Wasting Time With Alex

Friday, August 31, 2007

What an optimist..

Rep. John Porter, a republican from Nevada, points out that if we lose Iraq oil prices will be $9.00 a gallon. Frankly I think he is an optimist. If we leave Iraq, Iran will expand its influence all over the ME. The flow of oil in the gulf will become completely dependant on Iranian actions. Considering Iran wants to become the de facto regional super power and profits the most when oil prices are as high as they can get, it is a virtual guarantee that Iran will do whatever it needs to to create the instability and speculation to drive oil prices up. And the West, fearing the desastrous impact of higher oil prices, is sure to become paralyzed. Iran will not only stretch its influence everywhere in the ME, but it will be free to pursue both its nuclear program and any acts of terrorism it wants. Nobody will want to get in the way for fear of an Iranian blockade of oil that would tank the economies of the planet and plunge us into a likely global war that would defenitely end up going nuclear. And in the machinations to avoid that horrible scenario, our actions or lack of decicive actions will all but guarantee that outcome.

Some of us get it. Not apparently the idiot lefty BDS infected retards that make up the majority of the comments on this post. To them it is just a scare tactic or validation of their idiotic unhinged many beliefs that an Iraq with Saddam in charge would be a much better place. But what comes through free & clear is that their commentary isn’t based on anything but a radical hatred of both Bush & the US. I am sure that if you get these moonbats to talk they would find a way to blame Bush for anything they didn’t like. Including the fact they are insane. My favorite commentary was the one about if we left Iraq Turkey & Iran would simply split Iraq up and all would be well. I am sure this idiot says that is also the result of us leaving the South Vietnamese out to dry back when. The communists took over and all was well. Of course the millions that were butchered through South East Asia by communists after the left forced us to abandon an ally, should not be pointed out.

And those that think abandoning Iraq now - so these moonbats can finally score the loss they have mortgaged their political future on - will mean just a few million people in the ME will die are being naive. South East Asia didn’t have one of the most important commodities, absolutely indispensable for every modern industrial economy, as the nations in the Middle East do. So when we abandon Iraq the trouble is guaranteed not to remain in the region and affect the globe. But who cares when what you need is a result that will make you to be able to continue to say that America is the problem and Bush is evil? Ask yourself why these people have such a vested interest in an outcome that is disastrous to not just America, but the planet in general, and can’t come clean on that even when it is so obvious of how bad things will go if they get their way?

UPDATE: Since I am sure most moonbats will be quick to dismiss the Iranian problem, I figured I better link Victor Davis Hanson’s article about how to deal with Iran and why. Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Hanson understands conflicts, politics, and the reality on the ground in that part of the world. Of course I expect that the moonbats will ignore him because he isn’t saying what they want to hear (funny how libs only think that experts say what they want to hear huh?) about how we should cut & run. The fact is that Iran current leadership is bad news, and that there will be horrible consequences for the world unless the US deals with Iran. And that means we stay in Iraq and keep it stable. That loss these people have banked their political future on should not be allowed to happen.

Donkeys on Iraq

Thursday, August 30, 2007

What a claim..

David Ignatius has an interesting article in the WaPo about the 2005 Iraqi elections and how it looks like we dropped the ball and let Iran score huge. His major contention is that we allowed Iran to finance the radical Iraqi candidates while we first accepted a counter plan to help the moderates and then pulled the rug from under them.

Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war’s least understood turning points: America’s decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq’s January 2005 elections.

“Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not,” Allawi told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We fought the elections with virtually no support whatsoever, except for Iraqis and the Iraqis who support us.”

Behind Allawi’s comment lies a tale of intrigue and indecision by the United States over whether to mount a covert-action program to confront Iran’s political meddling. Such a plan was crafted by the Central Intelligence Agency and then withdrawn—because of opposition from an unlikely coalition that is said to have included Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was then House minority leader, and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser.

As recounted by former U.S. officials, the story embodies the mix of hubris and naivete that has characterized so much of the Iraq effort. From President Bush on down, U.S. officials enthused about Iraqi democracy while pursuing a course of action that made it virtually certain that Iran and its proxies would emerge as the dominant political force.

A terrible failure on our part. Of course, I am the first to bet that had we actually gone ahead with this program people like Ignatius and the other lefties would have accused the Bush administration of interfering with Iraq and being nothing but a bunch of imperialist. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Don’t be fooled. These libs will spin anything to be negative and bad for Bush & the US. But that is neither here nor there. Anyway. here is Ignatius’ conclusion and the why of his article’s title:

Future historians should record that the Bush administration actually lived by its pro-democracy rhetoric about a new Iraq—to the point that it scuttled a covert action program aimed at countering Iranian influence. Now the administration says it wants to counter Iranian meddling in Iraq, but it is probably too late.

But to come to this conclusion, which proves my point that with this kind of people the conclusion is always “Bush is a moron”, “Bush is evil”, or “Bush is an evil moron”, Ignatius is doing some real serious twisting of not just the facts, but completely ignoring the reality of how people on the left like him would have reacted to this story. Here are the facts as Ignatius presents them:

The CIA warned in the summer and fall of 2004 that the Iranians were pumping money into Iraq to steer the Jan. 30, 2005, elections toward the coalition of Shiite religious parties known as the United Iraqi Alliance. By one CIA estimate, Iranian covert funding was running at $11 million a week for media and political operations on behalf of candidates who would be friendly to Iran, under the banner of Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The CIA reported that in the run-up to the election, as many as 5,000 Iranians a week were crossing the border with counterfeit ration cards to register to vote in Iraq’s southern provinces.

