Thursday, November 18, 2004

Oh, BTW

From Pundidiot:

Chicago Tribune The UN’s coalition of the bribed
There is no bigger story.

By the way, I get my links hot and fresh every morning from RealClearPolitics - you should too


“One after another, with the cadence of choreographed mortar fire, disclosures about the phenomenally corrupt United Nations program known as Oil-for-Food–it ranks as one of the greatest financial crimes of all time–are exploding into the news.


With each troubling disclosure, last year’s refusal of the UN Security Council to enforce its 17 resolutions against Iraq after the Persian Gulf war becomes more transparent. To prop up the regime that murdered his people by the hundreds of thousands, and to thwart UN sanctions, Saddam Hussein bribed officials and companies in influential nations worldwide. Given the vast payoffs he funneled to France, Russia and China–three countries with veto power at the Security Council–Hussein had nothing to fear from the UN’s coalition of the bribed.”

Hey look! Another reason to ignore the UN!

Here's a few excerpts from Anne Bayefsky's most recent editorial, entitled "Your Tax Dollars at Work; The U.N. discovers the cause of anti-Semitism: Jews"

At the end of the meeting a draft report, prepared with the assistance of U.N. staffers, was shared with participants, who now have a few days to confirm the outcome. The report will become a U.N. document, and it will be disseminated around the world. Here are some excerpts from the U.N.'s contribution to combating anti-Semitsm:

In practice, it is often difficult for an anti-Zionist type of expression not to be seen as simultaneously anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, several participants maintain that it is necessary to conserve the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, whilst defending the right to be anti-Zionist without being branded an anti-Semite and also bearing in mind that most Jews were anti-Zionists before 1935. . . .

The genuine Zionism of many Jews helps to explain the fact that many people wrongly feel that most Jews lend their unconditional support to Israeli policies. That is why we have seen attacks on synagogues, arson attacks on schools, desecration of cemeteries, for reasons that have nothing to do either with religion, or education, or the peaceful rest of the deceased, but that have a great deal to do with a political and a territorial conflict. . . .


In the past, anti-Semitism as a phenomenon was absent from the Arab-Muslim world. Here, the Arab-Israeli conflict plays an essential role, but another important element is the perception of the State of Israel as the "Trojan horse" of the West in the Middle East. Anti-Semitism would therefore be a particular manifestation of the hatred felt for the West, partly for financial reasons. . . .

Recommentations:

. . . The leaders of Jewish communities should also act to distinguish defence of the State of Israel from the fight against anti-Semitism. . . .

Contextualising the memory of the Holocaust with that of other genocides and serious events in contemporary history in order to make sure that at the end of the day everyone can feel the Holocaust as their own tragedy, both Jews and non-Jews.

In other words, according to the U.N. experts' draft report, discrimination against individual Jews is bad, while "anti-Zionism"--the denial to the Jewish people of an equal right to self-determination--is not. Since it is the perception of unconditional Jewish support for Israel that leads people to attack a Jewish cemetery, and anti-Semitism was absent from the Muslim world prior to the Arab-Israeli conflict (the mufti of Jerusalem and his friend Hitler notwithstanding), the way to defeat anti-Semitism is for Jews to cut loose defense of the state of Israel. And by the way, anti-Semitism will diminish if only we stop emphasizing the unique horror of the Holocaust.

It may not be surprising to learn that Mr. Diéne seems to have had pretty fixed ideas about anti-Semitism before the meeting even began. In his October 2004 report to the General Assembly, he wrote: "The cycle of extreme violence triggered by the dynamics of occupation . . . has fuelled profound ethnic antagonism and hatred. . . . The Palestinian population . . . is . . . suffering discrimination. Even if Israel has the right to defend itself . . . a security wall . . . constitutes a jarring symbol of seclusion, erected by a people . . . marked by the rejection of the ghetto. One . . . effect of this conflict is its . . . contribution to the rise of . . . anti-Semitism."
Simply put, Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism. Or, if it weren't for Israel's annoying insistence on defending itself, on the same terms as would be applied to any other state faced with five decades of wars and terrorism aimed at its obliteration, Jews would be better off.



I'm not quite as violent in my opinion here as Pundidiot, but I'm really wishing that we would ignore the UN and let it sink into irrelevancy.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

You just can't make this up:

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa — probably later this year — should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?
It’s an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada’s ineffectual laws in line with the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could face arrest.
In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by “customary international law” or by conventions that Canada has adopted.
War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of war of their rights “to a fair and regular trial,” launching attacks “in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians” and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.
Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium, no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall under the war crime rubric.
The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the fact of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo — in an astonishing precedent — ruled that states no longer had the unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started such conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.
Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except those authorized by its Security Council.
Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.


