Friday, March 14, 2003

I will be taking about ten days away from the blog. In the meantime, feel free to hit the archives or the favorites linked on the left.

See you soon.
Coops (TK's AKA is "Oops") sent me a comment on the impeachment post

Here it is. You can read my post to see what I think about it, and if you don't like this, feel free to add your own comments:

The worst thing that could happen for world peace or for the security of the United States, and probably for the economy of the U.S., would be the impeachment of George W. Bush, assuming the Senate convicted him. Because then, boys and girls, we’d all be looking down the barrel of President Dick Cheney, whose first act as president would probably be to nuke San Francisco, just for fun. Let’s not make a bad situation worse.

It’s true this president is the Baskin-Robbins of lies. Which lie are we going to use this month for attacking Iraq? I personally believe that Bush doesn’t want to take over Iraq because of its oil or because Saddam tried to kill is father. I think all the saber rattling was to ensure the Republicans would win the off-year elections. It obviously worked. Wrapping himself around God and the tragedy of 9/11 was obviously immoral, but not an impeachable offense. If we impeached every president who lied to the American people since the Great Depression, Jimmy Carter and perhaps Eisenhower would have been the only presidents to serve full terms.

True, Bush is easily the worst diplomat in the history of the Republic. Even Macho Man Reagan, a great liar in his own rite, never pissed off our friends. Bush should have paid attention to Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Not, scream like a spoiled, drunken frat boy who has to have his own way. Bush’s foreign policy looks like it’s run by the Keystone Cops. It’s going to be a long time before the United States of America regains a little respect around the world, and it’s all because of the arrogance and stupidity of George W. Bush.

So while I doubt we can impeach the SOB, I hope at least we’ll vote his ass out of office in 2004

Please, feel free to rip away. But I will point out that the founders of the movement already considered Coops' concern and want to impeach the entire administration and all of their friends - I am not sure if that means Pelosi would be president?
James Taranto caught this crazy headline:

"'Bush Wins': The Left's Nightmare Scenario"

It's not an article on '04. It's an article about what would happen if the war were won swiftly - The left's nightmare scenario.

There is no discussion of protecting the life and liberty of people, only discussion of the evil empire.

Tyranny or empire should not be the only two choices offered Iraqis, or the rest of the world.
There were the usual bias statements in this Reuters article, but the last paragraph is a complete puzzle, maybe it is just incomplete.

If there were no vote on the new resolution, the legal situation might be governed by Resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, which threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq did not disarm. But if the resolution is defeated, an attack against Iraq would be in violation of international law.

I am puzzled by the idea that France and Syria or even a few other nations, including Russia and Germany are the sole arbitrars of international law. I believe there are principles in international law that support the continuation of the war. Iraq lost in '91 and had to agree to certain provisions with the cease fire, and one was disarmament. Hussein has disregarded the terms of the cease fire and has disregarded 12 years of UN Sanctions including 1441, and "serious consequences" seems to cover forceable disarmament. You can argue that the second UN resolution is needed, but to say that France can determine international law on her own is a bit preposterous.
And another WSJ item that ends nicely - Read the whole thing. Mr. Henninger explains why WMD proliferation needs to be a more significant and understandable issue for the public at large.

The reality and implications of WMD proliferation are difficult to come to grips with. Do nothing? No serious person suggests that. Plug the dikes? It will merely roll forward a very dark day. The pre-emptive, overwhelming elimination of this functioning, relentless proliferation empire would inform Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and Saddam's two primary suppliers in the 1980s, Germany and France, that even in a world of cynicism and fear, there is a point beyond which you may not go. And that there remains one country willing to say so, convincingly.
I have great appreciation for John Fund's piece on celebrities being anti-Bush, not anti-war. The ending is nicely done:

Nothing moves world opinion like success. If the "coalition of the willing" acting with or without further U.N. approval, succeeds in ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's regime, world attitudes will shift quickly--just as they did after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As television screens fill with scenes of Iraqis greeting American soldiers as liberators, spitting on portraits of a toppled Saddam and pouring forth tales of the torture and degradation, these celebrities will have little to say. Their silence will speak volumes.
I love this piece from Andrew Sullivan:

THE STOCK SURGE: Why? One view is from, natch, the New York Times: "Markets Rally as a U.N. Vote Is Delayed." But Reuters, of all places, suggested another scenario: "Stocks Rally on Speculation of Short War." Take your pick, I guess. But I suspect the latter. This waiting game can hardly be a tonic for investment. But a quick war could send the market soaring.

