Now however the left is starting to feel OK about letting us know what they really feel about Afghanistan as well.

A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.

It is not just obscure Democrats talking about this. Here is a choice quote from Rep. Murtha (D-Pa):

“We should have never gone to Iraq, because we would have been out of Afghanistan [by now],” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) said in a brief interview.

So if these people have their way we will retreat from Iraq ASAP and then in short order the drumbeat will steadily increase saying that we cannot win in Afghanistan and must retreat from their as well.

The consequences of retreat from Iraq for the USA and for the Middle East are likely to be disastrous. I hate to imagine the fallout from also pulling out of Afghanistan as well.

Cox & Forkum

2007-06-25T14:36:00.000-07:00

Check out the Cox & Forkum site for other interesting editorial cartoons.

Damn Interesting

2007-06-25T10:55:00.000-07:00

Looking to kill some time at work?

The Damn Interesting website will help you do just that.

If your boss gets on your ass about it...give him the link too.

Creeping Death

2007-06-25T10:08:00.000-07:00

The menace of the nanny state continues to grow. First it was smoking, recently they have been setting their sights on food, and now...pets.

California Democrats want to pass a law requiring pets to be spayed or neutered by 4 months of age.

Where the hell do these guys get the idea that they can tell you or I how to take care of our own pets?

Each time a law like this passes, or is proposed the argument is that it is for the common good. When laws such as these are passed we loose a little bit of our freedom.

Individually each law makes little impact on our lives. Over time all these laws in their totality greatly infringes upon our rights and freedoms.

Is this what we want?

What ever happened to the notion of individual responsibility?

Do we want the government to increasingly tell us how to live our lives?

I don't.

Nobel Peace Prize?

2005-10-07T09:58:00.000-07:00

Is the Nobel Peace Prize worth anything anymore?

As I sit here and think about El Baradei and the UN agency he heads up (IAEA) I cannot think of one concrete thing that they have accomplished which would merit the Nobel Peace Prize.

Apparently this has something to do with their work as it relates to N. Korea and Iran. Last time I checked nothing positive has happened in relation to these two countries.

So what is the award for? Well I will let you read the quotes for yourself.

The Nobel committee said ElBaradei and the IAEA should be recognized for addressing one of the greatest dangers facing the world.

"At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its director general.

And what did El Baradei himself say?

"The award basically sends a very strong message, which is: Keep doing what you are doing," ElBaradei said. "It's a responsibility but it's also a shot in the arm. They want to give the agency and me a shot in the arm to move forward."

It is amazing to read the last two quotes. For me personally it sums up my problem with the multilateral approach which is mainly nothing ever seems to get done.

On the other hand they (the supporters of the multilateral approach) love to pat themselves on the back for "trying".

Results don't matter it seems...the process is more important.

The EU / UN Internet Takeover?

2005-10-06T11:50:00.000-07:00

Follow the link to read about attempts by the EU / UN to take control of the internet. As has been known for some time, many countries do not like the idea of the US maintaining control of the internet.

Under the US system the internet has been pretty wide open.

Anyone concerned that some of the biggest advocates of change are from countries like China, Cuba, Iran, etc? They would like to get a piece of the action.

What changes could they possibly want to see implemented? Hmmm...???

Let us see...we have a system that is wide open...but now we have countries interested in taking some portion of control who are well known in their attempts to stifle aspects of the internet.

I cannot see how that is in any way positive.

A question to be asked of those advocating change is....

If the US has a system that is wide open to anyone...what do they want fixed...and what changes do they advocate? It would seem to me more control...which means less freedom for the individuals utilizing the internet.

Do we really want China and other totalitarian regimes determining the structure of the internet?

Think about it.

The Press

2005-10-05T08:30:00.000-07:00

Thought for the day:

As we have seen over the past couple of weeks the press did a horrible job in relation to Katrina. As we look back now it is hard to believe how wrong they were in almost all of their analysis.

Virtually all their claims seem to have been wrong.

The press "highlighted" all the dramatic news...and put everything in a very negative light.

Overhyped?....

In light of that...

Why should we believe the reporting (negative) you typically hear from Iraq?

Christopher Hitchens

2005-08-09T08:24:00.000-07:00

Today Hitchens has another interesting point of view regarding Iraq. He asks some questions that should make many on the Left uncomfortable...

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

You can read more here

What Is A Terrorist?

2005-03-07T08:36:00.000-07:00

That is the question today.

Apparently if you are part of Hezbollah or Hamas you are not...at least according to the Germans. They only bomb busses, restaurants, etc. in an effort to specifically target civilians. The Germans however prefer not to call these groups terrorists.

On the other hand...some Neo Nazis in Germany targeted immigrant businesses and caused damages to the buildings, etc. In these attacks nobody was injured.

Today a German court has declared this particular group to be a terrorist organization.

I for one would like to know the reasoning why or how they can claim one group is a terrorist organization while the other is not. Might it have something to do with the fact that one group caused damages within the country (Germany) and the other did not?

In the case of Israel, the Germans and many other Euros think that there should be dialogue or that by calling a group "terrorist" does nothing to help the problem. In Germany however...there is a different standard.

Might this be one of the reasons why we (the US) have a problem with our Euro friends?

A sane person would want to crack down hard on both groups.