To counter this Iranian tide, the CIA proposed a political action program, initially at roughly $20 million but with no ceiling. The activities would include funding for moderate Iraqi candidates, outreach to Sunni tribal leaders and other efforts to counter Iranian influence. A covert-action finding was prepared in the fall of 2004 and signed by President Bush. As required by law, senior members of Congress, including Pelosi, were briefed.

But less than a week after the finding was signed, CIA officials were told that it had been withdrawn. Agency officials in Baghdad were ordered to meet with Iraqi political figures and get them to return whatever money had been distributed. Mystified by this turn of events, CIA officers were told that Rice had agreed with Pelosi that the United States couldn’t on the one hand celebrate Iraqi democracy and on the other try to manipulate it secretly.

So the CIA finds out that Iran is buying candidates in the 2005 Iraqi elections. They bring it to the attention of the powers that be and propose a plan to help mitigate the influence of Iranian money. The plan gets approved and put in motion, only to be stopped, without warning, a week later. The reason for the conciliation was that this would look really bad. But guess which group that is that would make that claim, and wonder what Ignatius’ article about that would look like should the news have been that we were trying to influence the Iraqi elections in 2005. I am certain Iran’s involvement would not be mentioned or downplayed because the agenda is to make Bush look bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, like I already said. Bush is going to get blamed for their either way. However there is one critical component Ignatius glosses over and tries to downplay. I bolded it for you. Guess whom told the Bush Administration they didn’t like the idea: the minority speaker....

Anyone doubt that if we had gone ahead with this project to limit the Iranian influence peddling Pelosi & crew would not have accused the WH of meddling in the Iraq elections and completely delegitimized the election? An election, I remind you, that was a huge success and a great show of determination by the Iraqi people of their wishes to be free. An election that pissed off, and pissed them off royally, the anti-war, anti-America, Bush hating nut jobs. The problem we have with people like this is that if Bush came out with a cure for cancer tomorrow, he would be called evil because he didn’t come up with a cure for AIDS.

No Mr. Ignatius, neither President Bush nor his Administration’s actions cost us the Iraqi election in 2005. The fact is that you could make the claim that the Iranians stole it with their cash outlays, but it is the idiots on the left that will twist the facts of any event to make it look like Bush screwed up - because they need to have the US fail in Iraq - that did us the greater disservice. Bar none. If anything, the blame for this disastrous turn of events needs to be squarely on the shoulders of the BDS infected fools and those that represent them. Like Nancy Pelosi....

Maybe my kid is not wasting his & my time after all

I guess playing all those video games does have a payoff. While to focus of the article is military in nature, it does point out that there are other civilian fields where the skill does come in handy as well.

August 29, 2007: Much to the dismay of parents everywhere, experience with video games is, more and more, proving to be a lifesaving skill on the battlefield. Many crucial systems use video game type controllers, and troops with thousands of “wasted” hours playing video games quickly become expert at using the military gear. This includes remote control weapons (particularly the 12.7mm machine-gun turret found on armored hummers and Stryker vehicles), several models of combat robots and UAVs (like the Raven). Research has shown that eye-hand coordination is enhanced in proportion to the hours spent playing video games. This helps with everything from operating a fire control system in a tank, ship or aircraft, to using remote control surgery gear. Yes, even surgeons who found time to play video games have an easier time using the growing number of automated gear they use.

As an additional bonus, the army has found itself with lots of reservists that have programming and video game skills, thus making it easier to make simulators for the new equipment, using video game-like interfaces. In the last two years, the army has been particularly successful putting some of these simulators (like the one for CROWS, the remotely controlled 12.7mm machine-gun) on the “America’s Army” online game. There, potential recruits can learn what it’s like to use items based on video game technology. If one of these guys joins up, he will later find himself using the same “America’s Army” CROWS module to get ready for action in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I guess I should see that time my kid spends playing these things as an investment in his future. Still not going to let him skip homework or avoid learning the other stuff that he needs though. 

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Liberalism sucks!

Simon Heffer has an absolutely brilliant article over at the Telegraph dealing with how the British are paying to have an underclass, and what that underclass has become. I have a feeling that this will not be very popular with the lefties, but who cares.

Has anybody noticed that the more we spend on the underclass, the bigger it gets and the worse it behaves? Has anyone noticed, either, that what we used to call the working class has shrunk? Not merely because, as surveys tell us, so many now think of themselves as “middle-class”, but because something called the respectable working class has almost died out. What sociologists used to call the working class does not now usually work at all, but is sustained by the welfare state. Its supposed family units are not as the rest of us might define the term. It lapses routinely into criminality and lives in largely self-inflicited squalor. It has low educational attainment and is bereft of ambition. It is what we now call the underclass.

We have an underclass because we pay to have one. I do not mean that to be a glib remark, from which it could be inferred that, if we were to stop paying for one, it would magically disappear. What I mean is that 60 years of welfarism, far from raising people out of poverty and of the vices that sometimes (but not inevitably) go with it, has simply trapped them there. Welfarism has smashed the traditional, and vital, family unit. The state readily takes responsibility for families if those who should be running them decide, in part or in whole, to abdicate it. The huge outlay of money that allows this to happen is represented by politicians - and not exclusively those of the Left - as a great act of humanity and philanthropy. It is nothing of the sort. It is, rather, an act of sustained and chronic cruelty, and it leads to such horrors as happened in Liverpool last week.

That welfarism should allow people to pass their duties to the state was certainly not envisaged by Beveridge when he drew up his blueprint for a welfare system in 1942. As a Liberal of the best sort, Beveridge saw his job as to design a safety net for those who, in distressing scenes in the 1920s and 1930s, had lived in dire poverty owing to mismanagement of the world’s main economies after the First World War. The Attlee government interpreted Beveridge differently, and ensured that welfare instead would provide a career structure for those who chose not to work, or not to provide for their families.