Sums up my feeling that the market prognosticators rarely know why the market moved the way it did and so they look to unconnected events to attribute some meaning to market movements. Sometimes stocks surge because people think they are getting a good deal on the stocks. I also suspect the latter - When it finally starts, there will be a rally, but it won't be enough to wipe out a lot of losses attributable to a lot of other problems.
One of my neighbors who was a huge Gore fan has the obligatory yard signs. One says "Peace is Patriotic," and the other says "War is not the Answer." I only manage a sneer as I drive by thinking about her running down the neighborhood, but I was pretty thrilled to see the person directly across the street disassociated himself from that, displaying a sign that said, "Support Freedom, Support Our Troops." I might try to go find one of those, but it's not all about the signage that you display.

These people have the same idea.
My wife told me about the 60 Minutes II piece on the idiocy of the anti-war protesters, and I was sorry I missed it, but thank Heaven for MRC - Brent Baker has it.

High school girl protester, amongst maybe 20 or so along the side of a major street: "Make love, not war."
Hartman: "-they have no business making either. I just think if they're going to picket-"
Same teenage girl: "Peace not war."
Hartman: "-they ought to pick up a newspaper."
Same girl, holding a blue sign from “Not in Our Name” proclaiming: “No War on Iraq, No War on the World,” She propounded: "People who never did anything are just being bombed and suffering and becoming homeless. People-"
Hartman to her: "Where?"
Girl: "Everywhere. They, didn't they bomb Iraq?"
Hartman: "No, not yet."
Girl: "They bombed Afghanistan, right?"
Hartman: "Yeah, yeah."
Girl: "They did and yeah, people are dying and it's, it's not right."
Hartman: "They kind of got the gist.”
Hartman to a teenage guy: “The leader of Iraq is?”
Hartman narration: “They're just missing a few details."
Guy: “Umm."
Hartman: "What comes to your head? Just right off the top of your head."
Guy: “Osama bin Laden."
Hartman: "Osama bin Laden?"

...Teenage girl, the same one as earlier, reading from a flyer: "OK, 'healthcare not welfare.' I mean, 'healthcare not welfare,' yeah."
Hartman: "Actually it says, 'healthcare not warfare,' but I digress.”
Hartman to the girl: “And you feel strongly about that?"
Girl: "No, but, I mean, like I do but I don't know enough about it."
Hartman then tried to suggest both sides are equally naive: "And that says it all. I see too many kids and way too many adults on both sides taking a firm stand without a leg to stand on. Apparently, it's better to pick a side than admit you watch way too much Jerry Springer. Which by the way, is a name I'm sure they do know.”

Hartman was right: "To me, giving up algebra for peace is a kind of like giving up brussel sprouts for Lent, just a little too convenient to be commendable.” These folks should have been in class and so should much of the anti-war movement.

I caught this on Instapundit - Incredible photos!

TK sent me this incredible piece on Nader's scamming of college students. A third rate salesman, selling you something by deception.
You need to be a registered Commie to read this, but check out Saffire's piece in the Crimes.

TK explains why the article is not so effective: "This is much too complicated for moronic anti-American types to comprehend.
Can't you just say 'Drop Saddam, Not Bombs' so they can understand? If it can't fit on a placard, Carl, just forget it."

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Impeach Bush? What a List of Idiots?

OK, so I did a Google to find out what Rep. Conyers was saying about his grounds for impeaching Bush, and I did a regular Google rather than a Google News and the results are way out there.

OK, so I tried the news search, and it is just as bad.

All joking aside, these people are a horrible detriment to our society. Reasonable dissent on decisions in regard to Iraq are understandable, but these people are overboard.