Interesting Article

2005-02-15T13:39:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been reading a blog called the New Sisyphus. If you have not read it... you should put it on your list.

Here is a post from their site that I am posting on mine. Go visit their site to see other interesting articles.

The End of the Cold War: Testing the Left's Central Thesis
Remember the Cold War? We sure do, and given what lessons can be learned from both how it was fought and how it was won, we're not at all surprised that liberals by and large do not.

By the time of the end of the Cold War, the American Left and Right both had their narratives on the war pretty much worked out. There were variations, of course, sub-currents and dissenters, but, basically, their were two solid schools of thought readily identifiable to any political observer. To the Right, the United States was leading a coalition of freedom-loving democracies and allies of convenience in an all-important opposition to the expansionist and dangerous Soviet Union. In this battle, the U.S. would "bear any burden, pay any cost" to check Soviet power. To the Left, however, the Cold War looked very, very different.

The Left's Central Thesis Regarding the Cold War

The United States talks a big game when it comes to freedom, democracy and human rights, but as we all know the U.S. supports some of the most oppressive authoritarian regimes in the world today. From Somoza's Nicaragua to Suharto's Indonesia to Kim's Korea to Marcos' Philippines, the U.S. provides the bullets for the guns of the world's worst dictator's death squads.

The reason for this is clear: the U.S. isn't interested in winning liberty for the world's people. Nor is it even very worried about the so-called Soviet threat. It's all about profits, power and control. We prop up dictators in Central America because major companies and Republican-campaign contributors rely on the profits of United Fruit, Dole and other major American conglomerates. We have military bases in the Philippines because they are instruments of neo-colonial control. We dominate Korea because it provides a ready market and an endless supply of cheap labor.

Concern over the Soviet Union is nothing more than cheap cover (and threadbare cover at that) for a program of world domination, the hallmark of which is the exercise of raw, deadly power whenever it feels threatened. Labor organizers in El Salvador, human rights campaigners in South Africa, dissenters in Saudi Arabia die in their dozens as a result.

If we can only reduce our view of the Soviet Union to that which reality should lead it (i.e. an impoverished nation actually incapable of inflicting much harm), and strip away the hypocritical lies of the Right, the United States could get back on the right side of history and support the worlds' peoples' rightful struggles for self-determination, justice and equality. Until then, the U.S. is only going to suffer more Vietnams and more embarrassments. We must work for a people's democracy, one that speaks to our real values and conduct ourselves in accordance with those needs and wants and not those of General Motors.

The Right's Retort

To this central thesis, the right had two main ripostes. First, the Right charged that the Left made a fetish of hypocrisy and, in so doing, showed just how shallow and immature it was as a political movement. The U.S. was engaged in a life-and-death existential struggle with a leviathan of monstrous proportion and strength. We didn't choose our allies; we took what friends were available.

Listen, the Right explained, in war one doesn't always have good choices. Think about World War II: we allied ourselves with the Soviet Union to rid the world of the immediate threat National Socialist Germany represented. We supplied it guns, planes and tanks. Our diplomats shook hands and shared vodka with Communist Party functionaries and gave speeches in honor of Stalin. Does any of this mean that the U.S. was and is complicit in the Gulag or Russia's tyranny in Eastern Europe? No, of course not. What it means is that war makes strange bedfellows. As Churchill--a real statesman--explained at the height of WWII, if Germany invaded Hell, we should immediately sign a pact with the Devil to defeat it.

Second, the Left, as usual, both under- and over-estimates the power of private enterprise in the U.S. system. It under-estimates it in the sense that it doesn't realize that our economy, our companies, our system of private enterprise are we the people. We couldn't and shouldn't ignore the most successful and productive sectors of our economy simply on some loon theory that success equals corruption. Under the Left's guidelines, the USG should apparently only be lobbied by unemployed fathers of four children and not doctors, architects, businessmen and labor unions.

It over-estimates it in the sense that it affords companies totemic power they simply don't possess. The conflicts in Asia, Central America and Africa are complex, each with their own circumstances. To say, in effect, that what the board of directors of 30 large companies say controls what U.S. foreign policy is is a gross oversimplification the facts do not remotely justify. The fact is, even in the case of allies who are dictatorial, the U.S. is always pushing for more liberty, more respect for human rights and a more expansive definition of democracy.

Look Back in Anger

With the fall of the Soviet Union, this debate was quickly dropped and became yesterday's news with unseeming speed. But what is really interesting about the post-Cold War period is that it allowed a reality-based test for the validity of the two sides' theses. (This is why the Left seized upon the 1990's "demonization" of Iraq and terrorism; it seemed the new Cold War, the new ideology that would allow business-as-usual to continue unchecked.) If, as the Left had argued, the Cold War was a mere pretext for global domination and profit-seeking, one would expect the same behavior to continue as before under a different justification. If, as the Right argued, "our dictators" were bastards we were forced to do business with, one would expect a sharp, abrupt change in U.S. foreign policy.

Fortunately for us, the results of this test are there for all to see.