That was bad enough; but real toxicity has been created by combining this destructive profligacy with a liberal experiment in criminal justice that has now utterly failed, and with the sacrifice of our state education system on the altar of Marxism. Given how many of our young grow up without any moral example in their lives, without discipline or serious learning at school, and in the knowledge that the police will not confront them or, if they do, that the courts have little power to punish, it is small wonder we have pockets of lethal anarchy throughout the green and pleasant land.

My first thought was that this author had missed a very important reason why this happened. I firmly believe that it was by design. For socialism to appeal to most people, they need to be in dire straights or lack support. Destroy the family unit, and you immediately have a whole class of people that need a substitute. And what substitute is quickest for them to turn to? Well big socialist government, with all its promises of redressing evils & wrongs by others (after all pointing out that you are in a bad situation because you made bad choices is not going to buy you many friends) , and its ready cash hand outs and excuse making, of course. This decay was not just a byproduct of something gone wrong, it is a prerequisite if you want to get as many needy, ready, and willing converts to pray at the altar of big government socialism.

And we in the US are not immune to this phenomenon, although because we have not progressed so far down the dark tunnel of socialism - and that is not because the people that like socialism and usually are on the left in America have not tried, and tried hard - it s not as pronounced here yet. But have no doubt that if the left continues to drag us down this path and gets us to make more changes to our society that appear benign but will have dastardly consequences, it will get worse. Of course the nutjobs will be the first to attempt to silence anyone pointing this problem out - they can not win this argument and do not want to have it at all so their only interest is to shut up those that point out the dangers of their ideology - and I expect the same to happen to this author, especially in speech code England, but he is dead on when he points out that what they need is harsher treatment of those that ignore society’s norms:

Many of the “solutions” to our social problems that have been trotted out since Rhys Jones was killed are right. Given the mess we have allowed to be made, a dose of authoritarianism is needed: more police being more vigilant, catching more criminals and putting them in more prisons.

But our politicians remain too cowardly to implement the prescription. The grammar schools that once helped the poor out of poverty are reviled even by the leader of the Conservative Party, who went to Eton. The scaling down of benefits to the undeserving poor, hand-in-hand with a drive to help people into work and to take responsibility for themselves and their own, is too terrifying for any political party to contemplate.

Good luck with that buddy. Here in the US, where we have not completely disarmed the citizens and completely subverted our legal system in favor of the criminals, we already have those that are angry because we lock up so many criminals. In fact much ado is made about race in order to obfuscate the facts, create a feeling of guilt or shame, and avoid addressing the real issue: the breakdown of the family unit because of the do-good socialist policies that are supposed to be “helping” the underclass. I bet the pansies in England will make sure you do not have a chance to make any kind of change. Not just when it comes to crime & punishment, but to roll back policies created by a tainted and defective ideology that needs to destroy the family unit in order to make people dependant on government.

The lesson here, and repeated in every other society that adopted these liberal beliefs, is that they do not work, and worse, have brought horribly destabilizing missery for all. We however must be vigilant as we have ample proof that those that fall for these ideologies never give up, even when every attmept to implement their misguided beliefs has been disastrous and deadly. Think about that when the MSM and the left continue to tell you how they will address all our problems, and especially healthcare, during the comming election cycle. 

Straw Poll

Monday, August 27, 2007

Remember that Iran is a dangerous foe now because of Carter and his ideology

Anyone that reads what I have written here, or talks to me can not escape the fact I think Jimmy Carter was perhaps the worst thing that happened to America in the last century. It is indisputable fact that under Carter, driven by a ridiculous defeatist and anti-American liberal ideology, America lost huge ground. I believe that the election of Carter was a direct culmination of the anti-American pro-communist movement that lost us the Vietnam war - which the military despite many blunders had been winning - and ushered one of the darkest periods in our history. Carter, and those that shared his ideology, accepted that the USSR was there to stay. And I am certain, even felt because of their fascination with words & appearances and complete inability to see the real evil in that empire, that the USSR might be a superior entity to our own country. I firmly believe that the Cold War would have ended in a disastrous global military confrontation, and likely even a nuclear exchange, that the USSR would have won - leaving us all to plant potatoes for the USSR - if Carter had been re-elected. The proof is in the way Carter refused to accept the fact the USSR was actively and belligerently spreading the cancers, communism & socialism, through force of arms and guile across the globe. One after another nations fell under the yoke of dictators that sided with Moscow. And of course the left loved it. Do not let them fool you by claiming they opposed the USSR back when. Most of them were on the wrong side and they secretly still believe the wrong side won. Case in point their behavior now that the US is engaged in another struggle with a fanatical and destructive entity that promises to drag us all into the abyss: Islamo. Thank the powers that be that Reagan won in 1980.

Carter’s list of disasters, both domestically and internationally, is long. Carter believed Leonid Brezhnev when told the USSR would not go into Afghanistan, and then did nothing but whine like a little bitch when Brezhnev broke his word. Afghanistan is still a mess today because of that move. The campaign to bring communism to Latin & South America, where religion and a shining United States of America had served as ways to block the evil allure of communism & socialism, picked up in earnest at that point as well. But the biggest disaster of the Carter legacy remains his idiotic stance towards the Shah of Iran and the disastrous consequences his refusal to back a key ally in the war against communist expansion when the going got though. Slater Bakhtavar’s great article titled ”Jimmy Carter’s Human Rights Disaster in Iran” over at ”American thinker” details the disastrous consequences of Jimmy Carter’s ridiculous and defeatist policies in great detail.