In addition, in a previous interview with WorldNetDaily, Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, said the following:

"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors. Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."

He added, "What I would find to be grounds of impeachment is the president lying to the American people. I believe the president has lied to the American people. I believe the vice president has lied to the American people. And if we go to war where American service members are killed, I think the president should be held accountable for this judicially."

The day after the WND report, details of a former arrest for allegedly soliciting an underage girl, although under seal, were leaked to the press. Ritter supporters called it a political hit, while detractors called it proof of his duplicitous and untrustworthy character.

Bush is going in to liberate oppressed Iraqi's, those oppressed by a man who has murdered 2 million in his quest, but Bush is accused of high crimes and misdemeanors? Bush is going in to finish a war that should have ended with Saddam's compliance with a cease fire in '91 but was not, and Bush is committing the crime? If Bush liberates Iraq and creates a more peaceful world in doing so and then gets charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, bring it on. If this is what the Dims have planned for '04, what party is going to be a serious opposition participant in the '04 election? The Dims will fare worse than they did in '02. The war may go badly, but normal Americans understand that there are some things you need to do to preserve freedom and sometimes they are hard to accomplish.

UPDATE: It's not just Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

"All civil Officers of the United States?"

Not vast, but an incredible Left-Wing Conspiracy. I cannot believe that this is what the Dims have come to.

UPDATE II How many updates do we need?

This is the man Conyers, Clark, Ritter and the rest of the impeach crew are defending (courtesy

International pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disarm or face a U.S.-led war has apparently not hindered his generosity to the families of terrorists. Twenty-six families of Palestinians killed in attacks against Israel - including the family of a Hamas suicide bomber - were awarded $10,000 each this week. According to wire reports, the money was distributed by the Arab Liberation Front - associated with Saddam's ruling Ba'ath party - at a ceremony that included a banner reading, "The Arab Ba'ath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein." The recipients were families whose relatives were associated with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. A spokesman for the ALF was quoted as saying that Saddam had given more than $35 million to West Bank and Gaza Strip families who lost relatives mostly while attacking Israelis during the past 29 months of fighting. Saddam's generosity has contributed to strong support of the Iraqi leader among Palestinians, who also were among his few supporters in the 1991 Gulf War.

How about shipping Saddam and the PLO to the South Pole? That is a peaceful solution.

The Nutty Aunt

Slate had several of Helen's wonderful quotations, "Screw you, Mr. President:"

Thomas to Fleischer: Will you state for the record, for the historical record, why [Bush] wants to bomb Iraqi people?
—March 5, 2003

Thomas to Fleischer: [W]hy is [Bush] going to bomb them? I mean, how do you bomb people back to democracy? This is a question of conquest. They didn't ask to be "liberated" by the United States. This is our self-imposed political solution for them.
—Feb. 26, 2003

Thomas: At an earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the president deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world?
Fleischer: Well, Helen—
Thomas: And I have a follow-up.
Fleischer: —I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack in Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the president, as he said in a statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.
Thomas: My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?
—Jan. 6, 2003

It's great that she has this long career, but you'd think she'd be embarrassed. The people who share her causes are embarrassed by her.

McCain's Clarity is Immense

(NY Crimes registration required.)

The main contention is that we have not exhausted all nonviolent means to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have a point, if to not exhaust means that America will not tolerate the failure of nonviolent means indefinitely. After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and British troops at his doorstep, Saddam Hussein still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Only an obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts — in this case, that a tyrant who survives only by the constant use of violence is not going to be coerced into good behavior by nonviolent means — could allow one to believe that we have rushed to war.

It's unfortunate that Saddam's marketing department is so effective.

Our armed forces will fight for peace in Iraq — a peace built on more secure foundations than are found today in the Middle East. Even more important, they will fight for the two human conditions of even greater value than peace: liberty and justice. Some of them will perish in this just cause. May God bless them and may humanity honor their sacrifice.

Liberate Iraq for the sake of peace.

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Here's a sweet letter from the KC Star:

War consequences

I wish I knew enough to fashion a hard, responsible opinion about the war we seemed destined to have. All I can manage is a terrible sense of dread and the feeling that those shoving it down our throats have not only failed to peer into the abyss, but they don't know where it is.