In Central America, Cold War level support for dictatorial regimes for all-out war against communist and communist-inspired insurgencies was withdrawn. Instead, the U.S. pressed for civil compromise and a peace process that brought El Salvador's FMLN and Nicaragua's FSLN to the democratic political process, where they remain today. In Guatemala, support for the government against indigenous movements was removed, forcing the government to come to the bargaining table. Most astonishingly, the U.S. actively pressed for democratic reforms in the "perfect dictatorship" of Mexico, supporting a small, northern-based party in what then appeared to be a Quixotic campaign against the all-powerful PRI.

In South America, the U.S. withdrew support for military governments and pressed for the return of civilian control. From Argentina to Chile to tiny Paraguay, the U.S. used its muscle to support a burgeoning civil society and an emergent middle class. And, most revealingly, when a neo-Castroite named Chavez won power in Venezuela, a nation that supplies a large amount of oil to the U.S., a nation that, as such, is critical to the U.S. economy, the U.S. limited its opposition solely to the political sphere. The fact that the U.S. would choose not to intervene in that context is clear evidence that U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War world underwent a momentous change. No one could imagine U.S. reaction to Chavez as it is today would have been the same had a Chavez taken power in the 1960's.

In Europe, the U.S. pushed for the unification of Germany, something not necessarily to its commercial advantage. In the newly-liberated Eastern Europe, the U.S. deployed immense resources to strengthen young democracies by helping to train judges, by bringing new parliamentarians to study in the U.S., by showering them with economic aid.

In Asia, support for Suharto was withdrawn; Indonesia was encouraged to democratize, which it has done. Korea was urged to protect labor and human rights, real elections were sought and had. The opposition took power for the first time and was congratulated by the United States.

And when the newly democratic government of the Philippines asked for the keys to Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base, we shrugged, handed them over and said our good-byes. Hardly the act of "neo-colonialists."

The Conservative Wave

We think many of these lessons are well understood by most of the American people, even if, in some cases merely intuitively. The post-Cold War world allowed people to judge the analysis of the United States by liberals and conservatives and, more and more, people began to come to the conclusion that the conservative narrative simply made more sense. At the same time, a rising conservative movement has come to dominate the U.S. political scene, even if the cultural and educational heights are still controlled by old-school liberalism.

We don't think these two phenomena are unrelated. On the contrary, people are mostly rational and, with the facts being what they are on the ground, most people have begun to give credence to a philosophy that simply has done a better job of explaining the world around us.

We see this all the time. We may laugh when the New York Times runs one its famous "Crime Rate Continues to Fall Even as Jail Population Booms" we-can't-buy-a-clue story, but the fact is--from things small to grand--liberalism as a theory simply fails to either explain past behavior or successfully predict future. People notice this.

The Right isn't convincing people--its arguments simply don't have the same exposure--so much as the Left is convincing people that the Left isn't right.

In this vein, Iraq's recent elections are merely more of the same. One side said that it was a useless puppet exercise resented by the Iraqi people. The other said the people of Iraq wanted freedom and their voice as much as any other people would. Which side better anticipated what occurred on January 30?

As the Left's central theses continue to fail, its followers continue to bail. Some, such as the admirable Christopher Hitchens, cannot complete the journey to the right and continue to identify themselves with the "Left" even if their "Left" exists in reality about as much as the anarchism of Emma Goldman did. Others, like the "neo-cons," drew the conclusions all the way to the end and adjusted their thinking accordingly.

Make no mistake, the end of the Soviet Union unmasked more than just the empty promise of Communism. Day by day, news story by news story, more and more eyes are opening.

A new majority for liberty and reason is thus born.

CBS Explanation...Rather Lacking In Substance

2004-09-10T23:31:00.000-07:00

So Dan Rather came out to defend CBS and the veracity of the documents. Many others have done a detailed analysis of his defense and how weak it really is. Check out Instapundit , Powerline, Hugh Hewitt to get a taste of what is wrong with the Dan Rather story and those documents.

To sum it up: The points brought up by Dan appear to have been thoroughly refuted.

The expert used by CBS is a specialist in handwriting NOT typed or computer generated documents. One of the officials at the TANG used by CBS now says that CBS told him the memos were handwritten. He feels misled and now has stated that in his opinion the memos are fraudulent. Another witness used by CBS is an anti-Bush author.

What does this all add up to? Shoddy work at the least by CBS...or an intentional smear job at the worst.

As I have stated before it is no wonder people are turning away from the mainstream media. They have a credibility problem and the fiasco at CBS just makes it worse.

Remember my post from a day or so ago about the editorialist upset about the internet and the bloggers? Well I am now even more convinced that the internet can and does provide a useful check against the mainstream media.

Think about this...without the internet and the bloggers, do you think CBS would be having the problems they currently have? Definitely not. Instead they would be beating Bush over the head with these "new documents" demanding an explanation.

The mainstream press needs to get their act together.

We are waiting...

They Are Authentic...Because We Said So!

2004-09-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

CBS has offered an official statement regarding the documents. Look here

In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

So we don't know who verified the document, who the sources are, who the TANG officials are, or people who worked with Lt. Col Killian are. But even though many NAMED document experts have questioned the authenticity of the documents...CBS ignores that and still says that their news division is standing behind the story.

Should we be skeptical? You bet! How would CBS react if a company or Bush, etc. said their investigations show everything to be A-OK...ie trust us...we investigated ourselves and determined that we did a good job. CBS would be rightly skeptical and would demanding a deeper look.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and it is apparent that Dan Rather and CBS do not like being questioned...their attitude is that we should just trust them.