Yes, imprisoning the President of the world's only superpower is a great idea... Canada has no army to speak of, and the US would take Ottowa so fast their heads would spin. Canada, don't be retarded. You're smarter than that. And will you people please stop pretending that the UN is the source of all political goodness in the universe? Tear it down and put up a Starbucks. It'll accopmplish the same thing while actually making money, instead of costing trillions. Come ask me if you want to know why the UN disgusts me. I'll post on it eventually, but I don't have the time right now.

This article from the Guardian was sent to me by a good friend, and I blieve that it's time to give it a good fisking:

More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage?

Scott Ritter
Monday November 1, 2004
The Guardian

The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.

Note the fact that he says 100,000 civilians have "died." Not "killed" or "murdered," and certainly no statement on what government(s) or organizations did the killing. Beyond my initial skepticism of a total that high, until I see the data, I must believe that this total includes the thousands that have died at the hands of the insurgence. Not to mention the fact that since the insurgents are not aligned with a government or army and wear no uniforms, they may be lumped in with these civilians.

Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.

If these are among the bloodiest battles (as far as civilian casualties go), where does the rest of the 100,000 come from? If you buy his numbers, these events took 5,000 lives, tops. There's no way that there have been that many dead since then. At this kind of rate, the major combat operations took maybe 30,000 to 50,000 lives. I don't think American soldiers have been running around shooting artillery and making too many massive tank assaults since then. This total is highly dubious.

It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.
But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war.

The "alleged terrorists" part lends credence to the idea that he's counting terrorists and insurgents in with the civilians. Changing the definitions will change the numbers... a lot. And what's this about "dumb and indiscriminate as those... dropped during the second world war?" Somebody hasn't done his homework. In WWII they carpet bombed ENTIRE CITIES to eliminate factories. There were as many as a few hundred thousand bombs dropped in one bombing run. This is just ludicrous.

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.

Just because a target is "carefully vetted" does not mean we can guarantee there will be no civilians there when the bomb hits. And yes, collateral damage does exist, however much we may wish otherwise. He didn't just oversee their killing. He singled people out and savored their deaths. He allowed his son to torture the olympic soccer team if they didn't medal. Morally equating the US with Saddam is ridiculous. There is a big difference to dying in a war zone and being hunted down by secret police. Yes people are dying faster now than under Saddam. But this is so they need not fear death from their own government's caprice. Is freeing them from the daily terror they lived under not worth fighting for? You were never outraged when Saddam was murdering in cold blood, but as soon as Iraqis get caught in the crossfire, you go nuts. You make me sick.

Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections regime) only underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair argument for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's WMD capability constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a post-9/11 world, one would have expected the two leaders to insist on a military course of action that brought under immediate coalition control any aspect of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any possible nuclear threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated force to locate and neutralise these explosives underscores the fact that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no threat from Iraq, nuclear or otherwise.

What's that? Saddam had "nuclear-related" weaponry? But you say he disarmed! And there is evidence that the US army destroyed the explosives, instead of letting them be stolen. (Go to Powerline and search for "explosives" to find more debunking) And not having a "dedicated force" for it might mean that all of the forces were on the lookout for it. Wow, what a novel idea... instead of only having 2,000 soldiers look, we'll have them ALL keep their eyes peeled!

Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.

Let's let him say that again: "We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions." Bullshit. In case you haven't read the Duelfer report, Saddam's own generals still thought he had WMD. If a man claims to have a gun, acts like he has a gun, and starts waving it around, do you fault the police for shooting him before he hurts someone? The deaths are Saddam's fault. We know now that he had no WMD. But we didn't know then. Saddam had thrown out our inspectors and refused to disclose what had become of the WMD he had at one point. If he had told the UN or US where they were, the sanctions would have been lifted. His fault he wanted to cultivate the illusion, not ours for taking him seriously. Oh, and he was also gaming the Oil-for-Food program to circumvent the sanctions. But only to enrich himself, not feed his people. Oh, and to pay suicide bomber's families.

There are many culpable individuals and organisations history will hold to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists to acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my personal vote for one of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war. He had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with Iraq. Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony to the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure to stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must brand him a moral and intellectual coward.