Warren Robinson

This from TK: "Unfortunately, though, he did know enough to fashion a soft, irresponsible opinion..."

The Estrada Deal and the Corrupted Constitution

Roger Pilon issued this policy analysis for the Cato Institute.

The battle between politics and law takes place at many points in the American system of government, but in recent years it has become especially intense over judicial nominations. That is because judges today set national policy far more than they used to—and far more than the Constitution contemplates. Because the original constitutional design has been corrupted, especially as it relates to the constraints the Constitution places on politics, we have come to ideological litmus tests for judges. The New Deal Court, following President Roosevelt's notorious Court-packing threat, politicized the Constitution, laying the foundation for several forms of judicial activism. After that it was only a matter of time until the judiciary itself had to be politicized. We are reaping the fruit of that constitutional corruption.

It really is out of hand, on both sides of the aisle, but Bush is right - Issue a permanent rule that will apply to his and future administrations, disallowing filibusters on judicial nominations.

If you like Ford, not a great season so far

Roush thinks he's pinned down solutions for last week's problems.

Team engineers for Jack Roush have discovered the reasons why four of six Roush Racing engines broke down during Sunday's Winston Cup race in Atlanta.

Engines in the Fords driven by Roush drivers Mark Martin, Kurt Busch and Jeff Burton, as well as a Roush-built engine in Ricky Rudd's Wood Brothers Taurus, blew during the 500-mile race at Atlanta Motor Speedway.

That came a week after Martin blew an engine in Las Vegas.

`...`The good news is that none of the very substantial horsepower gains that we have been making caused any of our problems,'' Roush said Wednesday. ``The bad news is that the tuning mistake was my own. Now I know how Rick Hendrick's engine guy felt after Talladega last fall,'' said Roush, referring to a day in which four Hendrick Motorsports entries and two of its engine customers experienced problems.

``I hurt pistons on the No. 6 (Martin), No. 21 (Rudd) and No. 97 (Busch) by tuning for fuel economy that just wasn't attainable for Atlanta, and the No. 99's (Burton's) problem derived from a new oil pan that resulted in oil starvation,'' Roush added.

Disasterous Sunday.

Roush said steps have already been taken to make sure there will be no similar problems in Sunday's Carolina Dodge Dealers 400 at Darlington Raceway.

Let's hope so. Even the non-Roush Fords do not seem to be doing so well this year.
Mr. Ott says that Rumsfeld was inspired by Blair's 6 conditions, Rumsfeld adds some new ones and is still going...

"Chirac Basks in Veto Glory"

I am trying to get off the war topic, but this silly piece caught me.

The left-leaning Liberation said: "A decision that will secure his place in history." The rightist Le Figaro unblushingly called him "utterly sure of himself; a white knight for peace, herald of the world's oppressed, ardent defender of a multipolar world".

I hope his place in history is not secured by our need to say "I told you so."

The assistance of the French with Saddam's stalling will end up hurting our troops by placing them into an awful environment for no good reason.

KUWAIT CITY - Fierce winds swept across desert camps near the Iraqi border Wednesday, enveloping soldiers in blinding clouds of sand and forcing some Marines to don their gas masks just to breathe.

And weatherwise, the worst is yet to come.

U.S. and British soldiers massed in desert camps at the gates of Iraq are entering the danger zone their commanders had long feared — a summer of stifling heat and choking sandstorms.

As diplomatic wrangling at the United Nations delays the start of combat, commanders are already preparing troops for full-heat desert battle.

...Although the truly scorching heat won't begin for another six weeks, temperatures here in the Persian Gulf region are already creeping toward the 90s.

That's nothing compared to the 120 degree sizzlers that can occur in July and August, but still hot enough to turn the inside of a tank or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle into an oven.

If you should understand the only solution for this situation from the beginning, but you delay and stall, and that creates a bad situation for the people coming in to clean up the mess, you will not be appreciated.
Not to be a warblogger, but TK also pointed me to this disgusting piece titled "THE PUNK ROCK EDITORIAL" by Michael Moy (not yet available online - From Epitaph).

