Everything I Know Is Wrong - Backup Site.

I've moved to a new site!

2004-02-21T14:58:00.000-06:00

I've moved to a site with my own domain name. http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com. I'll keep this site for a while so that the posts you linked to will still work. I'll try to e-mail all of the sites on my blogrolls and let them know about the change. If you have blogrolled me please change your links when you get a chance. I have moved all of my blogrolls and links to the new site.

I'm going to stop posting at this site for the most part. All of the posts have been transferred to the new site. Please visit soon and let me know what you think.

This blogspot service at bolgger.com has been very good to me. It's a great way to get started with a free blog. Try it out.

Fess Up.

2004-02-20T16:55:00.000-06:00

I keep hearing Democrats flinging unsubstantiated charges that George Bush was A.W.O.L thirty years ago. They seem to be saying by this that our armed forces would never follow such a man in a serious military action like, for example, overthrowing an evil regime and freeing an entire population in Afghanistan. They are definitely saying the armed forces would never follow Bush in something so daunting and complex as removing a militarily powerful dictator like Saddam Hussein and his supremely corrupt regime and then, under his leadership, act as an exemplary police force while rebuilding the country of Iraq.

I keep hearing about "A.W.O.L George" but I don't hear anything from the Democrats about how they would prosecute the war on terror. Would there be a war on terror? What things would they do differently? What things would they do the same? Is there anything about the war on terror that they think has gone well? What kinds of things would they have to go to the U.N. about. Would they be able to stand up and make the decision to proceed without the U.N.'s approval if the time came. Are there any circumstances which would tell them that the time had come? What are they? If they tell North Korea that they must give up their nuclear weapons or they will face dire consequences, will they believe them? Why?

I keep hearing about how George, the "smirk monkey," is too stupid to manage anything as complicated as American foreign policy. Certainly no regime as entrenched in self-serving corruption as deeply as Libya would give up their weapons of mass destruction because of his steadfast forign policy. Bush would definitely not be able to build one of the largest collations in history to attack a Middle Eastern nation. He is definitely too stupid to turn the economy around after the Clinton/Gore recession. Isn't it cute that he thinks fair and even tax cuts, across the board for all taxpayers, and targeted tax incentives for business could spur the economy?

I keep hearing about dumb George and his dumb ideas but I don't hear anything from the Democrats about how they would spur the economy. I don't hear them telling us how they would have talked Libya out of their weapons without the real and credible threat of consequences. I hear them saying that stupid George's stupid tax cuts were BAD and MUST BE REPEALED, but I don't really think even they believe that.

What I want to know is what do they believe? What will they do? I'm tired of hearing the same old junk they've been pushing since Al Gore's campaign. I don't think anyone outside of the Democratic faithful really buys it anyway. It's time to for them to stop peddling lies and fess up. It's time for them to tell us what they're going to do.

Wictory Wednesday

2004-02-18T10:38:00.000-06:00

Everyone realizes how important this election cycle is for our nation's security and prosperity. We also realize that there are really only two viable parties in the race. No matter who you are, or what you believe in, neither of the parties candidates will be a perfect match for you. This does not give you leave to sit this one out. You must vote for the candidate that will steer the country in the direction that is most like (not exactly like, for that is unlikely ever to happen) the direction that you would choose.

For me that choice is an easy one. Though George Bush is not as frugal with my money as I would have in an ideal world, I have seen, very concretely, the good that his tax policies have done for the business where I work. This has translated into better working conditions for me, and new jobs being created here after the Clinton-Gore recession was broken. Mr. Bush's prosecution of the war on terror is all I could hope it would be. Though it is in fact a war, and war is hell, it has been executed with concern for bystanders and with an eye on creating stable allies in the Middle East in the future, not enemies.

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign. E-mail Polipundit so that he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs.

Come On... What Do You Really Think?

2004-02-17T21:21:00.000-06:00

Debbiej at democrats give conservatives indigestion tells it like it is. Her straight-forward approach is really refreshing after all the beating around the bush.

Would you like some surrender-monkey cheese with that whine?
I'm fed up with all the jello-spined, snotty, power hungry, more taxes, less freedom, less military, less security, anti-Democracy, Pro-communist, Pro-Affirmative Action, Anti-Get off your ass and live your own life, Pro-Welfare, Anti-Get off your ass and get a job, French/German/UN ass kissing, terrorist ass kissing, "Let's drag this country into the sewer", "9/11 needs to be forgotten", "Bush lied", "Bush is Hitler", "Bush is evil", bottom feeding, scum sucking, FREAKING LIBERAL MORONS!!!!!!!!

Face it folks. The Left is out to send this country into the depths of hell if we do not do something. For all you "conservatives" who have been whining about Bush acting too much like a democrat, you know, the ones that are spewing the "I'm not going to vote mantra".

She also has this ... encouragement... for fence-sitters:

Just because you don't agree with the President on all the issues does not mean you should just toss this election in the trashcan.

If AlGore had been in the White House on 9/11 can you possibly conceive what condition this country would be in now??? No security. The UN would be running this country and the military. Your taxes would have been raised. Our financial markets would not have been able to recover and the Clinton RECESSION that was already there would now be a DEPRESSION. Our Military would have already been depleted and cut back so far they wouldn't be able to guard a dog house much less our freedom. There would be NO Homeland Security. The French and the Germans would be the ones we ran to for advice. "Let's play Kissy Kissy Nice Nice with all the Terrorists because we are such an evil country and we made them hate us, so we have to be nice to them and let them bomb us until they feel better."

Debiej has more to say, read the whole thing (there is some strong language).

What does John Kerry really believe in?

2004-02-17T15:55:00.000-06:00

BitsBlog posts analysis of this article on FrontPageMagazine.com. The article details some of Theresa Heinz Kerry's charitable contributions as a window into what issues are really near and dear to the Kerry's hearts.

The Tides Foundation is a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the Left. Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a host of causes; the donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, for a nominal fee. Drummond Pike told The Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.” That becomes understandable when one views the list of Tides grant recipients. And who are the beneficiaries of this money?