Yeah... "already disarmed" except for the nuke-related explosives found in Al Qaqaa, right?

But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to those who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11.

Actually, the Osama tape proved something else entirely: the Global War on Terror is working. This man who shook the foundations of free society on 9/11/2001 was forced into hiding for three years, and has been reduced to a lame rehash of Moore-isms as a statement, where he once would have killed thousands.

The death of 3,000 civilians on that horrible day represented a tragedy of huge proportions. Our continued indifference to a war that has slaughtered so many Iraqi civilians, and will continue to kill more, is in many ways an even greater tragedy: not only in terms of scale, but also because these deaths were inflicted by our own hand in the course of an action that has no defence.

There is no defense for this man's argument. All Iraqi deaths are our fault because we invaded. Iraq was all sweetness and light. They lived in a country with a merderous dictator who attached electrodes to people's genitals for fun. They now have a chance for actual freedom. Elections are coming in January. Not the farces where Saddam got 99.96% of the vote, but an honest election. Kind of like the type that just happened in Afghanistan. Iraq is on its way to freedom, so long as we do not lose our political will to see this through.

Monday, November 15, 2004

Why the French Gov't Sucks

Right here:

LONDON (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac said in a newspaper interview on Tuesday that Britain has gained nothing from its support for the United States-led invasion of Iraq.

Chirac said he had urged Britain before the invasion to press President Bush to revive the Middle East peace process in return for London’s support.

“Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see much in return,” Chirac was quoted as saying in the Times. “I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically.” ...

Chirac, who will hold talks with Blair when he makes a state visit to Britain on Thursday, recalled a Franco-British summit last year when he asked his British counterpart to try to influence U.S. policy on the Middle East.

“I said then to Tony Blair: ‘We have different positions on Iraq. Your position should at least have some use’. That is to try to obtain in exchange a relaunch of the peace process in the Middle East.” ...

“I am not sure with America as it is these days that it would be easy for someone, even the British, to be an honest broker,” Chirac was quoted as saying in the Times...

Friday, November 12, 2004

Scary...

Now THIS is a moonbat caller on the Michael Medved show... (audio link there too) Not only does this psycho condone the beating of a Bush supporter in MN, but he wants a full out "civil war" in this country. What a loon...

Thursday, November 11, 2004

This could be important...

Hmmm... apparently some marines have found Sarin nerve gas, as NPR reports. To hear it, follow this link and click "Listen" (Red and white button at top). The origins of it are unknown, but this is definitely worth watching. Maybe the bastard did have WMD after all...

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Why did he have to try again?

GRRR... Just when I thought I would like Bush's domestic agenda for this term, he goes and does something to irritate me. I don't care what you want to call it, it's still giving them amnesty, and it's still awarding them for circumventing immigration law.

Two headlines, same paper

Now, who else thinks that you have to be stupid to use both of these headlines in the same issue of the paper:

U.S.-led troops hold most of Fallujah Insurgent resistance is weaker than anticipated
and
In Fallujah, a bloody fight for every inch

Well? Which is it? Another reason not to read those bums... If they don't even know what's going on, how can I expect them to tell me what's happening?

Monday, November 08, 2004

Sadness

Sadness. Target bans Salvation Army bell ringers.

Anti Republican violence erupts at SF State

Why is the mere existence of Republicans so offensive to these people? What the hell ever happended to tolerance? You're free to disagree with conservatives, but not to threaten, assault, or suppress them.

(Hat tip: LGF)

Muslim group tries to stifle book publication

Here's a post from LGF on a Muslim group trying to suppress a book critical of Islam via petition to bookstores everywhere. Please do me a favor: sign this petition, saying that the first amendment protects all speech, even that deemed offensive by many. You can disagree with what someone says without trampling on their right to say it.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Homegrown elitism

Yes, even on our very own Valparaiso University campus, liberal elitism remains alive and kicking, as this column by student Jordan Gill illustrates:

To anyone who voted for Bush, please do the honorable thing and tell the unemployed, the soldiers in Iraq and the students who won’t be introduced to the arts in school why you want them to remain that way. Tell the homosexuals why you like a man who thinks that it isn’t a hate crime to murder because of one’s sexual orientation. Tell the families of dead soldiers and dead civilians from 9/11 why you’re electing an administration that uses their names to go to war and spit on the Constitution. Tell the mothers whose children are dying or being born with disabilities why you’re voting for a man who put mercury back in their water.

This is terrible, both morally and politically.