It was amusing watching TV earlier today when reporters where asking Dan Rather questions about his reporting. He looked very defensive and uncomfortable...after all...he prefers to be the one asking questions...not the one defending something.

We will see how this will play out. The pressure is sure to rise on CBS. How long can they go on not answering questions? Will they be smoked out and be forced to disclose where they got the documents and who authenticated them? Even if we don't find out where they come from, at the very least they should tell the public who verified the documents so the appropriate questions to these individuals can be asked.

After that the public can decide which set of experts tells a more compelling story.

We are waiting...

Keeping The Old Media Honest

2004-09-09T21:30:00.000-07:00

Earlier today Instapundit provided a link to this editorial.

Essentially this individual was unhappy with the way the internet, and bloggers in particular, are changing the way in which the old media funtions. He laments the fact that editors and reporters must now be careful about what they write about and how they write it. It is disconcerting to him that editors might now be more inclined to provide balancing stories or scrutinize their articles more closely for fairness and/or accuracy.

Isn't it exactly this type of mindset that has created the problem of credibility the old media faces today?

The problem with the media is/has been that in many instances they have been able to provide the public with news or stories without regard for facts and/or objectivity.

Now it is becoming apparent the internet and bloggers can and do influence the news. Today is an excellent example. CBS came out with a story about new documents relating to Bush and his service in the National Guard. Within 24 hours bloggers had reviewed the documents and called their authenticity into question. Now other news organizations are taking a critical look as well.

It is very likely that in the past questions about the authenticity of these documents would never have been seriously pursued.

The author of the above linked editor is unhappy with the internet and the bloggers. I disagree.

If the use of the internet and bloggers doing their own research helps to keep the media honest, doesn't the public at large benefit?

Isn't it better that news organizations will be more careful about what they report if they know that numerous people will be checking the accuracy of the news reports?

Isn't it better that news organizations shows the different sides of a story or issue?

While the editorialist was unhappy about this prospect, I am not.

The media has claimed for years that they are the nations watchdog. That is great. However the problem has been that they have never really been accountable themselves. Now due to the power of the internet, the media have their own watchdog. They are just starting to realize this, and are not happy. First it was the Swift Boat Vets that they tried to ignore, and now CBS gets hit hard first by bloggers related to their Bush AWOL story.

Right now the old media has to be thinking...."He Who Controls The Internet Controls The Future"...and fortunately for us...it is not them!

Pre-Emptive Strikes

2004-09-08T13:19:00.000-07:00

Now that Russia also believes it has the right to strike pre-emptively, I wonder what Kerry's response will be?

Russia has claimed this right in the past and today that was reaffirmed by Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky. Link to the full story is here

Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff of Russia's armed forces, asserted Russia's right to strike terrorists beyond its borders.
"As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases ... we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," he told reporters.

Anyway it is surprising to me that many on the Left are so strongly against a pre-emptive strike. Essentially they are advocating that we should get hit first and THEN respond. Pardon me, but I would much prefer attacking our enemies before they attack us. Seems like common sense don't you think?

Well you know the Left here doesn't like it. What about the Europeans to whom Kerry would like to defer to. Here is the quote from the same linked story by an EU official:

Udwin said the 25-nation EU is against "extra-judicial killings" in form of pre-emptive strikes.

The world has just witnessed a brutal attack on a school where hundreds of children were massacred...and yet the EU is against a pre-emptive strike to eliminate terrorists who commit such acts?

Amazing!

Do we really want to defer to the French and Germans as it is so plainly obvious the Kerry does?

I do not, and I believe the come November the majority of Americans will feel the same way and will vote accordingly.

AWOL Again?

2004-09-07T22:37:00.000-07:00

I am reading Drudge and see that the major news outlets will be pursuing the Bush-National Guard Story again. Furthermore Kitty Kelly will be on the TV promoting her book.

I think this is a great example of how the press treats Bush vs Kerry. When the Swift Boat Vets came out with their book, the press and TV ignored them. Now Kitty Kelly comes out with a book full of accusations...she will be on TV. I am not saying she is lying, etc. We can go into that later. I simply want to point out the difference in the way the candidates are treated when allegations come up.

The press promotes allegations against Bush yet seems to attempt to discredit allegations against Kerry.

I would like to know what is the standard whereby Kitty Kelly and her book (alleging cocaine use at Camp David) gets to be on TV (NBC) and the Swift Boat Vets are dismissed as partisan?

How many times must the press bring up the National Guard angle? It is interesting that they seem to pursue the idea that maybe Bush is hiding something and that the accusations are true. Yet their attitude towards the Kerry Vietnam stories show a completely different take. They are skeptical with regards to the stories about Kerry. This is even more interesting based on the fact that as a result of the Swift Boat Vets...Kerry has had to back of some of his stories.

If the treatment of the two candidates by the press does not show a bias, I don't know what does? This is why more and more people are turning away from the mainstream media.

I for one would like the standards by which one set of accusations are pursued vigorously while another are dismissed.

We at the very least deserve consistency on the part of media.

We are waiting...

Innocent Religion Is Now A Message Of Hate

2004-09-07T09:15:00.000-07:00

This article is taken from the Telegraph in the UK. Below is the article and here is the link. It is time for more Muslims to stand up for what is right. To often we hear little from the Muslim community when acts of terror occur.