In the mid twentieth century, US-Iran relations prospered. Many Americans celebrated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a model king. President Lyndon B. Johnson pronounced in 1964: “What is going on in Iran is about the best thing going on anywhere in the world”.

During the 1970’s Iran’s Shah propelled Iran into becoming a dynamic middle-east regional power. The Shah implemented broad economic and social reforms, including enhanced rights for women, and religious and ethnic minorities. Economic and educational reforms were adopted, initiatives to cleanse politics of social upheaval were systematized, and the civil service system was reformed. When sectors of society rioted to demand even greater freedom, the Shah promised constitutional reform to favor democracy. In the face of Soviet and fundamentalist Islamic pressures, constitutional reform remained on the back burner, as the Shah built what on paper was the world’s fifth or sixth largest armed force. In 1976, it had an estimated 3,000 tanks, 890 helicopter gunships, over 200 advanced fighter aircraft, the largest fleet of hovercraft in any country and 9,000 anti-tank missiles.

The Shah used Iran’s military might to address regional crises consistent with foreign relations goals of the United States. The Nixon and Ford administrations endorsed these efforts and allowed the Shah to acquire virtually unlimited quantities of any non-nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.

Iran served as a bulwark, both domestically and regionally, against the desperate and often violent attempts by the forces of the Soviet empire to export its evil religion - communism - to the rest of the world. It opposed this attempt at expansion with the only thing the Soviets understood & respected: force. And American presidents of those times acknowledged and backed Iranians efforts to do so because they understood the important work the Shah was doing for the region. And like all of those nations on the front-line of the fight against communist expansion, the Shah’s Iran was forced to deal with a very active and dangerous local element - trained, financed, equipped and steered by the KGB - that actively tried to undermine the Shah in order to destabilize and overcome his government and usher in one that would be another puppet regime of Moscow. Of course the bulk of those on left have never seen it that way as they sympathize with these communists monsters and the perverted and sickly ideology they tried to spread. In fact these leftist fools even today feel the wrong side prevailed in that fight and that they still have a chance to bring communism back if they but bring America, the main reason communism never worked according to this misguided bunch of dangerous fools, down.

The Shah may not have been perfect, but he was fighting one of the most evil and destructive forces of that time, a force that has still not completely disappeared after 100 years of proving that it was nothing but an evil movement and a death cult wherever it spread, and he did so effectively. Of course the communism loving left, the anti-American idiots that helped lose Vietnam to the red scourge, didn’t see it that way. And they got themselves a champion that would in but 4 years do terrible damage to America world wide (I am sure we were “liked” at the time which is something that is paramount with these freaks).

In accord with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year’s Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world”. Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah’s popularity fell due to the Carter administration’s misguided implementation of human rights policies.

The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release “political prisoners”, whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our “war on terrorism”.

The most important movement at the time in Iran, like every other movement in every Middle Eastern country at the time, was the KGB sponsored and radicalized pro-communist forces. These are the people that started the Iranian revolution against the Shah only to have the Islamo-facists steal it right from under their noses. But the point is that, again, it was ideological weakness and a penchant for doing what superficially looked like the right thing - the consequences and reality on the ground be damned - of these leftists (the very ones that now want us to bail out of Iraq and let another massacre occur) led by Carter that set allowed evil to take over. Here are some of the details:

The Carter Administration insisted that the Shah disband military tribunals, demanding they be replaced by civil courts. The effect was to allow trials to serve as platforms for anti-government propaganda. Carter pressured Iran to permit “free assembly”, which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies. The British government and its MI6 intelligence agency also heightened the Shah’s precariousness. The government-controlled BBC presented Iranians with a dossier of twenty hour newscasts detailing the location of all anti-Shah demonstrations and consistent interviews with the exiled outcast Ayatollah Khomeini, making a religious scholar few Iranians knew about into an overnight sensation.

When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration reportedly ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah’s efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.

And what did all this crap, the same thing these very people are now demanding we give the Islamofascists we are fighting for our very survival, gain us? Have a look at what we will get if they get their way:

Subsequent to the Carter Administration’s ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini’s dictatorship executed the Shah’s prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran’s eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah’s ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.

They managed to turn a valuable ally into an enemy, and forced us to side with others we would normally not have considered an alliance of any kind simply because of the situation their idealistic meddling caused. But it gets better:

In retrospect, the Iran-Iraq War would never have occurred had Jimmy Carter not weakened the Shah’s regime. This conflict cost the two nations more than 500,000 lives, including thousands of Iranians killed by Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons. The Iran-Iraq war triggered the rise of Saddam Hussein as a major power whose invasion of Kuwait was repelled by Desert Storm. The United States refrained from deposing Saddam Hussein in a continuation of the Desert Storm operation out of concern that the resulting “power vacuum” would be filled by Iran’s Ayatollahs.

Thus Jimmy Carter’s misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran’s rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.

I can not agree more with this. We are where we are today because of “do-good” bullshit from the left. Funny how these do good polices always seem to serve our enemy’s causes and in the end to have disastrous consequences, huh? And this is not limited to foreign policy. Take a look at other changes forced on society by these leftists that have cost us all a fortune and done more harm than good. The war on poverty, welfare, the attempt to remove the consequences of bad actions & behavior from those that do so by having government pay for their mistakes (and thus encourage even more of this bad behavior), and so on. And they clamor for more of these changes. All directed at increasing our dependency on government and destroying the traditional pilars of our society: family and community.

We are now locked in a mortal fight with Islamofascism, just like we seem to again soon be with the remnants of communism & socialism again, because of the left. And no man played a bigger part in furthering the cause of these enemies than Jimmy Carter. And he still seems to be on the wrong side of things today. He seems to find more in common with the world’s next batch of dictators - Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Ortega and so on - and always ready to sell out to one of these evil ideologies over that of his country. And for that he has been awarded a peace prize (his affair with that KGB terrorist Arafat and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a story for another day) and love from the crazies.