It's as if I had written "To anyone who voted for Kerry, please do the honorable thing and apologize to all the people you've hurt. Tell the aborted babies why you support a man who has voted to support their murder several times. Tell all the small business owners why you voted for an administration that supports taxes that would drive them out of business. Tell the middle class why you voted for a man who has proposed trillions of dollars in new spending, while promising to balance the budget, which leaves him with no way to pay for it other than the shirts from their backs. etc. etc."

Not only is this needlessly inflammatory, but these are all gross distortions of their positions.

Even if all of his assertions were true, that does not preclude the possibility that someone had voted for President Bush for reasons completely unrelated to these. Just because you vote for a candidate does not mean you agree with all of their positions, and even if you do, this sort of article, crying "shame on you" to Republicans everywhere, will accomplish nothing but offending those who read it. Such writing is shameful and divisive. Try actually persuading a conservative, rather than condemning him, next time.

Voters are not idiots

I wonder when some of these liberal bloggers will figure out that it’s this type of elitism that has alienated the Democratic party from middle America…

To be fair:

It's not as widespread among Republicans, but if we wan't to prevent it from becoming so, we have to make sure yahoos like this guy stop calling people who voted for Democrats "idiots." You can't generalize 54 million people as idiots. They can't all be stupid. Not to mention the fact that they're not likely to vote for your party when the next election comes around if you continue name calling...

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Daily Kos says lying about election OK

I generally dislike fisking the same blogger's posts frequently, but Kos and the leftists who refer to themselves as the "reality based community" are really starting to get annoying. The first thing to be discarded in their "reality?" Truth. (emphasis mine)

And thus, the biggest silver lining of this election is how the GOP's victory is thus far being claimed, framed and explained. To that I say, "Let us join that chorus." And we should do so now, because there is immediacy in the post-election window of opportunity.

Marching order #1, therefore, is this: No matter whom you talk to outside our circles, begin to perpetuate the (false, exaggerated) notion that George Bush's victory was built not merely on values issues, but gay marriage specifically. If you feel a need to broaden it slightly, try depicting the GOP as a majority party synonymous with gay-haters, warmongers and country-clubbers. Because I, for one, am tired of hearing whiny complaints from conservatives that, not only do I not have values, but that I fail to properly respect the values of people who are all too happy to buy into, no less perpetuate, inaccurate caricatures of the 54+ million Americans who voted Tuesday for John Kerry.


Criticizing the GOP ain't gonna build us a new national majority. But the process is brick by brick, or perhaps, brickbat by brickbat. We didn't decide the rules of engagement, but that's what they are and so we may as well start firing away.

Besides all but calling us Bush voters idiots (he never actually uses direct name calling...) he claims that it is a Democrat/liberal/leftist duty to LIE to people about the election. Now, I know lies happen, even by the best campaigns and organizations. But encouraging this sort of behavior is despicable. If the a member of your party is telling you that you need to get them back into power by intentionally lying to the American people, it's time for you to find a new party.

By the way, here's some reality for you. Kos raised over $500,000 to support this list of candidates. Guess how many of them won? Zero. Man, reality can hurt sometimes. Which one of us lives in the "reality based community" again?

Food for thought

Just a random musing. If President Bush had lost the election, the media would have made it into a resounding repudiation of the war in Iraq, as they had attributed much of the President's unpopularity to that. This is the way they portrayed the Spanish elections, when the anti-Iraq war candidate won. But now that Bush has won, it is being attributed to his stance on Gay marriage. This is what happened with the Australian elections. The pro-Iraq war candidate won, so it was decided that the election was about the economy. The media should really make up its mind; either these elections were a referendum on foreign policy/preemptive military action or not. You can't have it both ways.

Friday, November 05, 2004

It IS a mandate

Oh, the irony...

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Apparently this country is 51 percent ignorant...

I found this linked on Powerline. Please tell me, if you can, how this will contribute to political discourse:

Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states… When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence…

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not what to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.


Now… This is in no way constructive. It offers no criticism, other than to say that the 58 million people who voted for President Bush are ignorant idiots. Yeah, it’s that explicit. “I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not.” It's a shame, but the author is apparently from the "I'm too good for the American people" school of thought. Ms. Smiley, If you think we're beyond redemption, move to Canada and leave us alone. Otherwise try to persuade me. Hint: Calling me an idiot isn't particularly likely to make me charitable toward you, your views, or your party.