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.

For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realise the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realisation and confession. We should then run after our
terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.

Let us listen to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Sheikh - the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric - and hear him recite his "fatwa" about the religious permissibility of killing civilian Americans in Iraq. Let us contemplate the incident of this religious Sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians.

This ailing Sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in "infidel" Britain, soliciting children to kill innocent civilians.

How could this Sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country? How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?

In a different era, we used to consider the extremists, with nationalist or Leftist leanings, a menace and a source of corruption because of their adoption of violence as a means of discourse and their involvement in murder as an easy shortcut to their objectives.

At that time, the mosque used to be a haven, and the voice of religion used to be that of peace and reconciliation. Religious sermons were warm behests for a moral order and an ethical life.
Then came the Neo-Muslims. An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have
killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a
universal war cry.

We can't call those who take schoolchildren as hostages our own.

We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these
heinous crimes, without confronting the Sheikhs who thought it ennobling to
re-invent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons
and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and
American schools and colleges.

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed is general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel. Yesterday, his article appeared in the pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

9/11 Commission Revisited

2004-09-06T22:12:00.000-07:00

It goes without saying that both parties play politics. I do however wish an honest debate on the merits of the proposals put forth by the 9/11 Commission would take place. I think our politicians owe us a duty to act with care and to put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of a particular political party.

This however does not appear to be the case:

From the IHT: Stage set for showdown as U.S. Congress returns

Democrats say they will pressure Republicans to fully embrace all 41 recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, or face the political consequences

Isn't our national security too important to be playing this kind of politics with?

Just because the commission made some proposals does not mean that all of them should be enacted. If we had a responsible press they would make sure that a dialogue took place and that a careful examination of each proposal took place prior to it being enacted.

My feeling however is that if the Republicans balk at any proposal, the Dems will say they are irresponsible, and the press will play along without really looking to see if either sides position has merit. Dissappointing....

We need to demand accountability on the part of our parties. Theoretically the press would help in this accountability process. However if as I suspect, the press will play along with the Dems on this one, and it will be just another reason why they continue to lose credibility. Let us see how the press handles this one.

We are waiting...

There Will Be No Bounce After The Convention

2004-09-05T16:58:00.000-07:00

Ah the talking heads on TV. After Kerry got no bounce at all, the conventional wisdom was that the country was too evenly divided for either candidate to get a bounce.

Well that analysis was way off. Oh well, they will move on to another topic and not even admit another mistake.

Newsweek Poll: Bush 54 Kerry 43
Time: Bush 52 Kerry 41

As the others come out, it will be interesting to see the results.

And a humorous item from the Kerry Spot on NRO

DOH! [09/04 01:38 PM]

From the Washington Times:

Tad Devine, Sen. John Kerry’s senior advisor, told the Washington Times that he does not think that the Swift Boat veterans’ ads, which attacked Kerry's Vietnam War record, have hurt the campaign.
“Fundamentally, I don’t think they reshaped the race at all,” Devine said. “If they did, the president would be 10 points ahead, not in a dead-heat horse race.”

Well take a look at the polls above.

Anyway for those of you that do not read NRO and its Kerry Spot, I highly recommned that you do.

Surrender Now?

2004-09-05T16:55:00.000-07:00

I came across this post and found it humorous...too bad some people actually spout off and believe stuff such as this.

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/beslan_russia_w.html

The 9/11 Commission

2004-09-02T12:09:00.000-07:00

I have a few comments about the 9/11 commission and the recommendations that followed.

1) Bush has indicated that he will institute many of the recommendations.
2) Kerry has indicated that he is ready to institute all the measures and criticizes Bush for not doing the same.

While it may be that the commission did a good job in terms of recommendations....shouldn't there be a discussion about what may or may not be good recommendations?

After all these recommendations propose to fundamentally change the structure of how intelligence is processed.

Right now it looks like both parties want to "look" like they are doing something and as such it is politically difficult to question any of the recommendations.

This topic is too important. There must be a national discussion regarding the merits of the proposals. If some are good institute them, if some don't work eliminate them, if some are decent improve on them.

If we are going to make fundamental changes to our intelligence structure lets make damn sure it gets done right!

The Unkown Face Of Terrorism

2004-09-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

In the speeches of Zell Miller and Dick Cheney last night there was an emphasis on the defense of the US and what we needed to do as a country to confront this global menace. Immediately the media pundits and Democrats denounced both speeches. Miller's as too harsh and Cheney's as out of touch with the mainstream.

This attitude I believe shows a lack of vision or just a plain desire on the part of these groups that this topic will just go away. Elect Kerry and the world will respect us and we will prosecute a more "sensitive" war on terror.

Wrong!

The problem will not go away if we defer or consult with France or Germany. Quite the contrary, the US and our allies need to confront terrorism head on. The cost of winning will be high, but the cost of appeasement is sure to be higher.

Why is it that the Democrats do not seem to place a high priority on terrorism? In part I believe that a focus on terrorism restricts the ability to expand their "government is a solution for everything" agenda. There is definitely a strong contingency within the Democrats that believe this.

What about the others?

