Tuesday, November 29, 2005


Turnabout's fair play. One of the worst ephitaphs that can be bestowed upon you these days is to be an "Islamophobe".

I wonder what reaction you'd elicit if you started bandying "Christophobe" around.

Great article in the okipunk blog on it. Here's a quote from it. Go read it. It raises some very good points.
"There is a vast gulf of difference between showing our heritage as a Christian nation and demanding that everyone participate in a theoretical 'Church of the Americas'. "

I've been on that kick for a while now. This country was founded by Christians on Christian values. We go out of our way to be inclusive (because of those values), but that doesn't mean we should deny this country's heritage.

As I've said before. The logical end of the kind of multiculturalism being pushed by these groups is "no culturalism" -- that is, nothing cohesive to tie us together. Divided we fall. Think about it.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Zarqawi: "But we didn't MEAN to"

A recording supposedly from Zarqawi on a jihad website says:

[they] meant to target a meeting of US and Israeli intelligence officials.

He said the deaths of wedding party guests in one of the hotels was due to a roof collapsing.

"We ask God to have mercy on the Muslims, who we did not intend to target, even if they were in hotels which are centres of immorality"

Saijida al-Rishawi, the would-be bomber who couldn't get her bomb to go off, and wife of another one of the bombers says:

"We took a car, and we went on November 9 to a hotel. There was a wedding ceremony in the hotel. There were women, men and children. My husband took a corner and I took another one. My husband detonated his bomb, and I tried to detonate mine but failed."

Hmmmm... well, I can see if you walk into a hotel and note a wedding ceremony with men, women, and children, and walk to a corner and detonate your ball-bearing-laden suicide bomb, you might not expect to call those people "targets". After all, you didn't actaully aim specifically at any of them. Well, I suppose that's understandable then.

It appears that he is also saying that even though he is sorry about the mistake and he hopes that Allah will have mercy on them, it served them right for holding their wedding at a center of immorality.

"Sorry we killed you. We didn't mean to. But you deserved it anyway."

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Tired Rhetoric

Let's see, Cheney and others are calling certain Democrats out on their constant, tired drumbeat of "Bush Lied", "Illegal, Immoral", "No WMD", "Manipulated Intelligence" (a variation on "Bush Lied") and saying "wait a minute -- we didn't make this shit up. You all believed it after seeing the same intelligence we did." Clinton & Albright were talking about regime change long before we took over the cubicles.

And Kerry retorts in his usual fact-bereft manner that it was hard to name a Bush official with "less credibility on Iraq".

"Secret-Session" Reid calls it "tired rhetoric" and says "Political attacks do nothing to get the job done in Iraq."

Can I get an "I KNOW" from the peanut gallery? Just what, exactly, have the Democrats been doing since the start of the last election season if not making political attacks? Republicans are simply responding to the "tired rhetoric" the Dems keep spewing. If their responses sound tired, it just might be because the charges they are responding to are tired.

Want some rhetoric? How about these gems:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during he interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3385

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and others Oct. 9, 1998


"The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal…One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country "
Vice-President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

(and then he condtradicts himself in the same speech...)

Military action to dislodge Saddam Hussein will "severely damage" the overall war on terrorism and "weaken" U.S. leadership in the world.
Vice-President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone...And if entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waver."

Vice-President Al Gore, May 23, 2000


"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."-EX-President William Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"If you remember in 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded another country, he plagued it, he set fire to it, and he decided that he could control the region. Before that, he had gassed his own people. Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."- Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

SOURCE: http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/99nov22/vp2.html

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. If we fail to respond, Saddam and all those who follow will believe that they can threaten the security of a vital region with impunity. But if we act now as one, we will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what it takes to protect our security and our freedom."- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?" - Sen. Tom Daschle (D, ND), Feb. 11, 1998

SOURCE: http://www.timeswrsw.com/V030803.HTM

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."- Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

SOURCE: http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.hnn.us/comments/13437.html

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

SOURCE: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

SOURCE: http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

SOURCE: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Ok, then. In the face of all this, the drumbeat repetitions of many of these same people -- "Bush Lied", "Irresponsible", "Illegal, immoral", "Manipulated intelligence", refutation of these tired charges using the words of people who are making them is not tired .... it reveals the character of those who made them.