Here is the tip of the iceberg:

Tides established the Iraq Peace Fund and the Peace Strategies Fund to fund the antiwar movement. These projects fueled such hysterical protest organizations as MoveOn.org, the website that recently featured two separate commercials portraying George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler. [emphasis mine]

According to FrontPage:

Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a “charity” established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left.

Read the article (and check out BitsBlog's analysis) to find out just how many organizations you love to hate are bankrolled by Heinz Kerry. You'll be amazed at just how many there are.

Oh Captain, My Captain.

2004-02-16T20:33:00.000-06:00

Captain's Quarters has a great new design and a powerful new hosting site. As a sailor and fan of Patrick O'Brian's series about Jack Aubrey and the English navy I've got to say I LOVE Captain Ed's new look! Now Captain's Quarters is not only one of the best all around blogs in the 'sphere, he's got pictures of sailing ships, too.

As if he doesn't have enough traffic already, I think he might be ramping up for an expected increase in his readership due to his new radio show. Looking good so far.

Don't forget to change your links and check out his new site.

By Definition Scandals Apply Only to the Right.

2004-02-13T12:46:00.000-06:00

I feel like this Kerry/affair thing has taken the wind right out of my sails. I'm am reminded so much by it of Bill Clinton and the extreme frustration I felt during his second term. His second term for Pete's sake, how could that have even happened? I never have understood how people could have voted him into office that second time. His re-election shook my faith in the populous. Then despite lying under oath, sexual harassment charges, obvious vocabulary games (read, "more lying"), suspiciously timed military actions and the fact that not one of them would trust him alone with their daughters, they defended him with an intensity seldom seen. Why? I can only think of one reason. He is a Democrat.

John Kerry is a Democrat, too. He has been called Bill Clinton without the charm. Now, whether the allegations of infidelity are true or not, the parallels are drawing closer.

The reason that I'm so down is that I can see a pattern emerging, in the interactions between the Left and Right, that disturbs me greatly. It is based in the underlying philosophy of American Liberalism, Moral Relativism. Moral Relativism says that, "nothing is always right or always wrong," there are always circumstantial conditions which effect the rightness or wrongness of an act (read my earlier post The Decline of the Liberal Left). This manifests itself in an unwillingness to ascribe rightness or wrongness to any act, after all no act is inherently right or wrong it all depends on the situation (thus it's other name, Situational Ethics). Very few "pro-choice" advocates would like to be called "pro-abortion" because they are not, themselves, in favor of abortion. They, themselves, would never have one, but can't imagine telling someone else that it's wrong for them to have one.

In the political arena this shows itself in the Left's willingness to (I almost said,"forgive," but that would indicate that they felt there was initial wrongdoing so I will instead say...) ignore all kinds of things that would scandalize the Right. By definition the Left does not believe there is a moral position on any subject. They do not believe in morals. They do not believe in moral absolutes such as, "it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race," but rather in situations. For example, they would say it is wrong for the government to discriminate against people of color but it is ok for them to discriminate against white people. Or, "I think killing babies is wrong but everyone has a right to choose for themselves." Moral Relativism is the root of the idea that the Constitution is a "living document" (read dependent on the situation at hand).

This leaves us in a position where things which would scandalize the Right and shake their confidence in a candidate for office (low moral fiber, marital infidelity, corruption, lying, poor military record, etc.) matter not one whit to the Left. They are free to bash away with impunity, without regard to consequences. If the Right turns the tables and says, "your guy did that, too," they just don't care. By definition scandals apply only to the Right.

Muck raking politics only works in favor of the Left. Look at just a couple of scandals. Trent Lott resigns after some nostalgic (and yes, stupid) remarks at a birthday party which Democrats reacted to with gleeful venom (never mind that the nostalgia was for the Democratic off-shoot party, the Dixiecrats) but Robert Byrd a former member of the Klu Klux Klan is still in office and is being defended by his colleagues. Why? He's a Democrat and they don't care. Can you imagine if he were a Republican? Then there would be a scandal (and he would resign in shame). Here's another: In the middle of the Clinton scandals Rebublican Bob Livingston, who was nominated un-opposed for Speaker, resigned because it was brought out that he had had an affair some years earlier. He said, "I must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow. ... I will not stand for speaker of the House on January 6 but rather will remain as backbencher in this House I love so much." He also said he would quit in six months. Did Clinton follow his example? We all know the answer to that. Did Democrats care? No, they called Republicans hypocrites for even considering supporting Livingston, while they continued to support Clinton for much worse transgressions.

Where does this lead us? That's a difficult question. With Democratic primary voters leaving their personal beliefs on the shelf and supporting, not the candidate who believes as they do, but the candidate who is most likely to beat the Republican incumbent, whomever that may be at the time, we can't appeal to their beliefs. Because their beliefs are so mutable, we can't even figure out what they are in order to appeal to them. Even if we could figure out what their beliefs are we couldn't appeal to them, they have put them on the shelf and even candidates within their own party cannot appeal to them (witness the rise and fall of Howard Dean; principal reason - I don't think he can beat George Bush).

The only hope is people who have not declared undying fealty to a party. The vast undecided. The people who have not put their beliefs on the shelf. The people who pick the winner of this, and every, election. We must stop talking to the decideds, on the Left and on the Right, and talk to the undecideds. Help them to understand the issues from the standpoint of the facts and help them see through the hyperbole.

DRUDGE REPORT 2004

2004-02-12T11:21:00.000-06:00

Matt Drudge is reporting a major scandal for John Kerry. His site is almost impossible to reach because of the number of hits.

The article is short so far, but Drudge smells blood and is insisting on referrals so you'll have to read it on his site.

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN

As Matt says, "Developing."

Addendum:
Drudge sites ongoing investigations at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS but none of them have fessed up yet.