As the rest of the world tries to move forward the USA clings to the policies of years ago that got the United States into the mess that its in right now. In the early 1980's to fight communism the CIA resurrected the idea of jihad within the Muslim world. For 400 years prior to the CIA's influence on the Muslim world, the idea of jihad (in case you don't know jihad means "to struggle") was essentially forgotten. By manipulating the Islamic faith the CIA was able to convince literally millions of Muslims to fight the "godless communists". The rest is history.

I understand - The CIA has more influence than Mohammed. Mohammed was not a terrorist, himself, right? Some things happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s that we are glossing over, right?

The Crisis in North Korea should not even exist. If President Bush hadn't made his "Axis of Evil" remark, (lets not forget he didn't clear that remark with anyone before he said it either)

He should have cleared it with you, Mr. Moy?

...the North Koreans would not be preparing for war with the USA as we speak. And lets not forget, with North Korea we are talking about NUCLEAR WAR. They have nuclear weapons and are crazy enough to use them.

So it was wrong with using "Axis of Evil" when speaking of the NorKs, but "[T]hey have nuclear weapons and are crazy enough to use them."(?)

...They may not have long range missiles yet but you can be sure they are trying to develop them. So now not only are we faced with a war on terrorism, a possible but likely war with Iraq, but also a war with North Korea. How can anyone see this situation as anything but catastrophic? And what's worse, it could have been and should have been avoided all together.

You are right Moy Boy, if the Clinton Administration had done anything about the problems...ANYTHING.
Credit TK for catching this one:

"Never again will the Democrats go into a race without defining who we are," Pelosi responded. "Never again will the Democrats have to answer to the charge, 'We didn't know what you stood for or what you were willing to fight for.' "

This is very encouraging, better results for the Pubs if the Dims define their Socialist pathway. Look for another sweep.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Quotation of the month

so far:
From Assistant Treasury Secretary Pam Olson

A quotation of a quotation:

Last week, an ABA colleague of mine, Bob McKenzie, sent me this quote.  “It is difficult to predict the future of an economy in which it takes more brains to figure out the tax on our income than it does to earn it.”  I’m not sure to whom the quote should be attributed, but it is worth remembering.

How about this:

Let me turn to another basic problem with our tax system.  It is filled with rules that contradict our values.

Many of these contradictions are familiar to you.  We tax you more if you marry.  We tax your family when you die.  I’ve helped some very wealthy families – and some not that wealthy families – as they try to sort out what happens to the assets on the death of the parent.  I’ve watched businesses shrink, life-long employees lose their jobs, and debts mount, while the family grieves not just over the loss of their loved one, but over the demise of stability as they struggle to pay the estate tax.  And the estate tax doesn’t just take the assets of the elderly.  It hits young families who have been planning for their future, but not for an untimely death.  These experiences have left me with the firm view that the occasion of someone’s death is a lousy reason for society to help itself to the property left behind.

The closing makes me want to meet this person. We do have some wonderful people working in government:

Let me close by reminding you of the three basic problems we should all be working to fix –

(1) Complexity.
(2) Inconsistency with our values.
(3) Inconsistency with our best interests as a nation.

Finally, don’t forget to look for the good in those around you.  There’s a lot more of it than the headlines would lead you to believe.

Thank you.

Read the whole thing.

Yes, We Need Economic Stimulus

...and why it won't hurt too bad to cut some taxes...


March 10, 2003
Remarks of Peter R. Fisher
Under Secretary for Domestic Finance
to RBS Greenwich Capital
Economic Lecture Seminar
Thomas J. Dodd Research Center
University of Connecticut

The President’s Jobs and Growth Plan has been criticized for not being a pure short-term stimulus. Its purpose, however, is not just to deliver a short-term boost to the economy but to raise the growth rate and boost job creation for the coming decade by enhancing confidence in our long-term prospects.

You should read the whole thing. It's nice when you have logic to refute the inane hyperbole of people like Paul Krugman.
Don't be surprised, Drudge is telling us this:

Saddam ready to kill Iraqis, blame U.S... Developing...