In the words of PowerLine, "As a Republican, maybe I should be glad that the Democrats are making fools of themselves. But as an American, it saddens me that the party of hate would rather nurse its bizarre grudges, prejudices and hatreds than make a serious attempt to restore itself as a constructive political force." I try to be open minded and talk about our disagreements, but it's impossible to have a discussion when one's opponent resorts to infantile name calling.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

LOL

Great truths are oft spoken in jest...

It's over with Kerry's concession

So… It’s finally over. As I called it (although not in my own blog) Bush won the popular vote, while barely eking out an Electoral College victory with Ohio. I must say, we the networks and the Democrats admitted Bush won far sooner than I expected. I expected two weeks of counting provisional ballots, and then litigation after that.

Senator Kerry did the right thing. He conceded once the race was out of reach, rather than risk harming our country’s unity with a long drawn out recount. I had little respect for him, but this move raised my opinion of him considerably.

Remember that pledge I took a little while ago?

Well, Bush is my President again, and I will not question his legitimacy, or tolerate those who do. Doing so can have no benefits for any political cause, and can serve only to inflame the public and damage our faith in the electoral system.

On that note, this is the time to make peace with our leftist friends. DO NOT RUB IT IN. Republicans won almost across the board, but you don’t need to gloat. However, that doesn’t mean I need to let crap like this pass, from this ultraliberal blogger:

We put together an unprecedented ground operation, but it was matched by the zealots on the right. We experienced an explosion in the blog world and started a nascent liberal radio network, but our message machine was far outmatched by the rightwing noise machine (Fox News, the Washington Times, Drudge Report, Talk Radio, etc.) We put forth quality candidates in races nationwide, only to see most outclassed and outgunned by a GOP which ran on three simple tenets: God, guns and gays.

Got that? Where liberals have “ground game,” we have “zealots.” Liberals have a “message machine,” while we have a “noise machine.” They have “quality candidates,” while Republicans are one-dimensional. In other words, when liberals do it, it’s good. When conservatives do it, it’s somehow nefarious. Nice to know your double standards are alive and kicking, Kos.

But what can you expect? His readers expect to hear this stuff, and they’re even worse than he is with it. They apparently can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that we simply don’t see the world the same way, and it’s not because we’re delusional:

Second, gut any Bush hopes for legitimacy. Find the places in Florida and Ohio and every other state where a plausible argument for Republican vote fraud can be made. It doesn't matter whether it did happen or not. What matters is if it can be plausibly alleged to marginal Bush supporters and to the media. We also have to let the issue go where it's implausible. Hammering on voter fraud where it's not at least plausible on that level is only going to hurt our credibility. We have to sink our fangs into Republican ankles and hang onto them for dear life on the legitimacy issue. We have to make him "Bush the only American President who was never elected" whether it's true or not.

[We] have to let them have the big national right wing policy victories that are going to do obvious, and in some cases, long term damage to this country. The only way we're going to be able to win at the midterms and in 08 is if all those Bush voters who currently refuse to join the reality based community are hit with reality in a way that hurts them personally. If we can't get at least some of them to switch sides, we will be in deeper trouble than I can imagine. So, brace yourself for a lot of pain. Here's a very short list: Iraq is going to go to hell. We will probably get a draft. The deficit, combined with the trade imbalance, and the falling dollar is going to rip the shit out of the economy. Liberal social policies are going to be set back a generation at least. Psychotic justices are going to be seated in many courts including the Supreme Court. We may lose Roe V. Wade. Global warming gets another 2-4 years of growth without America doing anything about. More poisons in our air and water. There's more but that's all I can stand to write at the moment. Every one of these things is terrible, and every one has to be hung around the neck of Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, because every one of them is going to hurt at least some of the disbelief in reality crowd. It's going to be very very ugly, but if the Repubs have control, they also get stuck with the blame.

And that's number five. Blame and revenege. For the next two years anything bad that happens to America belongs to the Republicans and we have to make it stick. We have to use that to take back the house and the senate. Then we have to spend two more years nailing every bad thing to George Bush's feet so that he sinks to the very bottom of the sea of shit he's creating and stays there for eternity. We need to make sure that by the end of a second term he's already being singled out by historians as the worst president America has ever seen. The next two years must be seen to be the absolute nadir of American history and all the blame need to land on the Republicans like a million tons wet turds...

If all our jobs are oursourced and our schools and communities fall apart, then we have a choice. Be poor, or join the only possible growth industry: storm troopers on foreign lands in the service of our corporations. Our industries will shut down. Our military will expand. This is the future i fear most. We'll provide security for the rich guys. This has always been a model of totalitarian and fascist states.