Addendum:
I've been thinking about this all day (as the story proceeds to generate an amazing lack of traction) and I'm not sure I care if he had/has an affair or not. No that's not quite it - I do care whether or not he had an affair but I'm not sure that should, by itself, disqualify him as a candidate. Unfortunately it does seem to fit into a pattern of overall moral bankruptcy and deception that I do think should disqualify him. What I wish is that Democrats will see how similar Kerry is to Clinton and recoil. I harbor a secret hope that Democrats supported Clinton through his many scandals because he was one of their own, but that they didn't like doing it; that it left a bad taste in their mouths. I'm probably hoping for too much.

Addendum:
http://forum.johnkerry.com//index.php?showtopic=4976
http://forums-new.deanforamerica.com/index.php?showtopic=10695&st=0&#entry76577

Wictory Wednesday

2004-02-12T10:58:00.000-06:00

It's pretty obvious that there is only one good choice for president. That, however, has never stopped us, as a nation, from making bad choices. We must do everything we can to ensure the freedom, equality, safety, and prosperity of our citizens .

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign. E-mail Polipundit so that he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs.

Environmentalists Circa 1975 Propose Covering Arctic in Black Soot

2004-02-11T22:41:00.000-06:00

In her National Center blog Amy Ridenour posted a great Newsweek article (via Rush Limbaugh's website) from 1975 on the dangers of Global Cooling (Bum, Bum, Buuum...).

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

Does this language sound familiar? Only the context has changed.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

It does contain a grain of truth, though.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Then they get right back to wild, baseless speculation and attempts at making political hay.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Seems like I was talking about pretty much the same thing just the other day...

The article on Rush's site is in the pay section but you can read it here.

Justice Department Probe of Unethical Senate Conduct Sought

2004-02-11T11:19:00.000-06:00

The National Center for Public Policy Research issued this release today:

The Senate Won't Police Itself: Justice Department Probe of Unethical Senate Conduct Sought

Leaked Memos May Identify Votes Traded for Campaign Contributions

In response to allegations of unethical conduct among U.S. senators - including the possible exchange of votes for campaign contributions - The National Center for Public Policy Research has joined other organizations in asking the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section to begin an immediate investigation.

Also participating in the call for an official investigation are National Center programs Project 21, an African-American leadership network, and its American Criminal Justice Center, which covers judicial issues.

Manuel A. Miranda, a former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, has informed Senate Ethics Committee Chief Counsel Robert Walker that he, Miranda, read documents obtained from a once-shared section of the Senate Judiciary Committee computer network that "includes evidence of the direct influencing of the Senate's advice and consent role by the promise of campaign funding and election support in the last mid-term election."

Related documents published in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times show Committee business was profoundly influenced by the demands of special interest groups prior to the most recent mid-term elections and the change in Senate leadership. The computer hard drive containing the files cited by Miranda is now in the possession of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle.

The letter to the Justice Department calls on the Public Integrity Section to "take immediate possession" of the hard drive before the sergeant-at-arms' office "inadvertently or intentionally destroy[s] evidence of a crime." The sergeant-at-arms' office was charged with finding out how the files were obtained and not what they contain, so a Justice Department investigation would not be duplicative or obstructive.

"Manuel Miranda is a whistleblower," said Amy Ridenour, president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, "but whistleblowers are not appreciated in the exclusive club that is the U.S. Senate. That's why even powerful Republican Senators have acted against a staffer who exposed possible wrongdoing by Democrats, and why an impartial Justice Department investigation, completely beyond the reach of Senate influence, is needed in this case."

"We've investigated to death how these scandalous memos were leaked, but we've ignored their shocking content," said David Almasi, the director of the American Criminal Justice Center. "If the allegations are true, a heinous crime has been committed against our constitutional form of government. It is our duty to get to the bottom of these serious charges."

"It would be a grievous and appalling miscarriage of justice if the reportedly damning memos referenced by Mr. Miranda's were not made public," said Project 21 National Advisory Council member Mychal Massie. "For the Justice Department to not conduct a full and open investigation would be an unacceptable breach of the public trust and fiduciary responsibility."

You can find out more here:

A copy of the letter to the Department of Justice will be made available at www.nationalcenter.org/JudiciaryComplaint204.html.
The Senate Judiciary Committee memos that have been made public can be obtained at fairjudiciary.com/cfj_contents/press/collusionmemos.shtml.
The departure statement of Manuel Miranda can be read online at www.nationalcenter.org/Miranda204.html.

This is shaping up to be a major issue. Time to get educated.

Grand Old Pragmatism

2004-02-11T08:40:00.000-06:00

Via: Boots and Sabers

Michael Kinsley at the Washington Post has hit the nail on the head with this one! You must read it. Everyone needs a laugh like this one:

Grand Old Pragmatism
Democrats are cute when they're being pragmatic. They furrow their brows and try to think like Republicans. Or as they imagine Republicans must think. They turn off their hearts and listen for signals from their brains. No swooning is allowed this presidential primary season. "I only care about one thing," they all say. "Which of these guys can beat Bush?" Secretly, they believe none of them can, which makes the amateur pragmatism especially poignant.

Have Fun.

They're on the air!

2004-02-11T08:37:00.000-06:00

Ed over at Captains Quarters has some extraordinary news. He and his buddies at the Northern Alliance of blogs have just made a deal for a new radio show. WaHooo! The Northern Alliance has some of the best blogs going. It'll be great to have them on the air in Minnesota. The Northern Alliance: Captains Quarters, Fraters Libertas, Hugh Hewitt, James Lileks, Power Line, SCSU Scholars, Shot In The Dark, Spitbull. Give them a listen, and check out their blogs.

Calling All Democrats

2004-02-10T10:30:00.000-06:00

I started my life as part of a family of liberal Democrats. I grew up in the sixties with a decidedly liberal Democratic bent. I voted for Hubert Humphrey against Richard Nixon in my school's mock election (Humphrey narrowly beat Nixon - it was Minnesota after all). I watched the Watergate proceedings all through summer vacation one year. I had the feeling that history was happening right in front of my eyes. I was horrified by the way the Republicans rallied around such a corrupt president, though I was pleased, when the time came, that Nixon did the right thing and resigned. Their behavior cemented my feelings against them.