Monday, August 20, 2007

We come in peace - shoot to kill!

Bruce Bawer’s article titled ”The Peace Racket” over at City Journal is dead on. here you have the gist of it in his own words:

We need to make two points about this movement at the outset. First, it’s opposed to every value that the West stands for—liberty, free markets, individualism—and it despises America, the supreme symbol and defender of those values. Second, we’re talking not about a bunch of naive Quakers but about a movement of savvy, ambitious professionals that is already comfortably ensconced at the United Nations, in the European Union, and in many nongovernmental organizations.

These people running the peace racket are anything but peace proponents. Deep down inside what you have are anti-Western & anti-capitalist scumbags that are fanatically in love with the two cults created by Marx: socialism & communism. In true communist fashion they are using peace as nothing but a tool to disarm those that oppose the militant march of either of these evil ideologies. In short it is propaganda intended to convince sheep to bend over and grab their ankles.

Peace studies initiatives may train students to be social workers, to work in churches or community health organizations, or to resolve family quarrels and neighborhood disputes. At the movement’s heart, though, are programs whose purported emphasis is on international relations. Their founding father is a 77-year-old Norwegian professor, Johan Galtung, who established the International Peace Research Institute in 1959 and the Journal of Peace Research five years later.

.....

Though Galtung has opined that the annihilation of Washington, D.C., would be a fair punishment for America’s arrogant view of itself as “a model for everyone else,” he’s long held up certain countries as worthy of emulation—among them Stalin’s USSR, whose economy, he predicted in 1953, would soon overtake the West’s. He’s also a fan of Castro’s Cuba, which he praised in 1972 for “break[ing] free of imperialism’s iron grip.” At least you can’t accuse Galtung of hiding his prejudices. In 1973, explaining world politics in a children’s newspaper, he described the U.S. and Western Europe as “rich, Western, Christian countries” that make war to secure materials and markets: “Such an economic system is called capitalism, and when it’s spread in this way to other countries it’s called imperialism.” In 1974, he sneered at the West’s fixation on “persecuted elite personages” such as Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Thirty years later, he compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo and invading Afghanistan and Iraq. For Galtung, a war that liberates is no better than one that enslaves.

His all-time favorite nation? China during the Cultural Revolution. Visiting his Xanadu, Galtung concluded that the Chinese loved life under Mao: after all, they were all “nice and smiling.” While “repressive in a certain liberal sense,” he wrote, Mao’s China was “endlessly liberating when seen from many other perspectives that liberal theory has never understood.” Why, China showed that “the whole theory about what an ‘open society’ is must be rewritten, probably also the theory of ‘democracy’—and it will take a long time before the West will be willing to view China as a master teacher in such subjects.”

Nor has Galtung changed his tune over the decades. Recently he gave a lecture that was a smorgasbord of wild accusations about America’s refusing to negotiate with Saddam, America’s secret plans to make war in Azerbaijan, Nazis in the State Department, the CIA’s responsibility for 6 million covert murders, and so on. Galtung called for a Truth and Reconciliation Committee in Iraq—to treat America’s crimes, not the Baathists’.

Galtung’s use of the word “peace” to legitimize totalitarianism is an old Communist tradition. In August 1939, when the Nazis and Soviets signed their nonaggression pact, the same Western Stalinists who had been calling for war against Germany did an about-face and began to praise peace. (After Hitler invaded Russia, the Stalinists reversed themselves again, demanding that the West help Stalin crush the Third Reich.) The peace talk, in short, was really about sympathizing with Communism, not peace. And it continued after the war, when Stalin’s Western supporters whitewashed his monstrous regime and denounced anti-Communists as warmongering crypto-fascists. “Peace conferences” and “friendship committees” drew hordes of liberal dupes, who didn’t grasp that their new “friends” were not ordinary Russians but the jailers of ordinary Russians—and that the committees were about not “friendship” but deception, exploitation, and espionage.

Basically the agenda is to disarm the West, in the name of peace of course, so the totalitarian regimes of communist or socialist nations can overrun us and wipe us out. If that is their idea of peace, I prefer war any day of the week. Nothing has done more evil to mankind than socialism and communism. Hundreds of millions have been killed, and continue to be killed, in their name,. Billions have been, or continue to be, imprisoned in the gulag states where these ideologies prevail. True radical Islam is trying to usurp their title as the greatest murderous cults ever, but then again, radicalized Islam has borrowed heavily from fascism, the epitome of the socialist ideological spectrum. In short, the peace movement is nothing but a shill for, a propaganda arm, of the vilest people around. Don’t fall for this crap.

The Peace Racket maintains that the Western world’s profound moral culpability, arising from its history of colonialism and economic exploitation, deprives it of any right to judge non-Western countries or individuals. Further, the non-West has suffered so much from exploitation that whatever offenses it commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, and exact revenge. Have Third World terrorists taken Americans hostage? Don’t call the hostages innocent victims. After all, as Americans, they’re complicit in a system that has long inflicted “structural violence” (or “structural terrorism”) upon the Third World poor. Donald Rothberg of San Francisco’s Saybrook Institute explains: “In using the term ‘structural violence,’ we identify phenomena as violent that are not usually seen as violent. For example, Western economic domination.”

