Saturday, February 07, 2004

George Tenet's Speech on WMD Intelligence 

There is so much that is false being said about this speech that I really think you should read it for yourself. Then you'll know for yourself that, despite all you read and hear out of the major media outlets, this was a speech which supported the statements and actions of the Bush Administration. You won't have to rely on what someone else says.

Remarks as prepared for delivery by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet at Georgetown University February 5, 2004
They [the U.S. intelligence community] never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it.

Bush said, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." Let me parse this for you. Bush said the threat is NOT IMMINENT, if we wait for it to BECOME IMMINENT it will be too late so we need to act now, BEFORE it becomes imminent.

How do these two speeches contradict each other? They don't, that's how.

But don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. And while you're at it re-read my earlier post on Bush's State of the Union Speech. It has a link to the whole thing, also, and it's part two of this puzzle made of completely abused statements.

But don't take my word for it. Read it yourself.

Via Winds of Change: Here are some interesting notes (fairly detailed) from a blogger who was there in the audience for Tenet's speech.

Sean #

Friday, February 06, 2004

Send the Gipper a Birthday Message. 

Ronald Reagan is 93 Years old today. Take the time to send him a birthday message.
Sean #

President Bush to be on Meet The Press. 

This Sunday President Bush will be on Meet The Press for the entire hour. Check here for show times in your area.
MSNBC - Meet the Press Front Page
This will be the George W. Bush's first Sunday morning show appearance as president. He has appeared on Meet the Press twice as a presidential candidate (November 21, 1999 and February 13, 2000). The exclusive interview will originate from the Oval Office at the White House and will be recorded live to tape on Saturday.

Every President since John F. Kennedy has appeared on the program during their political career. President Bush will become the fourth President to appear while in office.

This is a must-watch.

Sean #

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Why is Kerry Attacking Bush's Military Record? 

How does John Kerry dare to bring up such a subject as George Bush's military record. Kerry seems so vulnerable on this subject. Yes, he served admirably in Vietnam but what about the abuse he heaped upon his fellow soldiers after he came home, accusing them of widespread atrocities. What about his record in congress of voting against countless defense and intelligence bills? Belive it or not, there is actually method to his madness.

The American electorate is divided almost equally between the Republican and Democratic parties (look how close the last presidential election was). Each party claims about twenty-five percent of the population. The remaining fifty percent is either undecided or, to a lesser extent, dedicated to non-viable parties like the Libertarians and Greens (these numbers aren't precise, but they are close enough for illustration). The result of this split is that this election is not going to be decided by either party, it's going to be decided by the undecideds.

Kerry's goal is, must be, to woo the undecided. He can count on his own base, he needs some of Bush's base. The undecideds are leaning toward the Right since 9/11, mainly on national security issues and George is a in a strong position on this issue after proving to be a strong wartime leader. Kerry is vulnerable on this issue. Wouldn't you think?

Kerry is not vulnerable here. His base does not care one bit that he accused his fellow soldiers, the men he called his, "band of brothers," of unspeakable crimes on a wholesale level. They think that's a good thing. They would not care if he had gone A.W.O.L. for his whole tour of duty. It's Bush's base (and the Right-leaning undecideds) who care about a good military record and a good national security record.

Kerry (and Terry McAuliffe) can attack Bush's record with innuendo and flagrant lies, without worrying about direct blow back from the Democratic base. The only result will be a Republican base that's ticked off by the Dem's gall, and right-leaning undecideds who are less sure about Bush.

These are classic Clinton/McAuliffe tactics.

Sean #

God Bless Zell Miller 

Speaking about Washington politics with Dennis Miller on CNBC, senator Zell Miller, Democrat, Georgia said, with an eloquent drawl, "Around here it's all about whose team you're on. I think it's much more important who's side you're on."

Sean #

Monday, February 02, 2004

Things That Make You Go, Hmmm. 

I'd like to point out that during the Florida presidential election debacle my wife picked John Edwards out of the back of a shot on television as being the next Democratic presidential candidate. He wasn't even the main person in the shot, just a guy on the platform in the background. She asked who he was and I said, "I don't know, why?" She said, "He's going to be the next Democrat candidate for president." I looked at her seriously for a second because she had done pretty much the same thing with Clinton. "Time will tell," said I. She said something about his bone structure.