I continued my liberal leanings (or so I thought) and habit of backing Democratic candidates; McGovern, Carter, Mondale (I was beginning to get bored), I did not vote for Dukakis, I just couldn't make myself, I voted Libertarian in protest, then Clinton (finally an exciting Democrat).

Clinton's first term was my last Democratic vote of any type. I voted for him because he was a Democrat and not a dolt. The idea of voting Republican had not yet even crossed my mind. Republicans were EVIL. That's what my party, the news and everyone I knew said (I am from Minnesota). That's why I didn't vote for Reagan, even though I liked him and I liked what he did for our country. I swallowed the whole trickle-down-economics-is-an-evil-plot-to-benefit-Reagan's-friends thing, hook line and sinker.

After Clinton had been in office just a short time I realized what a mistake I had made voting for him. He was such an obvious sleazball. The way Democrats rallied around him was worse than the way the Republicans had rallied around Nixon. Worse for two reasons. First, I had voted for him. He was a Democrat! They weren't supposed to do things like that. Second, his bald faced lying and manipulation of an obviously willing-to-be-manipulated press left no doubt of his moral bankruptcy (and the bankruptcy of the press). The way his party rallied around him left no doubt about their bankruptcy as well. Because of his success in beating scandals that no one had ever beaten before, his tactics were studied, improved, and implemented by other Democrats.

They got better and better at parsing the things they said so that anything they said couldn't hurt them in court. The louder they talked the less they said. They became accustomed to talking a lot and saying nothing. Their ideas disappeared. They became more and more willing to be anything it took to get and keep votes. The stopped standing for anything. They lost me completely.

In my search for a new party I began to really research the facts, something that had been difficult, if not impossible, before the internet (it's a good thing Al Gore invented it). I began to see that the Democratic party never really had stood for the things they said they stood for. Racial equality, individual liberties, civil rights, protecting the weak and poor... none of it. Their record speaks for itself. I felt cheated on a whole slough of levels. The things that I believed in, that I thought the Democrats represented, that they told me they represented, were much more in line with the Republicans. Racial equality, individual liberties, civil rights, protecting the weak and poor.

This latest primary brings it home in capitol letters. With nothing to stand for and a willingness to become whatever the moment demands, the Democratic flip-flopping on issues is unrivaled by anything short of the deck of a North Sea fishing trawler (no offence to North Sea Trawlers). Democratic voters have joined the flip-flopping and scrapped their beliefs, trading them in for a vague idea about which candidate is most likely to beat George Bush.

Democrats, the anti-war party of record, are actually trying to sell the idea that only a military man can legitimately run the country. They are trying to convince the public that Bush's service in the National Guard was not really military service and that he is not really qualified to be Commander in Chief. This after George Bush has run what is, arguably, the most successful military operation of all time. They are trying to convince the public that our economy is in trouble despite all of the evidence to the contrary (and ignoring the fact that Republicans are cleaning up after an economy that began spiraling downward on Clinton's watch and was accelerated by an unprecedented attack on our soil).

I don't think the public is that stupid.

Come on you Democrats, look at President Bush's record. Get over the fact that he's a Republican. Bush is a moderate. Why do you think moderate conservatives are frustrated with him? Because he is too right wing? No way. Look at the huge amount of money he has dedicated to fighting AIDS in Africa. Look at the healthcare initiative he has proposed. Look at his whole administration. Can you name a Democratic administration with as many people of color? Do you really think these people are just "token" appointments? People like Elaine Chao, Rod Paige, Colon Powell, Norman Mineta, Condoleezza Rice?

Wake up. Republicans are not evil. They are people a lot like you. But their party is not letting them down. Their party really stands for something. Do you think they voted for George Bush because he was the most likely candidate to beat Al Gore? Did they vote for him because of his eloquent speech-making? I hardly think so. They chose him because he stands for ideas that make the world a better place. Freedom, equality, safety, prosperity.

Don't just dismiss him out of hand because he's a Republican. LOOK at what he has done. Don't just take your candidate's point of view automatically. Look at the man. He is a good man who really cares about the people in this country. All of them.

Panetta Said Bush Did Not Lie About Intel

2004-02-08T00:01:00.000-06:00

This is pretty indicative of the kind of politically motivated about face the Democrats have pulled since the primaries have begun.

Leon E. Panetta appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this Monday morning ( 10-28-03 8:20 AM EST ) said that he was in the White House and that President Clinton received the same intelligence information about the danger of Iraq's WMD's as President Bush did. He believes that President Clinton did what he thought was best and that President Bush did what he thought was best. Panetta was responding to a caller about the Iraq situation. He stated that either there was a massive intelligence failure or the intelligence community was lied to or both.

Panetta is a former Democratic congressman, the former Clinton White House Director of OMB, and Clinton's former Chief of Staff. He is saying that Bush was not lying and that there is no Neocon/Zionist conspiracy.

He joins many other moderate Democrats, foreign policy experts, and Nobel Peace laureates who have maintained that Iraq possessed WMD's and the potential to use them. Despite what liberal Democrats, liberal journalists, communists, anti-Americans and other Bush haters have been claiming, President Bush was not lying.

Panetta reiterated what he said in February, " I think that Saddam Hussein is a threat in that part of the world. I think that, indeed, he should be required to disarm in fulfillment of the UN resolutions and also because for years we have basically known that he's had weapons of mass destruction. (link)

He also reiterated what many people in the Clinton administration said during their term and since. People like Madeline Albright who, in November 1999, said, "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Or Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger who said in Feburary 1998, "He (Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

And this about our friend John Kerry:

Panetta confirms what Democrat Senators Daschle, Levin, and current presidential candidate Kerry, who wrote, five years ago, to President Clinton, "We 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. "

Five years ago... To President Clinton... "Threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs..." Hmmm...