It is this mind-set that leads peace professors to accuse the U.S. of “state terrorism,” to call George W. Bush “the world’s worst terrorist,” and even to characterize those murdered in the Twin Towers as oppressors who, by working at investment banks and brokerage houses, were ultimately responsible for their own deaths. Barash and Webel, for instance, write sympathetically of “frustrated, impoverished, infuriated people . . . who view the United States as a terrorist country” and for whom “attacks on American civilians were justified” because one shouldn’t distinguish “between a ‘terrorist state’ and the citizens who aid and abet that state.” They also approvingly quote Osama bin Laden’s claim that for many “disempowered” people, “Americans are the worst terrorists in the world”—thereby inviting students to consider Osama a legitimate spokesperson for the “disempowered.” Speaking at a memorial concert on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, George Wolfe of Ball State University’s peace studies program suggested that we “reflect on what we as Americans may have done or not done, to invoke such extreme hatred.” The Kroc Institute’s David Cortright agrees: “We must ask ourselves . . . what the United States has done to incur such wrath.”

In short, it’s America that is the wellspring of the world’s problems. In the peace studies world, America’s role as the beacon of opportunity for generations of immigrants is mocked, its defense of freedom in World War II and the cold war is reinterpreted to its discredit, and every major postwar atrocity (the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) is ignored, minimized, or—as with 9/11—blamed on the U.S. itself.

So these peace-nicks can say, with a straight face too, that the one nation that has generated the worlds most prosperous age is the problem, while advocating the most oppressive and evil cults as the solution. Talk about turning the truth upside down. And it gets even kookier:

One peace studies motif holds that the U.S. intentionally preserves its enemies to justify military expenses. According to a 2000 article by Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, for instance, the Pentagon deplored the prospect of peace between the Koreas because it “would erase the most menacing of our putative ‘rogue state’ adversaries” and thus “imperil . . . future military appropriations.” (For Klare, North Korea is only “putatively” a rogue state.) The director of Cornell’s peace studies program, Matthew Evangelista, blames the cold war on the U.S. Defense Department and claims that it ended only because a good-hearted, newly enlightened Gorbachev “heeded the advice of transnational [peace] activists.” You might think that no one could fall for such nonsense. But keep in mind that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and that students starting college in 2007 arrived in the world a year later. They don’t remember the cold war—and are ripe targets for disinformation.

I have heard this crap before. And indubitably it came from communists or communist sympathizers. Of course this was exactly what they did - the communists and socialists always have a bogeyman that is responsible for the problems they faced or continue to face - and they simply projected this motif and behavior on others. But the guilty idiots that usually buy this tripe are ready to swallow it hook, line & sinker. Starved for meaning in their meaningless lives, fighting against the institution or the powerful, makes for heady purpose. Wrong as hell, but noble to them. And they have an explanation for terrorism too.

As for America’s response to terrorism, Barash and Webel tidily sum up the view of many peace studies professors: “A peace-oriented perspective condemns not only terrorist attacks but also any violent response to them.” How should democracies respond to aggression? Hold dialogue. Make concessions. Apologize. Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 capitulation to Hitler at Munich taught—or should have taught—that appeasement just puts off a final reckoning, giving an enemy time to gain strength. The foundation of the Peace Racket’s success lies in forgetting this lesson. Peace studies students discover that the lesson of World War II is the evil of war itself and the need to prevent it by all possible means—which, of course, is exactly what Chamberlain thought he was doing in Munich. What they learn, in short, is the opposite of the war’s real lesson.

Warblogger Frank Martin described his visit to the military cemetery at Arnhem, in the Netherlands, where a teenage guide said that the Allied soldiers “were fighting for bridges; how silly that they would all fight for something like that.” Martin was outraged: “I tried to explain that they weren’t fighting for bridges, but for his and his families’ freedom.” That teenager articulated precisely the kind of thinking that peace professors seek to instill in their students—that freedom is at best an overvalued asset that can hinder peacemaking, and at worst a lie, and that those who harp on it are either American propagandists or dupes who’ve fallen for the propaganda. In March, Yusra Moshtat, an associate of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, and Jan Oberg, director of the foundation, wrote that “words like democracy and freedom are deceptive, cover-ups or Unspeak.” And in a 1997 speech at a Texas peace foundation, Oscar Arias, ex-president of Costa Rica and founder of his own peace foundation, described the American preoccupation with freedom versus tyranny as “obsolete,” “oversimplified,” and above all “dangerous,” because it could lead to war. In other words, if you want to ensure peace, worry less about freedom. Appease tyranny, accept it, embrace it—and there’ll be no more war.

That’s the Peace Racket’s message in a nutshell—and students find themselves graded largely on their willingness to echo it. For while the peace professor argues that terrorist positions deserve respect at the negotiating table, he seldom tolerates alternative views in the classroom. Real education exposes students to a range of ideas and trains them to think critically about all orthodoxies. Peace studies, as a rule, rejects questioning of its own guiding ideology.

And we have an entire generation of kids being brain washed into buying this tripe. Dissension is neither tolerated nor accepted. Talk about an evil and dangerous cult.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Some donkeys are getting it..

It is starting to look like some donkeys, even some of the old school ones that have been around for a while, are no longer just following the party line on Iraq. I guess the news and changes are simply too big for them to just dismiss, and they are now starting to shift positions as they see the American people are paying attention to what they are doing and why.

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

“I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes,” Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

But we’re on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work.”

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

If even people that were against the war originally can see that there will be disastrous consequences if we leave, Pelosi & Reid will have a really thought time convincing them, and the American people, that all is lost and that we should abandon ship.

With Congress poised next month to look at U.S. progress in Iraq and a vote looming on U.S. funding for the war, Baird said he’s inclined to seek a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond what many impatient Americans want. He also expects Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees U.S. troops in Iraq, to seek a redeployment of forces. “People may be upset. I wish I didn’t have to say this,” Baird said. He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge “at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment. … I know it’s going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.”