We're obviously not there yet, and we can turn it around.



I’ll let that speak for itself.

The election is over, and it’s time for healing. Election losers, do not become embittered. Election winners, do not become arrogant. We all want to help our country. We may disagree on how to do so, but we are still all Americans.

Monday, November 01, 2004

One last thing

One (hopefully) final post before election day. This is pulled from Let's Try Freedom, and I agree wholeheartedly:

Our country is predicated on the idea that we don't need to have civil wars and hyper-partisan destructive political conflict, because we provide a mechanism for the people to select our leadership. If the people vote for you according to the pre-existing rules, then hey, you're the leader.

This arrangement is in danger. It was in danger in the 1980s from the right, and it is in danger today from the left. If Kerry wins, then it will be the right's turn to be the ones tearing down the fragile network of customs and beliefs that holds our nation together. I don't think we should do that. I don't want to be a part of doing that...

If John Kerry wins, reasonably fair, reasonably square, then he will become my President and I will support him. That doesn't mean I won't fight him like the devil on all the many, many things he will do that are wrong and bad; I will. That doesn't mean I won't criticize him ferociously and with a partisan growl; I will.

But I won't declare that he is an illegitimate leader.

I won't undermine him in front of the national leaders that he has to relate to in order to do his job.

I won't call him President-Select Kerry if the Supreme Court has to intervene, again, to keep the electoral machinery moving.

I won't print up bumper stickers in 2008 saying Re-Unelect Kerry.

I won't, in short, do any of the things that the nauseating anti-Bush left has done in the last four years. I did that stuff with Clinton, and now that I've grown up a little bit, and now that I've seen what it looks like when the other side does it to my guy, and now that they've held up a mirror, it's a little bit sickening, and I'm more than a little bit ashamed.

Here's what it boils down to, folks:

If John Kerry wins the election, reasonably fair, reasonably square, then he becomes my President and your President.

If George Bush wins the election, reasonably fair, reasonably square, then he remains my President and your President.

This is my pledge, my promise, my what-have-you. It's written down, in black and white. Call me on it if I renege.

I ask everybody who reads this to do two things if they agree with me.

One, say it loud and say it proud, the winner of the 2004 election is my President, and whether I like him or not, whether I agree with him or not, I'm not going to be a Michael Moore-style flaming gasbag asshat about it.

Two, pass the link along. Send it to your friends, post it on your blog, whatever. It's important. We are one country, and we have to pull together whether we agree with one another or not.

You know who I'm pulling for. But if either candidate is elected reasonably fairly, I will not question their legitimacy. That will accomplish nothing, and serve to undermine the very foundation of our electoral process. Please agree to do the same.

Kerry on Iraq... One last time

Please tell me if you can put together a coherent position out of this. I can't. (emphasis mine)

Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq.The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force.
Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.

As I'm sure you too can see, the bold sentences obviously contradict each other. Senator, apparently you're "irresponsible," for you yourself just claimed that Saddam only "might be gone." If it is irresponsible to claim so, you are implying that he would necessarily be gone. Blatant contradiction. THIS is why I do not trust Kerry with the War on Terror. Whenever he is asked questions, he responds with a resounding "You bet I might!" Not one to inspire confidence in his decision making capabilities...

Oh, and his delusionary faith in the failure that was UN inspections is apalling. The fact that Saddam never did destroy "those kinds of weapons" while the inspections were in full swing never seems to even sink in. How many years of blatant violations of the UN resolutions would it take for Kerry to force Saddam out? The world will never know, but I doubt he ever would have.

What happened to Taiwan?!

So... I have to say that I have great respect for Colin Powell, particularly after reading his memiors, but these comments are inexcusable:

"Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy," he said.

In Taipei this was regarded as the harshest, most decisive expression of this principle made for some time, at least during the administration of US President George W Bush. And it was a remark that managed to annoy just about everyone, irrespective of where he or she stood on the political spectrum.

"We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking," Powell told CNN.

First, the question should not be whether Taiwan is currently independent. It obviously is. It has its own constitution, government, elections, etc. But apparently Powell assumes that they all even still want to be a part of China, which in reality, fewer than a fifth of them do. He also chucked out the window the US position that we take no sides on this except to insist that it be resolved peacefully. I somehow doubt that this will do anything to deter a Chinese military excursion... Please Mr. Powell, think this over some more! This accomplishes nothing other than to infuriate our Taiwanese allies.