He knows that the French won't hold him accountable.

He is Wrong

The French president also said he was confident that the long history of friendship between the United States and France would not be harmed.


"But this is not hostility against the United States," Zumsteeg said. "It is clear from this poll that for most of the French, 76 percent, it is the personality of President George W. Bush that explains the rigidity of the American position."

I understand. If Bush doesn't act like a pansy, like Clinton, the French don't like him, despite the rationale behind his actions??

Here's a French idiot:

"President Bush's official speeches on democracy in Iraq and the stability of the Middle East ... make the French smile," Zumsteeg said. "The French think that the U.S. is going to war for oil."

If we wanted to be like the French, we'd sell weapons to the Iraqis, get rid of the sanctions, and we'd be getting plenty of oil and selling out the safety of our people.

Chirac also admitted that Baghdad's level of cooperation with arms inspectors was not yet enough.

The French president said that America's threat of force had already succeeded in moving Iraq's disarmament forward.

Chirac wants another 12 years of resolutions that are not enforced so that he can have his country keep selling Iraq weapons and so that he can keep buying Iraqi oil.
I believe I found the most pathetic anti-war, anti-American diatribe I have yet to see.

"Baghdad, Hiroshima: The Human Costs of War."

Yes, plenty of costs with Hiroshima, but net savings for the victims of the conflict, the ones who were attacked, and an end to the war. The bombing event that is planned for Baghdad would not kill nearly the number of people, especially civilians, as the Hiroshima one did, and this is plain and simple the most dramatic pack of fear-mongering I have ever seen.

These guys are bizarre. They make Sheryl Crow look like a Rhodes Scholar.

This outrageous comparitive discussion and quotation from a poem is in the middle of the essay:

The turning point of Michael Ondaatje's novel the English Patient occurs when the Sikh sapper Kip learns about Hiroshima. He had thrown himself into the Allied effort, defusing bombs for the British. But Hiroshima forces him to recognize that little yellow people do not fall within the human fold for the Trumans and Churchills of this world. For them, the coloreds don't bleed when they're cut; they don't grieve when their children die. As W.S. Merwin asks in his poem Ogres (5),

...and then I

think of the frauds in office

at this instant devising

their massacres in my name

what part of me could they have

come from were they made of my

loathing itself and dredged from

the bitter depths of my shame

What they're doing is saving your ass, and if you're the enemy, they're killing your ass before you kill them.

We should first remind ourselves of what happened in the Gulf War, when 56,000 Iraqi soldiers died, in contrast to the 79 American deaths. This hardly qualifies as a war, of course. American soldiers who took part call it a slaughter. "They were like children fleeing before us, unorganized, scared, wishing it all would end. We continued to pour it on."

(Was it 153 Americans?) Again, the war was about stopping an agressive power and if you are going to stop that agressive power, you need to do it right. You need to win.

This is too much Monday-morning-quarterbacking, but we should have finished it off all the way to Baghdad back in '91, despite the UN, so we did not have to deal with the mess now.

Around the world, people feel the pain of the people of Iraq and see the enormous suffering that war will bring. This has forced remarkable and historical numbers of people around the world into the streets to call for peace. In asking, "what part of me could they have come from?" Merwin reminds us that even those who wage war are also human, leaving open the possibility that they might also feel pain.

Aesar (10 years old) wished to send a message to American President George W. Bush, saying: "A lot of Iraqi children will die. You will see it on TV and then you will regret."

I have a lot of worries about how all of this will go, but why are people "around the world" suddenly concerned about the Iraqi citizens who are under constant house arrest when the U.S. is planning to liberate Iraq? They are not worried about the people of Iraq when Hussein is killing them off, one by one or otherwise.

These people have a sick view if they think that liberation will do more harm than Saddam's iron fist.

Not to mention their lack of logic - If we go to the source of WMD's which would destroy American cities, we will be making progress in protecting those American cities, regardless of whether Saddam would be using the weapons, selling the weapons, or losing track of the weapons.