It was Baird’s fifth trip to the Middle East, and he conceded that what he has learned has put him again in an unpopular position with some voters. He no longer thinks partitioning Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurd sections is possible, for instance; no one he spoke to in Israel, Jordan, Palestinian cities or Iraq liked the idea, he added.

The more things change.... It looks like the moonbats are not too happy though:

Activists rallied Thursday at the state Capitol, saying they want Baird, who represents the 3rd Congressional District, which includes Olympia, to vote for withdrawing U.S. troops. But Baird said he believes that to the extent Iraqis think the United States would withdraw before bringing security to a functioning Iraqi government, “that might contribute to the infighting and instability of the government.”

The “we-must-surrender-to-the-enemy-because-America-is-evil-and-Bush-sucks” crowd will never do anything but root for an American defeat, but it looks like the number of receptive ears are shrinking faster than the dress comes of a prom date after the dance is over as stories of success & progress no longer can simply be ignored. The surge is working, and so far it looks like the people banking on defeat for their political success are slowly dwindeling too. It looks like it is starting to suck to be an America-hating, Bush must die, moonbat these days. Glorious!

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Iran is ripe for the plucking…

Michael Ledeen has another great piece over at NRO dealing with the reality of what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. He is dead on to point out that all the talk about cutting & running has consequences. Maliki in Iraq and Karzai in Afghanistan know that while the US is there now to help, if the left gets its way and we pull our troops they have to deal with Iran. And that means they have to kiss Iranian ass if they want to cover all bases. After all, the democrats do not really care if they plunge those two countries, and for that matter the entire Middle East, into another holocaust, one that will have global consequences and likely lead to violence on our soil again, as long as it gets them back into power. The thing is that Iran is falling apart and that the Iranian people have had enough of the mad mullahs. Why are we not doing more to help them overthrow these thugs? It can not get any worse for us than what we have now in Iran.

Monday, August 13, 2007

A great article about the left…

I loved James Lewis’ American Thinker‘s article called ”The Left’s Lust for Revolutionary Transformation”. It is a masterful analysis and great synopsis of the lunacy and vileness of the totalitarian ideologies of the left. it is such a great and important read that i pasted the whole thing below.

“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!” was a slogan of the Nazi Party. It is also the heart’s desire of every Leftist since Karl Marx. Nazism was a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always denied by the Left; but it’s true. Hitler and his criminal gang hated the rich, the capitalists, the Jews, the Christian Churches, and “the System”. They went through their Leftist phase early in life, and then went on to discover Aryan racial purity as their beau ideal. (As a swarthy Italian, Mussolini preferred to appeal to ancient Roman imperial glory).

Nazism was hatched in the same little intellectual cafes as a myriad of Leftwing ideologies, like social-democracy, anarchism, the Socialist Workers’ Party, Trotskyism, Proudhonism, the lot. Peter Viereck writing in 1941 saw fascism’s origins clearly. In the back streets of European cities you can still find the local anarchist or Leninist storefront, with old guys wearing 1900 laborer’s caps and big mustaches, and fierce revolutionary posters of Lenin tacked on the walls. You can also find them in Berkeley, California.

“Everything must be different!” is the core psychology of Leftism, and has little to do with reasoned political beliefs. Most Marxists in the English Departments of America have never read Karl Marx’s giant tome, Das Kapital, which parades as a work of economics and history, but is in fact a ponderous update of the Prussian philosopher Friedrich Hegel, who is even more unreadable than Marx. Instead of going to the fount of all Marxist wisdom, our academic “Marxists” have read the 1848 Communist Manisfesto and some hero-worshipping Leftist magazines. They are what Lenin, with magnificent disdain, called “vulgar Marxists”—that is, proletarian dupes who just don’t understand the deep philosophical roots of the real thing.

There are only a few ideas in Das Kapital. One is that human history is driven by class struggle between the rich and the poor, a wild oversimplification of history’s rich and colorful tapestry. The other idea, borrowed from Hegel and flipped upside-down, is that the inevitable culmination of History in a state of Paradise is a material and this-worldly society, the condition of universal Communism, instead of an other-worldly condition, as Hegel predicted. Hegel believed that the Prussian State was a model of Paradise to Come. But since Marx was a “scientific” materialist, his version of history was called “dialectical materialism.”

The final idea in Das Kapital is that economic profit (called “surplus value") belongs only to the workers, and not to the providers of entrepreneurial capital, nor to entrepreneurs who start and run businesses, nor to the inventors and developers who build intellectual capital all the way from Silicon Valley to Shanghai. Naturally, the radical Left gets to control what the workers produce. That’s it. There’s nothing else; it’s a huge and ponderous rationalization of the impulse to overthrow whatever exists.

At bottom, the key political idea of Marxism is “Alles muss anders sein!” --- Everything must be different. The workers are supposed to be the revolutionary engine of Marxism, but of course they must follow the “guidance” of the Party, which is the intellectual vanguard of the proletariat --- the Party ruling elite, who are inevitably the same gang of parasites who were hatched in the same backstreet cafes in which Lenin and Hitler learned their craft. If the workers and peasants don’t follow orders they must die or be sent to Siberia, as a logical matter of policy. It’s all for the good of mankind. Naturally the real beneficiaries are the Leftist apparatchiks, who happily end up stealing anything the workers produce.

The craving that “Everyhing must be different!” begins in personal psychology, and then becomes articulated in political beliefs. That’s why the same people can turn into anarchists or Nazis, Communists, or today, Post-Modernists, Deconstructionists, Radical Feminists, Socialists, Hillary followers, Islamo-fascists, you name it. It is why the ACLU chooses the worst criminals to defend; they secretly adore criminals, who are the ultimate rebels against society.