Since 9/11 we have talked about terrorism and the terrible toll it takes on human lives. However in our world today everything is a sound-bite or quick image on the screen. We have seen very little of the human cost of terrorism on television. The networks and cable news shows seem very reluctant to show any of the horrifying images of terrorism at work.

Is this a concerted effort on the part of media? I don't' believe there is any conspiracy, however showing the true cost of terrorism does not seem to fit their agenda.

Why don't' we see images of the planes crashing into the WTC? Are they too shocking for the public at large? Doubtful. I am sure most of us can handle the images. Do they bring back memories? Absolutely! Do the put into perspective the reason why we fight terrorism? Absolutely!

While I do not want to be inundated with the images, it is important to remind the public at large what terrorists have done in the past and what they could do in the future.

In Iraq we hear about hostages being taken and their subsequent executions. While I am not advocating putting up the films of their executions on television, I think that the media should show selected still images.

Just a few days ago a group of Nepalese workers were brutally executed. The film is graphic beyond belief. One man has his throat slit by a man with a knife while another holds the victim. The camera focuses on the act and then lingers as you can hear the mans tortured last breaths.

Absolutely horrifying. Words cannot describe the depraved cruelty of the executioners.

Then the film goes on to show men lying on their stomachs as a man comes by with an AK-47 and shots them one by one in the head.

I have seen many of the other executions in film, and I think this one has to be the worst.

I believe many against our war on terrorism do not really see the true evil nature of who we are fighting and why we are fighting them. Our press should show these images to the public at large. It will not convince everyone that is certain.

However I feel there are many in the Democratic party that if they were aware of the brutality of the terrorists would support a more robust action against these groups.

People need to see who we are fighting, what these groups are capable of doing, to put into perspective the actions of the US and our allies over the past few years.

This perspective should then help to clarify the important issues of this election and why it is so important to tackle the threat of terrorism head on.

In my opinion only one candidate has expressed a strong willingness to continue this fight, and that man is George W Bush.

The Problem With The Democrats

2004-08-28T14:12:00.000-07:00

Watching the Democrats over the past few years I have come to the conclusion that they have lost it. Their party does not seem to be one of ideas and dialogue, but rather one of conspiracy theories, name calling, or just complaining.

How many in the Democratic Party can embrace the likes of Michael Moore and the Rev. Sharpton is beyond me? In years past nobody like Moore or Sharpton would be tolerated in either party. Yet today Moore is considered somewhat of a hero among the Democratic faithful, and was even given the "honor" of sitting with former Pres. Carter at the Democratic Convention. Shockingly Sharpton was allowed to give one of the keynote speeches at the convention. While I admit he is entertaining, there can be no doubt that his past activities in New York City are troubling.

Moore was given this place of honor for his movie Fahrenheit 911 which the Democrats call an important documentary, but what should really be considered a piece of fiction at best, or at its worst what Kerry would call "a smear". How people can go to a movie like that and take what is presented as fact is disappointing at best. Does the Left dislike Bush so much that they can take the "facts" presented in this movie at face value? I recommend going to this site to see how much of what Moore presents in his film is incorrect. If the Democrats or anyone else disagrees with Bush, lets have a discussion of ideas and values not the name calling or innuendo so typical of the likes of Moore.

As former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said:

"Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polorizes the nation" World Tribune, June 28, 04

Today I was watching a Fox News show that had one Republican backer (I do not remember his name) and Susan Estrich. While I typically disagree with Susan politically I find many of her positions to be well reasoned. Today unfortunately they were not. The topic was 527's and what if anything should be done about them. The discussion started with an overview how Kerry called on Bush to disavow the Swift Boat Vets, and how instead Bush called on all 527's to stop their activities. Susan went on to point out how attorney Benjamin Ginsberg worked both for Bush and for the Swift Boat Vets and as such it proves that Bush is behind the ads. Furthermore since the ads were a "smear", Bush should focus on that 527 only and not worry about the rest.

Now this is the typical argument I have heard from the Democrats lately, so Susan's argument wasn't that different. What bothered me however is when it was pointed out that there are attorneys working for both moveon.org and the Kerry campaign Susan said there was a difference.

What was that difference? Well according to Susan the Swift Vets are using smear tactics and moveon.org ads are truthful. Even though I should be used to this, I was stunned! While many of the moveon.org ads and activities are over policy differences they have been fast and loose with the truth in many instances.

Here are a few items pulled today from moveon.org...along with some comments.

We now know Rumsfeld personally approved a policy that "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners," violating their fundamental human rights under the Geneva convention.

Must I point out that the latest report on the abuses clearly show this is not the case?

But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him.

Both the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Report (both bi-partisan) state that Bush acted on faulty intelligence. Neither report blamed bush for hyping or distorting the report.

The above examples are just from the front page of moveon.org Clearly based on the reports that are now out these statements are false. So how someone like Susan can out of hand claim that the Swift Boat ads are a smear but moveon.org is providing good info...is once again beyond me.

The problem with the Democrats today are beliefs and statements such as this. Each passing month the rhetoric only gets worse. A change is in order to bring this party back into the mainstream of American values. I would welcome the chance to have an actual debate with a Democrat again as opposed to listening to what Michael Moore has said, that Bush is a fascist, that the war in Iraq was for oil, or that Bush lied.