Monday, March 10, 2003

I must admit that a few tears came to my eyes when I saw this post on Mr. Ott's satire site. It is amazing that the Sean Penns are living up to Mr. Ott's rules.

We Can't Afford the Tax Cut?

$20 billion of "pork" has been identified so far. Examples of targeted projects are $4.5 million for a riverfront project in Bowling Green, KY; $1 million for the Olympic Discovery Trail in Washington; $1 million for a public waterfront promenade in Baltimore, MD; and $300,000 for the opera house in Smyrna, DE.

We can afford a tax cut when they get rid of this crap.
Gary Bauer hits it out of the park some days. Today he hit it out of the park:

Blix's Deception

The White House and British officials are furious that Hans Blix failed to mention in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council last week damaging new information on Saddam Hussein's weapons violations. Instead, he buried in his 173-page report the news that inspectors have discovered a new Iraqi rocket configured to drop "bomblets" filled with chemical or biological agents. In addition, Blix glossed over a new Iraq drone aircraft with a 24-foot wing span capable of carrying the same types of weapons. (An Iraqi soldier who defected ten days ago has reportedly told British authorities that it is "100% certain" Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against allied forces.)

So, now it is apparent that neither Hans Blix nor Saddam Hussein are complying with U.N. resolutions! This is becoming a farce. The U.S. has 250,000 of our sons and daughters in harm's way, prepared to liberate Iraq, many of them suffering already from desert sandstorms and worsening weather. Meanwhile, a deceitful U.N. bureaucrat is playing word games, egged on by French appeasers, while Saddam Hussein gets valuable time to cook up surprises with the weapons of mass destruction he doesn't have.

Hatred of America/Bush Drive Peace Movement

It is time to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the peace demonstrators. Washington, D.C. had another round of antics in the streets this weekend, this time by a group called "Women for Peace." The group's members dressed in pink as a statement against the color-coded alert system developed by the Department of Homeland Security. One commentator confronted a demonstrator and asked her if she knew how many people Saddam Hussein had killed during his tyrannical reign. The woman replied, "Not as many as Bush." Another woman chimed in, "America is the true terrorist nation."

Get the picture? These people aren't motivated by a desire for peace. They see America as an evil force that they want to bring down. Those demonstrators who join the marches legitimately opposing the conflict have to answer for those with whom they are making common cause.

Finally, look for the demonstrations to turn ugly as soon as President Bush authorizes military action. From Paris to London, San Francisco to Washington, D.C., protest leaders made it clear over the weekend they will resort to disruption, civil disobedience, etc., thereby straining already over-stretched law enforcement personnel at a time when our country is at risk.

Missing Persons

Tony Snow, host of Fox News Sunday, pointed out a strange phenomenon in recent days. Leading congressional liberals - Senate Minority Leader Daschle, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc. - are all ratcheting up their rhetoric against the President on Iraq, but at the same time turning down invitations to appear on Sunday talk shows where they will be required to defend their views. A cynic might conclude these liberal "leaders" are positioning themselves to be able to say, "I told you so" if things go badly, but don't want to be so visible that they have egg on their faces if things go well.

Get the picture?

Diane Sawyer wants to Live in Saddam Land

MRC will get you fired up:

Sawyer: "Well Dan, it's very hard to look at those and think of his meetings as a laugh riot exactly over in Baghdad, but I read this morning that he's also said the love that the Iraqis have for him is so much greater than anything Americans feel for their President because he's been loved for 35 years, he says, the whole 35 years."
Harris: "He is one to point out quite frequently that he is part of a historical trend in this country of restoring Iraq to its greatness, its historical greatness. He points out frequently that he was elected with a hundred percent margin recently."
Sawyer: "Alright, our thanks to Dan Harris for monitoring Saddam, the TV Saddam."

Could they be any more sycophantic?

Diane is trying to make sure that no one loves the president of her free country.

Who Ripped Up the Book on American Foreign Policy?

Andrew Sullivan has a wonderful compare and contrast piece, "Spot The Difference - Bush and Clinton on Iraq." The key point is that Bush and Clinton do not differ so dramatically on foreign policy. The difference is that Bush takes action, admittedly partially because of 9/11.