What's more, Democrat senator Bob Graham said:

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Hillary Clinton:

"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, and 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."

Tremoglie summed it up this way:

All these officials of the Democratic Party, those who should know because they were able to review the contemporaneous intelligence information presented to President Clinton and President Bush, have all said what President Bush said.

There is no conspiracy. The only lies are those told by the Bush-haters and the Hussein-lovers.

It would be hard to put it any better than that.

I found the link to this article in a blog yesterday. It opened in a new window and, though I back-tracked for over an hour, I couldn't find the original blog. Sorry. If it was your blog let me know and I'll fix the credits.

George Tenet's Speech on WMD Intelligence

2004-02-07T14:57:00.000-06:00

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.

Send the Gipper a Birthday Message.

2004-02-06T15:43:00.000-06:00

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

President Bush to be on Meet The Press.

2004-02-06T12:00:00.000-06:00

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.

Why is Kerry Attacking Bush's Military Record?

2004-02-05T00:01:00.000-06:00

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.

God Bless Zell Miller

2004-02-05T00:00:00.000-06:00

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."

Things That Make You Go, Hmmm.

2004-02-02T00:01:00.000-06:00

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.

Global... What Exactly?

2004-02-01T17:34:00.000-06:00

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.

Tough Talk From The United Nations

2004-01-31T00:01:00.000-06:00

According to BBC News (I know, I know) the United Nations Security Council has finally decided to get tough on terrorism. By unanimous decision, 15-0, they have declared that if you are a country that has not submitted a list of what you are doing to thwart terrorism they are going to, um, well, uh, "circulate a list" of names among themselves. So... you better just watch it Mister.

UN votes on tough terror measures
This latest resolution means the UN's al-Qaeda monitoring committee will be able to circulate a list of countries that do not submit a report by the end of March.

They will also publicise the reason behind the failure, whether it is a question of resources or political will.

The chairman of the monitoring committee and sponsor of the resolution, Ambassador Heraldo Munoz of Chile, said this would send a strong signal.

The new resolution calls on governments to look out for al-Qaeda or associated groups, trying to channel funds through different means, such as the informal banking system.

But it does not include any real new sanctions.

Man, them boys over at the UN are tough. They don't just make idle threats neither. When they say they're gonna do something they follow through.

Aaaarrrrrrrrgh!

2004-01-30T14:07:00.000-06:00

You just won't believe this from the New York Times.

State Assemblyman Leland Y. Yee, Democrat of San Francisco, has introduced a resolution that urges the California Building Standards Commission to adopt standards that would aid feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of promoting health, harmony and prosperity through the environment.

The resolution, which has yet to pass a committee vote before going to the full Assembly, is meant to encourage planning agencies, building departments and design review boards to provide for the use of feng shui principles, which often touch on the placement of doors and staircases, the position of buildings and the alignment of objects in rooms. It aims to help people live in harmony with nature by promoting the flow of chi, or positive energy, and neutralizing or avoiding negative energy.

With all of the problems they have in California this is what they are concentrating on? I guess the phrase "Democrat of San Francisco" says it all.

2+2=2

2004-01-29T13:26:00.000-06:00

With all of the Democratic candidates claiming that up to three million jobs have been lost during the Bush administration Irwin Seltzer at the Hudson Institute helps to clarify The Fuzzy Jobs Picture.

The trouble is that no one seems to have a clear, unambiguous picture of what is going on in the jobs market. And with good reason. The U.S. Department of Labor regularly surveys employers to ask how many people they are hiring, and how many they have laid off. It also surveys households to find how many people say they are in work. Any sensible person would expect the results of these two surveys to be more or less the same: if employers are hiring, more households should be reporting that their members are finding jobs.

Alas, the world of economic statistics is not so straight-forward. In the past year, employers reported a net loss of over 70,000 jobs, while households reported a net gain of over two million. Believe the second figure. Here’s why.

The survey of employers, which is the more widely reported of the two, is so bleak because of the way it is designed. Assume, for example, that a factory employs some 3,000 workers making widgets, and 300 workers in the on-site canteen. Management decides to outsource the food service. When this employer next responds to the employment survey, he will report a job cut of 300 and, best of all, that he is now producing all of the widgets that he once produced with a workforce of 3,300, but using only 3,000 workers–a bogus productivity miracle.

Even more misleading is the fact that the new firm formed to handle the canteen catering is not picked up in the employment survey, which does not cover new firms or the newly self-employed.

Turn now to the household survey. The canteen worker reports that he most certainly has a job, even though it is with a new employer. And if the new catering firm upgrades the quality of the fare on offer, so that fewer workers bring their own homemade lunches, forcing the caterer to add workers, those newcomers to the job market will not be picked up in the employment survey, but will be recorded in the household survey.

If you take the 300 lost canteen jobs Seltzer talks about, and the 300 jobs that were created by outsourcing the same services, you would think that would create a wash, wouldn't you? The problem comes when you only calculate losses. What you end up with is 300 jobs lost. End of analysis.

This is the one sided approach that the Democrats will take over the next year to try to convince voters (who are living in the midst of a robust economic recovery) that the sky is falling. This is the way they can claim that there have been three million jobs lost.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

2004-01-29T10:17:00.000-06:00

Claudia Rosett at The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has a very interesting take on the obsession with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I tried several ways of excerpting her article but really think you should just read the whole thing. It's not very long and has a very practical, and therefore unique, perspective.

Veterans Against Kerry

2004-01-28T08:45:00.000-06:00

This page seems to have dissappeared sometime yesterday evening even though the U.S. Veteran Dispatch home page still points to it.

You can still see it here for a while.

It is an interesting page, though by its very nature it must be taken with a grain of salt.

With a tip of the hat to The Evangelical Outpost.

Addendum:
It's back - and twice as big.

The Axis of Naughty

2004-01-27T14:59:00.000-06:00

I feel naughty,
Oh, so naughty,
I feel naughty and witty and bright!
And I pity
Any boy who isn't me tonight.