If you look, you'll find that many of these same people claim that Bush "ignored" much less substantial and much, much more sparse and shaky intelligence and actually blame him for not preventing 9/11. "He knew about it and did nothing." -- Well, apparently everybody "knew" about Saddam and his WMD and after 9/11, Bush decided it was too costly to do nothing.

The ONLY reason we now think Saddam probably didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion is that -- well, we had an invasion. Otherwise the same questions would beleager us today. Saddam wanted them. He wanted the world to guess whether or not, or how much or many he had.

Saddam decieved. The World believed. And he has been relieved ... of his post.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Plan for ending the Iraq War

Again from today's Washington Times

The Senate is expected to vote today to demand that the Bush administration "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

Um, ok .... constitution approved and ratified, new government fully elected and in place, Iraqi Security Forces up to the task at hand.



From the Washington Times

Liberals said yesterday that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s 1985 claim that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" proves that he would try to outlaw the practice"
Really... to me it just shows that 1) Alito has actually read the Constitution, and 2) Liberals have no idea what "proof" means.

I already knew 2) and I find 1) a re-assuring quality in a Supreme Court Justice.

The Constitution talks about Liberty and Freedom, but it also talks about Life and the Persuit of Happiness. I'm pretty darned sure it doesn't mention "reproduction" anywhere in there. But Liberals quake in their boots at the thought of an open, rational discussion that includes the idea that perhaps someone's rights are being violated at some point with on-demand abortion throughout 9 months of pregnancy. In their marketplace of ideas, some are not even welcomed.

In Alito's "troubling" memo, the "troubling" part apparently says this:

"I personally believe very strongly" that no right to an abortion can be found in the Constitution."

Ed "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, no stranger to deaths of convenience, says that this statement is extreme.

[the] "extreme statements ... are deeply troubling."
Open intellectual discourse cannot take place when stating a simple fact is dismissed as "extreme" because one happens to wish to ignore it. I challenge anyone to show me anything in the constitution that mentions reproduction. Can't find anything? Then tell me why the statement is extreme.

On top of that, the party of nuance takes no note of the fact that the statement starts out "I personally believe...", and I doubt that he ever said that all abortions, everywhere, any time, are unconstitutional and should be illegal. Which is pretty much what the Left wants you to believe about him.

This is because even if abortion laws were changed to say that only abortions threatening the life of the mother can occur after the 37th week, it would be considered heresy to the religion of the Left.

Nope, don't club a baby seal or transport chickens in little cages on a truck, but it's perfectly ok to pull a fully formed baby's head out of the womb and stick a needle in it and suck it's brains out. Don't you dare question that. Blaspheme! Blaspheme!

I want a judge who knows, understands, and reveres the Constitution. That is the job of the Supreme Court. Alito seems to be that kind of judge. Personally, I believe even if Roe-Wade were overturned, what replaced it would be something a very long way from outlawing abortions. Ain't gonna happen.

Friday, November 11, 2005

This is a good sign

Jordanians Revile Zarqawi

Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities, shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab Zarqawi" a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 persons.

This apparently left Zarqawi fumbling to explain to Muslims why it was proper for him to Arab Muslims in fighting "the infidels". This is excactly the kind of stuff Zawahiri was concerned about in his letter to Zarqawi (which Zarqawi denies was authentic... but methinks it likely was). Not that I have any respect for Zawahiri -- but I guess everything, and I do mean everything... is relative.

Astute Observation on France's Current War (as opposed to the one 60 years ago)

From my favorite Canadian blogger, Girl on the Right.

The Jihadis are waging a holy war against France, because it is an easy target, and because there are enough of them to make it very violent and very successful.I don't know what will become of Paris's treasures once this ugliness calms. I do not know if the churches and museums will remain.

What I do know is that when the Germans invaded France in WWII, Hitler was adamant about leaving Paris intact. He was a student of art, and was unwilling to see Europe's jewel destroyed. I doubt the Jihadis have the same view of art and culture. And I, for one, am saddened by the thought that one of the most evil men ever to walk the face of this earth had more class than our current enemies.