The truth is: Bush's diplomatic headaches have much less to do with his own poor diplomatic skills than with the simple fact that he is trying ambitious things. Rather than simply forestall crises, postpone them, avoid them or fob them off onto others, Bush is actually doing the hard thing. He's calling for real democracy in the Middle East. He's aiming to make the long-standing U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq a reality. He actually wants to defeat Islamist terrorism, rather than make excuses for tolerating its cancerous growth. And when this amount of power is fueled by this amount of conviction, of course the world is aroused and upset.

What the world, after all, is afraid of is not the deposing of the monster, Saddam. What the world is afraid of is American hyper-power wielded by a man of very American faith and conviction and honesty. Bush's manner grates. His style - like Reagan's - offends. But, like Reagan, he is not an anomaly in American foreign policy - merely a vivid and determined representative of a deep and idealistic strain within it. And history shows that the world has far more to gain from the deployment of that power than by its withdrawal. If the poor people of Iraq know that lesson, what's stopping the Europeans?

The big difference between the two?

Clinton was a master of the European dialogue. He meant very few things he said but he said them very well. He was a great schmoozer.

I heard Jessica Lange tonight on Aaron Brown's show, and she said that the thing she hated most was that Bush was leading based on moral values and she despised that. Moral value leadership is anti-Hollywood, anti-relativism, but CNN and Mr. Brown liked it a lot.

I don't think that Bush is thinking a whole bunch about moral values or relativism or Hollywood - I really think that he is proactively defending our country. I'm not bashing on Clinton right now, but if he had been a bit more proactive, we might be better off now.

After saying that, I see that there are a lot of other people who are leading based on moral relativism, and that seems to be the winning trend - The French et al.


Economist, March 8: Though the cover illustration suggests that Bush may have bit off more than he can chew, the story inside defends the administration, arguing that America—"the indispensable superpower"—has had no choice, since "the Clinton administration neglected too many unresolved problems" in the Cold-War-cleanup '90s. …

Sunday, March 09, 2003

I've been working on our taxes - It looks awful. I guess it could have been worse if Gore had been running the show, in more ways than one.

I did not have the time and patience to talk about Carter's piece. This should not be done in the public forum in my opinion. I think dissent is fine and there is plenty of it out there, but ex-presidents have a different obligation as to expected behaviors. Not only does this rally Saddam, it interferes with Powells UN efforts.

I was pointed to a nice fisking of the Carter editorial at OxBlog.
I heard about this one on Fox News Sunday. The war protestors protest before there's a war, the Iraqi soldiers also surrender before the war. The British sent the poor guys back.
Bobby Labonte won today in Atlanta. He had to give the Dupont man a little shove, but that did not bother me a bit.
I saw Howard Dean on the tube this AM. It is very scary to imagine him being responsible at all for our national security.

MR. RUSSERT: OK. Let me go back to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Iraq has admitted that it produced 3,859 tons of chemical weapons in the 1980s, including mustard gas and lethal nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and VX. When Iraq expelled the inspectors in 1998, it allegedly retained 6,000 chemical bombs, as well as 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and some amount of VX.”
That is devastating evidence. With that kind of arsenal, why would you want Saddam Hussein to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction?
MR. DEAN: I don’t want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed. We’re talking about whether the United Nations goes it alone or essentially alone or whether—excuse me, whether the United States goes it alone or essentially alone or whether the United Nations does its duty and disarms Saddam. I would prefer to work through the United Nations.
MR. RUSSERT: But if the United Nations says no and you have said that he has biological and chemical weapons, what would you do? You’d do nothing?
MR. DEAN: See, here’s what I—no. Here’s what I think is going on. The United Nations is looking at a significant amount of progress. Every day that goes by, we destroy more of Saddam’s weapons or the inspectors do. My attitude is this has been going on for 12 years. The former Soviet Union were not run by nice people either. They did certainly frightful things to their own folks. We contained them essentially for 50 years, and they were a far more powerful nation than Iraq.

They should have called today's show, "Erase the Nation."