In case you haven't figured it out yet I'm declaring my allegiance to The Axis of Naughty. Why? 'Cause Instapundit was the second blog I ever read. Clicked onto it off of Hugh Hewitt's blog (the first blog I ever read). I immediately saw the value of a good blog. Thanks.

By the way, the Captain was the third blog - man was I on a roll!

What The....?

2004-01-27T12:15:00.000-06:00

AL FRANKEN KNOCKS DOWN DEAN HECKLER

Do you think they'll call him a hero or a heel?

Not "He Lied" Again

2004-01-27T11:48:00.000-06:00

The reason I named my blog "Everything I Know Is Wrong" is that whenever I take the time to find out the facts about a politically or religiously charged issue the liberal media tells me I am wrong. They tell me things like the Christmas retail sales gains across the board are a sign of a declining economy. John Kerry tells me that he

(from Captain's Quarters)Voted against military action in 1991 because he believed we should have used military force, and he voted for it in 2002 because he thought we should wait.

Now here comes another round of the "Bush lied about WMD." Outgoing weapons inspector David Kay's inability to find weapons of mass destruction has renewed accusations that Bush lied in his 2003 State of the Union speech. This despite Kay's own comments

(from FoxNews.com) Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people."

Let's just get this over with right now. Here is the full text of the State of the Union speech and here are all of President Bush's comments in that speech that pertained to Iraq:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

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. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.

Do you see anything about how WMD attack on the US was imminent and that is the reason we must go to war? Sorry to repeat, but this all he said about the weapons themselves:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

and there is nothing there about an attack on the US. He also said:

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

Again, nothing about an attack on the US. He did say:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.

which is the same as saying that the threat is not imminent.

Everything I know is wrong except this: the hypocrisy of Liberals and their media is offensive and inexcusable. Why didn't they complain when the Clinton administration enacted a policy of "regime change" in Iraq? Why are they complaining about it now? I can only think of one reason.

Here is more on David Kay's assesment of the Iraq situation.

I Think That Might Be The Middle Over There...

2004-01-22T12:20:00.000-06:00

The Democrats have a long row to hoe to get to the White House. The candidates they have left in the race virtually assure defeat. The remarkable thing is that Democrats can't even see this.

The goal of the Democratic Party has to be to field a candidate that can do two very important things. Two things which are virtually opposite each other on the political scale. First, they have to mobilize the hard core members of their party during the primary. Then, after the primary, they have to appeal to the nation at large, convincing as many undecided and primarily centrist voters as possible that their candidate is the best choice.

The problem they face is that, at this time, these two goals are about as far apart as they have ever been. Only the party faithful participate, in any numbers, in the primary process and the Democratic faithful are pretty far left. Take a look at how the candidates are polling.

The Massachusetts senator [Kerry] leads Dean 31 percent to 21 percent, with a slipping Wesley K. Clark at 16 percent after skipping the Iowa caucuses.

Sen. John Edwards is in fourth place with 11 percent, followed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman with 4 percent. Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Dennis Kucinich continue to barely register.

The most conservative of the five who are realistically (I know I'm stretching the definition of the word realistic) left in the race is Joseph Lieberman and he can hardly even see the middle of the road from where he is. Despite this he is too far right to appeal to the Dem base (thus he's tracking at 4% which is, realistically, not very realistic).

Kerry and Edwards are hard left, class warrior types (which is a little strange, since they are both very wealthy) and have lots of appeal with the Dem base. Dean is so weird and flip-floppy it's hard to see where he is really coming from (though weirdness, in and of itself, seems to have some sort of appeal for the Dem base).

So here's my point. The sudden slide in Dean's numbers is being attributed largely to Democrats seeing the need for an electable candidate. And yet the candidates who are most likely to appeal to the highly necessary undecided voters are so far down their list that my favorite of this pack (not because of his politics but rather his personal integrity), Dick Gephardt, is dropping out altogether and Joe Lieberman is at 4%. Democrats are in the process of picking from Kerry, Edwards and Dean all of whom are spouting the old, old, old Liberal doggerel (without much conviction, I might add) and have very little chance of appealing to the large, undecided middle. Which, after the State of the Union speech, is where George Bush is squarely targeted.

Addendum:
Dick Morris, in a New York Post op-ed peice agrees.

Can Bush beat Kerry? Not as easily as he could defeat Dean, but he likely can. Kerry is ultimately a reincarnation of Mike Dukakis as the candidate from the People's Republic of Massachusetts. His liberalism places him beyond the pale of most American voters.

Though Morris is usually a very perceptive political analist he rates John Edwards as a moderate. Take a look at Edwards positions in my post from yesterday and see if you agree.

Good Advice

2004-01-21T17:04:00.000-06:00

Hugh Hewitt wrote a speech for Howard Dean. It's Brilliant! If Dean uses it he'll be on the road to recovery.

Dean probably won't use it; it's always difficult to believe in advice your opponents give you. They don't necessarily have your best interest at heart. In that spirit, I hope he does use it. My vote goes for the most beatable Democrat I can find (see my previous post). Dean's my man.

It's Time to Take a Closer Look

2004-01-20T12:15:00.000-06:00

OK, it's time to take a closer look at the new front-runners.

John Kerry
Not much new here. Just the same old Liberal line. According to his website:

George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future.

And:

John Kerry believes that we need to invest in our schools instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. He has the courage to fight for our children's future every day. When it comes to education, George W. Bush has been the photo-op President. He stands next to children and teachers for a picture, but he doesn't stand with them when it comes to improving our public schools.

And:

George Bush has chosen to lavish tax cuts upon the wealthiest among us while working Americans struggle to afford health care for their families.

And:

The Bush Administration has provided too little support, too little leadership, and too little vision for the common defense of our homeland. John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security.

And:

On one side is President Bush who has taken America off onto the road of unilateralism. On the other side are those in the Democratic Party who threaten to take us on a trail of confusion and retreat.