Community Tradition

Read this on an open thread on LGF.... very good point:

[a few complainers] run to the ACLU and BOOM, years of community tradition is gone at the threat of a multi-million dollar law suit. White, Black, purple it doesn't matter, if the majority of the community wants a certain display or words spoken in school then it should be. That's the way things are supposed to work.

This, of course, ties in to the whole Multi-Cultural thing. "Multi" applies only to non-white, non-Judao Christian culture.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Clarification on Activism

From the Washington Post:

It is activist to import something into the Constitution that is not written there, based on one’s own policy preferences. It is not activist to apply and enforce the Constitution as it is written. That, on the contrary, is the duty of every state and federal judge.
-- John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff





TOULOUSE, France, Nov. 8 — On the broad concrete slab that is the main plaza in Reynerie, a neighborhood of Arab and black African heritage in this high-tech city, teenage boys with fibrous muscles debated housewives Tuesday afternoon about the riots that have swept the neighborhood and much of France.

“You’re scaring the children,” said one stocky woman, pushing her wide-eyed 3-year-old girl out front as an exhibit. “We also have to live here, and we can’t go on like this.”

“I am not a terrorist, I’m a victim,” responded one of the young men.

Alrighty then. Here is where multiculturalism and a enshrined "victimhood" leads us. I'm a victim, so it's ok that I kill, steal, & destroy. If only you understood my culture. It is my right. And basically, the Press and most of the Left blithely agree if you read their stories and comments. There is this avoidance of a moral judgement that there are just certain things you don't do, regardless of your circumstances. Because morality is ultimately a property of culture.

What multi-culturalism as adopted by the West (and to my knowledge nobody else has adopted it) really amounts to is "everybody's-but-ours" culturalism, which, in the end, amounts to "No-Culturalism".

The Multi-Cultural purist might look at this and think "Hey, but that's perfect. No culture held above another. If that means no common denominator, is that such a bad thing?"

Well, my position is "Yes."

Is one culture necessarily "better" than another? No. Are some cultures better than others? You bet. But most multi-culturalists would be loath to admit it and in fact would avoid an open discussion debating the merits and demerits of cultures that wouldn't make the cut as "acceptable". They, of course, would dismiss an invitation to such a discussion as "culture-phobic" (while openly deriding our own culture -- talk about hypocrisy) or some other equally dismissive but intellectual-sounding label. But, just as an example, does anyone truly think that a culture that incorporates, for instance, canabalism -- is on par with any major Western, Eastern, or Middle-Eastern eastern culture we have today?

But back to the main point, every culture that we value for its richness developed as a glue that held a people together and gave them a group identity. This group identity typically consists of a shared language and shared rituals that bond neighbor to neighbor, promoting an atmosphere where people value each other as something other than potential economic resources.

The logical end of multi-culturalism is, as I've postited, "No-Culturalism", where people share very little if anything in the way of common rituals, perspectives, and values. It doesn't take a Social "Rocket" Scientist to see that this will lead to a divisive society, in as much as someone could still call "it" a "society", where people do not communicate on a social level and have very little in common. In the end, it could very easily lead to Civil War.

Take a look at what is going on in France for a second. France has minority communities, but it doesn't officially recognize that it has them, because institutionally the very language would be "divisive". And in their multi-cultural zeal, they have a large and rapidly growing population that really don't consider themselves "French". Couple that with the fact that the population of actual French people, and by this I mean the culture the world recognizes as "French" will be outstripped by this foriegn population within a couple of generations, and you have the death of French Culture. What's so multi-cultural about that?

Do we really think a culture born of thuggery and lawlessness is going to turn into a shining example of cultural tolerance? Western civilization developed over many painful centuries where we made mistakes and learned from them. Multi-Culturalism is an idea born of Western Culture. It is not a value shared by Eastern or Middle-Eastern cultures (except as a tool to use against the West in its constant introspective self-doubt -- in that Al Queda is right. It is a weakness.) For those who consider Multi-Culturalism progressive, I ask you -- where will it be once the most assertive culture is Muslim-based culture? (With the Western Intellectual elite loathing Western Culture itself, it should be an easy takeover.)