A couple of days ago she called me at work and asked if I remembered that day. I said, "Yes, you bet I do, I've been thinking about it." She said, "Thank you," and hung up, satisfied.

Sean #

Sunday, February 01, 2004

Global... What Exactly? 

When I was in high school in the seventies there were three big scares that environmentalists were trying to get young minds to fear. Each one of them had a capitalized name. The Population Explosion, Nuclear Winter, and The Next Ice Age (which could be, just to make it double-scary, hastened by Nuclear Winter).

Now the same groups are focused on Global warming. Using questionable science (not necessarily wrong, but definitely questionable) and bad analogies such as "greenhouse gases" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) they have spent the last decade building up a case for an ever-increasing temperature on Earth ending with, presumably, the grilling of humanity.

Lately there is a new wrinkle in the works for the global warming Chicken Littles. Not only is Global Warming going to cook the Earth, apparently Global Warming is also going to cause the Next Ice Age.
...How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age
If enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset...

Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north.

But wait! Not all parties have been heard from yet. In addition to causing the Next Ice Age, Global Warming is also going to prevent it.
Rising Sea Level and the Next Ice Age
Sea level is the highest it has been in 250,000 years, and a warming climate may be stalling Earth's natural cycle of hot and cold periods.

When Will the Next Ice Age Begin?
The next ice age almost certainly will reach its peak in about 80,000 years, but debate persists about how soon it will begin, with the latest theory being that the human influence on the atmosphere may substantially delay the transition

So there you have it. Absolutely irrefutable proof of... something irrefutable.

Amy Ridenour has some good ideas for dealing with these purveyors of confusion who are planning to sue energy companies because of "Global Warming."
* "Global warming," in colloquial usage, refers a theory predicting certain things about the future. The future has not occurred. Imagine the court testimony: "Your Honor, in the future, we expect to be injured... but we want the money now."

* Energy companies sell nothing without customers, so if it genuinely cares about the environment more than deep-pockets plaintiffs, Friends of the Earth should sue these customers, who often actually (gasp!) are the ones who burn the oil. (Of course, it would have to sue itself, and Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, and Al Gore, but the environmentalist war on capitalism is serious business, and some collateral damage is inevitable.)

* Friends if the Earth thanks a European outfit called the "Minor Foundation for Major Challenges" for paying for their work on this. That's a new wrinkle on the global warming debate, which previously had been funded by major foundations chasing a minor challenge.

* As a defensive legal strategy, energy companies should stop selling to anyone planning to sue them. After a week or two, prospective plaintiffs will recall that energy has its uses, and want to use some more. (It should take less than a week in regions affected by the current uncommonly cold "global warming" weather, or, during summer, when it is over 78 Fahrenheit in France.)

* Friends of the Earth's director boasts their "global warming report should send shivers through the boardrooms." Anyone using the term "shivers" in connection with "warming" is not to be feared.

* Evidence of shivering in a boardroom may be used in court as evidence against global warming.

* Friends of the Earth says it singles out ExxonMobil because it "has repeatedly attempted to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and actively resisted attempts to limit carbon dioxide emissions through law." In other words, it has disagreed with Friends of the Earth on scientific and legislative issues. Mediating such disagreements is not the purpose of courts.

Note to self: Plan the mother of all lawsuits -- one against environmentalists.

First up in the docket: The next-of-kin of millions of Third Worlders, very many of them children, who have died needlessly from malaria because environmentalists won't admit they are wrong about DDT.

Second up: The half million kids who go blind in the Third World due to a Vitamin A deficiency that could have been addressed with agricultural biotechnology -- technology opposed by wealthy First World environmentalists.

Third up: The next-of-kin of the 2,000 extra people killed in the U.S. every year since 1975 (National Academies of Science 2002 estimate) because environmentalist-supported fuel economy standards reduced the safety of passenger vehicles.

Fourth up: Any American who lost someone or something in forest fire because the environmentalist belief that land should be left untouched by humanity stopped forest thinning projects and other sane fire control measures. (Governor Schwarzenegger, call your office.)

I could go on. Anyone know a good lawyer? Humanitarians should apply.

Global Warming either exists or does not exist but it it not Tinkerbell. Beliving REALLY HARD will not make it so. And beliving is all we have to go on at this point because all of the facts are obviously not in.

Sean #