Kerry believes that we don't need a President who will walk away from the world or a President who will walk alone. He believes that we need a President who will lead the nations of the world into a new era of security, freedom, and peace.

And:

We'll never have to send our sons and daughters to war for Mideast oil.

John Edwards
His pitch seems to be, primarily class warfare. According to his website:

As president, John Edwards will not forget that we have two Americas: one for the powerful insiders and the privileged few, and another everybody else.

And:

3 million more Americans are living in poverty since President Bush took office, including 1.2 million children. Instead of offering help to these Americans, President Bush has cut taxes for the rich and provided big giveaways to his friends in corporate America.

Look at this amazing quote while realizing that it is completely true and at the same time the truth is the opposite of what he means:

"Today under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one. One America does the work, while another America reaps the reward. One America pays the taxes, while another America gets the tax breaks.

I'm so bored by this same old drivel! Don't they have any new ideas. How can it be that this stuff passes for a platform? Does this stuff really "play to the base"? Who can this "base" be? Who is really naive enough to buy this snake oil?

How is it possible that there are people who don't know that 50% of Americans pay 96.03% of taxes? How is it possible that there are people who don't know that the recession, which we are so enthusiastically coming out of, began during the Clinton administration and has been effectively ended by George Bush's tax policies? How is it possible that they think we acted unilaterally in Iraq?

How is it possible?

The Big Lies

2004-01-20T11:45:00.000-06:00

I'm going to try to update this section regularly. Since my free blogsite only has one page, and Blogger is going through some upheaval and I can't upgrade my site, I'll just move it back to the top of this page when I update it. The newest items are in bold.

There is no Liberal Bias in the Media

Tom Brokaw vs.Consrevative 'Jihad'

Democrats, media on same page yet again

Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Post vs. The President With a tip of the hat to Powerline.

Global Warming

Assuming the Global Warming Theory Turns Out to Be True, What Would It Take to Stop It?

Glaciers fail to Prove Global Warming Theory

Al, It's Cold Outside

The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Poorer

How Can It Be?

The DFL is the Party of Civil Rights, Minorities and the Poor

Credit Where Credit is Due

Black Votes -- No GOP Fantasy

The DFL is the Party of the Environment

We're Not Green at All -- Just White

You Can't Balance the Budget Without Raising Taxes
Light at End of Tunnel
2004 State Budget Deficits

We're Exporting All of Our Jobs to Other Countries

Manufacturing Confusion

Our Economy is in the Tank

Center for American Progress Sees Increased Holiday Spending as Evidence that Economic Recovery Hasn't Happened

To Close For Comfort, or Loose Lips Sink Ships

2004-01-19T13:43:00.000-06:00

The old saw goes something like, "When your opponent is destroying himself just shut up and watch." With news like this I can't help but wonder if we Conservatives should have taken that advise.

Dean seems to me to be the most beatable of the top four in the Democratic field, with Clark a close second. Even Lieberman, who does not make the top four, seems a more likely candidate than Dean.

A few weeks ago (heck, a few hours ago) Dean was considered a shoe-in for the nomination. This would seem to be a great thing for Conservatives. An obvious loon with a tendency to 'misstate the truth' and who has numbers twenty to thirty points below Bush's to boot. What could be better? Yet we couldn't keep our mouths shut. We gloated, we crowed, we explained in great detail just how beatable Dean was.

What did we get for our trouble? Dean dropping fast into a four way tie with Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards. Why couldn't we keep our mouths shut just a little? Let Dean slide more slowly. Slowly enough to Let Dean become the nominee.

Let's hope that, if Dean does become the nominee, we haven't used up all of our ammo and that he hasn't already been forgiven for his almost unbelievably volatile and truth-challenged early campaign. You know how Liberals love to forgive their own (though they do seem to have trouble with others).

The Capture of Saddam Did Not Make Us Any Safer

2004-01-12T23:08:00.000-06:00

Nope... not safer at all.

Why Do People of Color Vote For Democrats?

2004-01-12T21:52:00.000-06:00

Probably because of misinformation like this which overlooks, misrepresents and misleads. I must admit that I bought the B.S. for a long time because the facts were simply not available.

Take a look at the links below and then go back to the PBS page linked to in the previous paragraph and see the subtle abuse of the facts.

Credit Where Credit is Due
Credit Where Credit is Due
The Struggle for Equality: Civil Rights in America from Reconstruction to the Depression
Ministry of Information
Conservatives Can Be Proud of Their Civil Rights Record

These by Conservative African-Americans
The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction
The Mixed Blessing of Affirmative Action
Jim Crow's New Face
Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act

Franken Lies

2004-01-09T23:11:00.000-06:00

This one is fun.

Al was a lot more fun during the "Al Franken Decade," when he pretended to be dumb and confused instead of pretending to be smart.

This should pop the balloon belonging to the "Bush lied about WMD's" camp.

2004-01-09T16:02:00.000-06:00

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
Read the whole article.

But will it (pop the balloon)? It's not like this is new news from Clinton anyway. He's been saying pretty much the same thing all along but the media doesn't seem to notice. The assertion by the Dems that he lied was never genuine anyway. Just another attempt to gain political ground.

The Decline of the Liberal Left

2003-12-23T14:33:00.000-06:00

Moral Relativism, also known as Situational Ethics, is what has caused the decline of the Liberal Left. It began with the with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong." Ironically, this is an idea that they feel is always right. It is, however, an idea that is easily proved wrong. For example, it's always wrong to oppress people, or to commit genocide.

Moral Relativity has been combined with several other ideas to create what we think of as the modern liberal. Here is the way it went:

In the nineteen-sixties the idea that we should tolerate each others differences (at that time primarily racial differences) was pushed hard in schools and the media. This was, and is, a noble idea. It was referred to as "Racial Tolerance."

Racial Tolerance gradually became simply "Tolerance," and began to include under it's umbrella tolerance for other cultures, nationalities, religions and forms of sexuality. Still a laudable concept. Our Declaration of Independence begins with it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The idea of "Tolerance" began to meld with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong" and became "Nothing of ours is better than something of theirs" and then more recently mutated into "Nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs."