Come on Democrats! Lets start having a real debate again over ideas and issues...it is much more interesting and much less divisive on the nation as a whole. Name calling, innuendo and conspiracy theories only cheapens the debate and in the long run hurt OUR country.

We are waiting...

The Mainstream Media And Kerry vs. Bush?

2004-08-22T21:23:00.000-07:00

The story about the Swift Boat Vets (SBV's) continues to get more interesting. After ignoring the story over the past 10-11 days the press are now finally talking about it. Unfortunately the mainstream press does not seem to be interested in investigating the claims of the group. Much of what we are seeing can only be described as a defense of Kerry and what he did in Vietnam.

Shouldn't the press take a closer look at the claims to see which are valid, which are questionable, and which are incorrect, etc?

Unfortunately they seem to be happy to point out any discrepancy in the claims of the SBV's. Once they do this the general attitude seems to be that the rest of the claims can be dismissed as well.

There is no doubt that not every claim of the SBV's can withstand close scrutiny. However it is equally true that not all Kerry's claim can withstand the light as well. For example, now that the SBV's have come out, Kerry has had to back off his decades old Cambodia story. What else doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

As such, if the mainstream press were really doing their job, they would take a close look at the claims offered by both sides.

If and when the mainstream press does that, both the left and right should admit a few things.

National Review online has said it best. The following quotations are taken from the Kerry Spot

In order to generate more light than heat about what John Kerry did and didn't do back in Vietnam, each side ought to agree to some ground rules and points to concede.

Stuff the Right ought to concede:

* If you sat down and talked politics with each one of the Swift Boat Vets, you would probably find almost of them are Republicans and/or conservatives.
* Almost all of the Swift Boat Vets have disliked, and in some cases, hated Kerry since his 1971 testimony.
* Jerome Corsi has written all kinds of stuff on FreeRepublic.com that would make the average soccer mom's hair stand on end.
* The Swift Boat Vets don't speak for everybody; there are 13 or so guys who served under Kerry who thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
* According to the records, Kerry was posted at An Thoi, not too far from the Cambodian border, for about one week in December 1968. Theoretically, he could have crossed the border during that time period, although there's scant evidence beyond Kerry's claims.
* The case of the Swift Boat Vets would be helped if one of their members, Jack Chenoweth, would show his diary to the media.

Stuff the Left ought to concede:

* It is supremely unlikely that each and every last one of the 264 Swift Boat Vets for Truth is nuts, a liar, or a Karl Rove mind-controlled zombie.
* Right now, we don't know who wrote the Navy's records for these patrols at this time. If they were written by Kerry, they are no more reliable than his diary or his current recollections.
* Recollections that are seared — seared! - into Kerry's memory may not be all that reliable after all.
* George W. Bush isn't underwriting anything. Even if he wanted to stop their ads, he couldn't. The Swift Boat Vets wouldn't listen to the president or Rove today, because they're out to nail the guy who trashed their reputations and called them war criminals in 1971. They now have their own donor base of (at last count) 10,000 people.
* If John McCain's disapproval is enough to define someone as beyond the political pale, then Barbara Streisand would have been burned at the stake a long time ago.
* Pointing out that Bush didn't go to Vietnam doesn't really say anything one way or another about whether the Swift Boat Vets' claims are accurate.

We are waiting...

527's

2004-08-20T15:56:00.000-07:00

Well it has been a long week and finally I have the chance to post again.

The Swift Boat Vets are finally starting to get some notice in the mainstream press. At this stage of the game they really had no choice. The story kept on growing despite their attempt to ignore it.

Now that they are talking about it, are they analyzing what the charges are? Of course not. The mainstream press seems to be only interested in finding way to discredit the Swift Boat Vets. Captains Quarters has a nice piece on this here:

Contrast their attitudes towards the Swift Boat Vets vs how they played up Bush AWOL from the National Guard. If this isn't one of the best examples of bias in the media, I don't know what is!

527's have been very prominent over the past year. Currently the biggest and/or most well known tend to be anti-Bush. What has the press said about 527's and their influence or potential influence? Nada, zip, zilch. I find it now amusing that as much of the mainstream press takes notice of the Swift Boat Vets, they are concerned that they are a 527 and should anything be done.

They seem surprised that Republicans support this group and that somehow this automatically makes any charges suspect. I only wish they exhibited this type of concern when they talk about moveon.org, ACT or any of the many other leftward leaning 527's.

All we want is consistency on the part of the press!

Remember Bush and the AWOL charges? Who were some of the people pushing this? Terry McAulife for one, and many others in the Democratic Party. Yet despite the fact that these people obviously have a political agenda, the press took the bait and ran with the story. They did not seem to concerned about any agenda these people may have had.

Now the Swift Boat Vets come along. Since one of the supporters is Texan and a Bush supporter, according the mainstream press, the charges are suspect.

Why is there a different standard applied to these two groups by the mainstream press?

We are waiting...

Enormous Courage?

2004-08-12T14:37:00.000-07:00

From the Human Rights Campaign website http://www.hrc.org/: WASHINGTON (Aug. 12) — Coming out is a deeply personal journey and Governor McGreevey today showed enormous courage. We are hopeful that, like millions of other American families, Governor McGreevey and his family will come to a place of understanding.