We are therefore talking about a step BACKWARD even by Multi-Culturalist standards.

I love different cultures, but I love mine as well. The fact that many cultures are equal does not mean we should get rid of our own. I happen to love Christmas and Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July. And I'm happy to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with people who love it as well. I love ethnic food and music. But lets get real. What will American culture be once we decide that having one official language is racist, that celebrating Christmas is something to be done behind closed doors? Where will we be when celebrating Independence Day is off limits as well because it might offend native Americans (pre-America) and perhaps the British (after all, it was a military victory over them that won us our independence).

Right now, Multi-Culturalism says "Everbody else is cool. We suck."

And we'll "suck" ourselves right into our grave.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

More on French Rioting

Interesting article in the New York Sun...

...the fact remains that only ethnic youths are rioting, that most of them explicitly pledge allegiance to Islam and such Muslim heroes as Osama bin Laden, that the Islamic motto - Allahu Akbar - is usually their war cry, and that they submit only to archconservative or radical imams. The fact also remains, according to many witnesses, that the rioters torch only "white" cars, meaning white owned cars, and spare "Islamic" or "black" ones. One way to discriminate between them is to look for ethnic signs like a sticker with Koranic verses or a picture of the Kaaba in Mekka or a stylized map of Africa. Further evidence of the animating influence in the riots lies with the French rap music to which the perpetrators listen. Such music obsessively describes White France as a sexual prey.

But it's all about poverty and unemployment. Don't forget.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Two takes on French Rioting....

From BBC's John Simpson
No matter that events have thoroughly borne out his criticisms of the US and British invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Muslim teenagers who briefly applauded him then have long since forgotten all that - though of course if he had supported President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair then, he would be in even greater trouble now.

From Chicago Sun Times columnist Mark Steyn:
The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.

For the most part it appears the press is still going out of its way to NOT mention that the "youth" are largely Muslims and are likely being directed and encouraged (and perhaps soon to be aided) by local and foriegn Muslim leadership. Oddly, even Simpson mentions it, but of course downplays it -- saying only that it's a good thing Chirac opposed the toppling of Saddam Hussein, (and how "right" he was about it) or it would've been worse!

If you read the Al Queda manifestos, it's pretty darned clear which view is the correct one.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

A History of Selective Misquoting in the Times

I've been too busy to write long posts lately -- but when I want to steer people that visit here to things, I'll drop a blurb.

Good example of media bias "for the cause". Because most journalists don't become journalists to report the facts. They become journalists to make a difference.

Got the link from Michelle Malkin's blog and followed it:
Lying Times
Michelle's post is good as usual and provides a bit more on the story.
Special (Democrat, mind you) Patrick Fitzgerald on the "Plamegate" indictment.

"This indictment is not about the war... This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are -- have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel"

Got that, Dems?

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The lies that led us to War, or the lies that led us to Anti-War?

Very, very interesting stuff in the L.A. Times.....

Remember how CIA covert agent domestic employee Valerie Plame's husband Joe Wilson's trip to Niger "proved" that Saddam Hussein was not trying to buy uranium?

Well, it turns out that our little left-wing investigator twisted his own findings when he wrote that op ed piece in the famously left-wing New York Times. According tothe Senate Intelligence comittee, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation.

Ok, then, he didn't show a smoking gun, but nothing he found disproved the intelligence that said Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Niger, as Wilson basically claimed it did. It even found some supporting evidence for the uranium claim.

Bush lied? I think perhaps it was Mr. Wilson that was stretching the truth in order to further his anti-war agenda.

Go read the whole thing. It's pretty interesting. And there are several other interesting details I left out.

The left is reaching, more and more. Hopefully it really is imploding.

Can you FEEL the hypocricy?

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.


So it's ok to be "racist" if you don't like a person's politics? Well, doesn't THAT open up the door!?

The Left's ideological bankruptcy gets more and more obvious. Dudes -- this is ONE big reason why you aren't winning elections.