This can be seen today in the fact that the Left is only upset by the use of force when it is the U.S. using force. In the fact that, if the U.S. has a vested interest in the use of force, it is unacceptable to the Left, but if there is no benefit to the U.S. at all the use of force is mandatory. Take, for example the difference in the Left's resistance to the use military force in Iraq (How dare you?) and their desire for the use of force in Liberia (How dare you not?). In Iraq we have many vested interests, in Liberia none.

It can also be seen in the drive to multi-nationalism and the desire to subjugate the will of the U.S. to the will of the United Nations. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to decide whether the U.S. is threatened enough to require the use of force to protect itself. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to try Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqis. The U.S. is, in their eyes, incapable of the exercise of power or judgment in any way other than bullying self-interest.

It can be seen in the Left's approach to Abortion. Does this sound familiar: "I don't believe in it myself, I think it's horrible, but who am I to tell other people what to think?" They can't see that there is an absolute involved; that Killing is bad, and should only be done to protect yourself and others from people who will not be dissuaded in any other way.

They also believe that the Government is better suited to taking care of us than we are ourselves. In this case the Government is the "other" who's "everything" is better than our own.

Our culture is not as good as Europe's, our leaders are not as smart as the United Nations, our medical system is not as good as Canada's. Our fill-in-the-blank is not as good as their fill-in-the-blank. In an all-out war they believe that the enemy has a greater right to defend themselves than we do. What it comes down to is that they don't believe our culture/country/lives are worth fighting for because they aren't worth a damn. Because nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs.

If I Had a Party Affiliation.

2003-12-17T20:48:00.000-06:00

I have never belonged to either party, though they have both put me on their rolls at one time or another assuming that a donation indicated a desire to join.

I started political life as classical liberal and a Democratic voter. I believed that all people were created equal. That the goal of government was to protect and expand as many individual freedoms as possible while staying as small and un-intrusive as possible. I believed that the Constitution of the United States of America was a wholly unique and remarkable document which, if followed, would produce a vibrant and successful society.

These days I vote mainly Republican and am considered to be a conservative. Have my values changed? No, I'm still a classical liberal (read it again, we Americans have a tough time with the word 'liberal'). But the parties have changed a lot, and my view of the parties has changed even more.

It took a long time to see that the Democrats were not what they said they were because my education was controlled by them and, until recently, so was virtually all of the media. I have come to see that the Kennedy brothers balanced approach to truly equal rights was an anomaly. Since then, the fight for equal rights has been distorted into a fight for reparations (a fight which cannot succeed in causing anything but more pain because it is, at it's heart, just another form of cold blooded racism). It is however a fairly predictable distortion when you look at where the leadership of the party has been headed for some time.

What's more, the old generation of Republicans have died off and the new generation has shed the drive to hold on to the past. The new generation wants to return to classical liberal ideals (not the past) and create stronger, more free, more practical society.

At this point I think it is important to separate the leadership of both parties from their memberships. The leaders of both parties will say whatever they think will produce the most votes from their bases, while also garnering as many votes from the undecided as possible. This does not, however, mean that they will do what they say.

In contrast, the members of the parties have actual beliefs to which they adhere. The majority of both parties seem to hold views that could be called 'centrist.' They would like lower taxes, more efficiencies in Government, reasonable environmental controls, and individual freedoms protected by law. There are several defining issues, such as Abortion, which divide the parties along fairly precise lines. Most of these issues can be boiled down to the individual persons view of morality. Those who believe that there is an objective Right and Wrong tend to be Republicans. Those who believe in moral relativism tend to be Democrats. It's not a perfect yardstick, but it's pretty darn good.

What confuses me most at this point is the rabid loyalty to ones party that seems to be the norm today. In days past party membership was passed down from generation to generation along with the family genes. Each party had Moderate, Right and Left wings. For example the Dixiecrats were the Right wing of the Democratic party at one time. Today we have a Democratic party with virtually no Right Wing, and a Republican party with virtually no Left Wing. Both parties have large Moderate wings which are, in the case of the Republicans,underrepresented, and in the case of the Democrats almost completely unrepresented.

If it is the case, and it does seem to be, that the large majority of each party resides in the middle and has values which largely coincide, why do the two parties hate each other so much? Ed over at Captain's Quarters had this to say about that, and I think he said it very well (as usual).

The idea of the "Loyal Opposition" is almost forgotten. We must find a way to get it back. Because there are legitimate differences to be debated, with the honest goal of reaching the best solution, not just appearing in the best light for vote-getting.

Everything I Know Is Wrong.

2003-12-16T22:17:00.000-06:00

It seems as though all of the things I know to be Right and Good are fought against by one party or the other (the Republicrats and the Democrans) and all of the things that I know to be wrong and evil are touted by one party or the other. Just to be even more confusing, there doesn't seem to be any discernible system for deciding which party gets to tout, or fight, a given idea.

When I was a young man the Democrats seemed to have the "rights" to fight for individual freedoms. There was a courageous Democrat president, and his younger brother, who put themselves on the line supporting, and fighting for, the idea of equal rights for all races (though not yet for women) during a time when a large part of their country, not to mention a large part of their party, was fighting against it. Now, though, the Democrats have lost all claim to the fight for individual freedom and equal rights, having twisted this noble fight against institutional discrimination into a fight for institutional discrimination. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of a world where color was irrelevant. He said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Sounds right to me. How could I be so wrong?

The Republicans, long known for tax reductions and limited government, have the three largest tax increases in history to call their own and just during George W. Bush's first term he has created a gigantic new department of Homeland Security and signed into law a titanic new Medicare entitlement. Isn't this what they're supposed to be fighting against? How could I be so wrong?

It's almost as if politicians are saying and doing whatever they think might get the most votes regardless of what was right or wrong. What could I be thinking? I have obviously misread the situation entirely.