My comments: If the governor came out on his own, then yes I would agree that it would show enormous courage.

However in this case as we find out that there is a lawsuit pending for sexual harassment. In light of the fact that he was forced to come out because of an upcoming lawsuit...why does that show courage? The news was coming to light under any circumstance. Does anyone believe for one second that absent the upcoming lawsuit Gov. McGreevey would be coming out of the closet?

Likely Voters For Bush

2004-08-12T14:28:00.000-07:00

Gallup has the latest poll showing Bush slightly ahead in a poll taken of likely voters. http://www.gallup.com/election2004/ So with the margin of error...we are still at a statistical dead heat.

Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation

2004-08-12T14:18:00.000-07:00

Here is what I was looking for. Unfortunately it is as bad as I thought. Instead of allowing a special election, by delaying the resignation until after the general election the Democratic Senate President Richard Codey will take over. Sounds a little shady to me. Does NJ always have these types of shenanigans going on? Remember Robert Torricelli and how the Democrats dumped him at the last minute? Feels like a banana republic...

Question: Does anyone think that the mainstream press will seriously question the timing of the resignation? Will Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings wonder if this procedure is in the best interest of the voters? How do you think they would react if it were a Republican governor stepping down after an election in order to make sure a Republican can take his place...without an election?

Here is the article talking about the transition after McGreevey resigns: http://www.politicsnj.com/

Gov. James E. McGreevey will resign as Governor of New Jersey on November 15 after acknowledging that he is gay and engaged in an affair with another man. He will be succeeded by Senate President Richard J. Codey, a 57-year-old Democrat from Essex County who has served in the legislature since 1974.

Had McGreevey resigned before September 15, a special gubernatorial election would have been held on November 2, 2004. Codey will take office on November 15 and will serve until the end of McGreevey's current term in January 2006.

NJ Governor To Resign

2004-08-12T14:14:00.000-07:00

Another governor bites the dust. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040812/D84DTBO81.html

Why is the resignation to take place on Nov 15^th after the general election? Does this allow the legislature to select a governor?

More about Kerry and Cambodia

2004-08-12T10:58:00.000-07:00

Mediaresearch.org has a nice bit about what I was talking about earlier.

Er...Actually I was close to Cambodia...

2004-08-12T08:50:00.000-07:00

For quite some time we have been hearing about the heroics of John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Unfortunately those four months appear to be the only thing John Kerry is running on. Doesn't this man have a twenty year Senate career? Shouldn't he be discussing his legislative achievements?

Quick quiz to our readers: How many legislative accomplishments of John Kerry can you name? If you are having trouble coming up with a list, how about mentioning just one or two major legislative achievements?

Anyway, since John Kerry seems to think he should be elected based upon his four months of service in Vietnam, then an analysis of that record should be in order. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that service in Vietnam qualifies John Kerry to be President, yet cry foul when someone actually disagrees with some of what John Kerry claims to have happened in Vietnam.

The latest item of interest relates to the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has remarked about his "vivid" memories of being on patrol 5 miles inside of the Cambodian border. Some interesting points about this time can be found on NRO at http://nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

A few things strike me about the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has talked about how this time was seared into his memory. He has made comments about this experience in the Boston Herald in 1979, on the Senate floor in 1986, and in the Michael Kranish biography. Now that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php have come out with an ad and a new book, the story about Cambodia is now changing. Kerry advisor Jeh Johnson now states that John Kerry had a mistaken recollection about the events. This is strange. For years John Kerry talked about the event in vivid detail. Now the event that was so important to him that he talked about it numerous times is incorrect?

A side note: In one of his talks about his experience in Cambodia in 1968 he mentions that it was at a time that Nixon claimed there were no troops in Cambodia. We know that Nixon did indeed send troops into Cambodia. However the problem with this story is that Nixon was elected in 1968, but did not take office until January of 1969. Not only does John Kerry's old story glorify his achievements, but at the same time provides an example of how bad those pesky Republicans are. Not bad...one story...two important points...Kerry good...Repbulicans bad.

Unfortunately once again it appears that John Kerry is fast and loose with the truth. He tells a story or takes a position that benefits him. When the political winds change or someone can point out a flaw in his story, John Kerry's position or story changes again.

Most of the press has come out against the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad and the new book "Unfit For Command" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/103-7503936-2106248. Instead of looking at the charges, they simply dismiss the group as Republican partisan hacks. In light of the ever changing John Kerry stories, doesn't the mainstream press have an obligation to stop attacking the Swift Boat Vets personally and start checking out their stories. If the stories are incorrect, let us all know so we can condemn the Swift Boat Vets. If they are correct we need to ask John Kerry about the inconsistencies?

Another question comes to mind. Why is it that when some vets stand up with John Kerry, go to the convention and/or out on the campaign trail the press treats them as non-partisan vets? Yet when another (larger group) of vets attacks the positions of John Kerry they are partisan. Why does one group get a free pass from the press while the other is vilified? Why does the press do this? What is the standard they use to determine that a group that travels around the country with John Kerry is non-partisan, while the other group is not?

The public has a right to know the truth.

We are waiting...

First Post

2004-08-11T16:59:00.000-07:00

This is the first of many posts to come. Will there be a consistent timetable of posts? Probably not. As items of interest come to light in the political arena I will post my thoughts.