In teenagers the spirit of rebellion is perfectly normal, but it has its pathological extreme in what the psychiatric manual calls ”oppositional personality disorder.” The most psychologically acute philosopher in Western history, Friedrich Nietzche, called this oppositional personality syndrome the ”reversal of values,” and attributed it to Christianity (and its roots in Judaism two millenia ago). Christianity does tell us that “the poor shall inherit the earth,” but like any other two-millenium religious phenomenon, it also includes far, far more than that. The wish that Everything must be different! is not limited to any faith or race, but is part of the human condition, to one degree or another. It’s a normal part of growing up for most people.

But in some people it goes to murderous extremes—such as the young Adolf Schickelgruber in Vienna, or the exiled Vladimir Ilyich Lenin not far away in Zurich. A young Cambodian named Pol Pot learned his version of Everything must be different! in Jean-Paul Sartre’s Paris, was recruited as a promising candidate by the Soviet KGB, and then went back to Cambodia to kill three million people—to create Paradise on Earth back home. Again. It’s a predictable career path on the Left. Hugo Chavez today may follow the same logic as his model Fidel Castro.

What most conservatives don’t understand is that the Left has reincarnated itself since the Soviet Union died. Conservatives think that obviously false beliefs should change; but that’s not the way it works. Oppositional psychology is still at the core of the Left, and the mere crashing of the Soviet Empire and Maoist China hasn’t changed a thing. The human condition is not that susceptible to reason or evidence. Oppositional personality just mutates and breaks out in other ways, like some insidious virus.

Marx thought that class struggle was the engine of history, but “deconstructionism,” postmodernism, and the like have now generalized the class struggle to include race, class and gender, plus post-colonial revenge against the West, anti-rationalism, anti-scientific and anti-technology hatred, multiculturalism, militant Gays, transsexual gender benders, radical feminism, Afrocentrism, anti-Americanism, “man-boy lovers,” the cultural assault against the traditional family, anti-Zionism, militant atheism, and all the other rabble-rousing “isms” of the Left. The key to all these movements is just one basic craving, that Everything must be different!

Inside the Left there is always a huge civil war, because Leftists fiercely compete with each other to be “more radical than thou.” It’s a big ego game. The wildest radical argument tends to get the biggest applause, so that the Left as a whole always edges closer and closer to the totalitarian extreme. At the heart of every fervent liberal is Uncle Joe Stalin, because “ordinary people” will never do what they are supposed to do. They don’t follow orders from the Enlightened.

As a result of the competition to be more and more radical, things get so weird that the Left must always exercise censorship to shut out critical voices. Stalin decided what the science of genetics would be in the Soviet Union, leading to yet more disastrous harvest seasons in the midst of general famine. He just knew in his Great Man’s mind that new varieties of potatoes, and new human beings, could be created by environmental manipulation. Unfortunately that’s not true. But during Stalin’s time, that idea drove both “science” and agricultural practice in the USSR. Those ideas are so weird that they can only thrive in an environment of intimidation and censorship.

That is why we have Politically Correct censorship on America’s university campuses. Too many people know they just can’t submit their weird beliefs to skeptical analysis. PC censorship is the logical outcome of all those people telling skeptics and unbelievers to just shut up!

So the Marxist-Leninists hated the Anarchists, who hated the Trotskyites, who hated the Socialist Workers. In those little backstreet cafes in European cities the fights were mostly verbal, but whenever the Left took real power, the first order of business was always to kill, imprison, or forcibly convert one’s enemies on the Left. This was not revolutionary madness; it was a matter of deliberate policy. Lenin’s Bolsheviks killed the Russian Social Democrats, just as Hitler’s SS purged the SA (which included many homosexuals), in order to purify the one true faith and centralize control.

When Hillary Clinton presented her case to the Kos Kids last week, she trotted out an argument familiar to the Left: How pragmatic do you have to be to take power? The Kossicles are purists; they want to impeach Bush and some may fantasize about putting Dick Cheney up against a brick wall with a firing squad. But after a lifetime in politics, Hillary has drifted from being a young “idealistic” radical to a more pragmatic stance. Today she is happy to take money from corporate lobbyists, as long as she decides how to spend it.

As a Wellesley student Hillary Rodham was a fervent admirer of Saul Alinsky, who taught her his Rules for Radicals. The constant agitprop of today’s establishment media goes back to Saul Alinsky’s little book, the little Bible of the Boomer Left.

Alinsky basically taught the modern Left how to change the whole culture. That is why the New Conservative Media are such a threat to the Boomer Left: Conservatives are people who never fell for the liberal media narrative, and who were therefore shut out of the mainstream media. The New Left of the Sixties lived with the pleasant illusion of having won the culture war, before it found out that most Americans just never went along in their own minds. Now normal folks are speaking out in their own media, and it just freaks out our socialist Ruling Class.

Oppositional personality syndrome explains a lot. When Yasser Arafat was asked who his personal hero was, he answered with a broad smile, ”Mao Zedong!” That should have told us everything we needed to know. The Palestinian movement never builds anything, because its overriding impulse is to destroy, not to build. That famous Hamas-TV Mickey Mouse character didn’t teach little kids to build a wonderful new Palestine, but only to kill Jews. Islamic Fascism is therefore just another revolutionary creed, with radically different beliefs from atheistic Marxism, but driven by exactly the same craving that Everything must be different!

That is why the Soviet-Nazi pact of 1939 was a natural alliance. It is why Islamic Fascists in London get along so well with the Socialist Worker’s Party in the Respect coalition, fronted by “Gorgeous George” Galloway in the British Parliament.

A radical’s beliefs are only on the surface. It is the personal psychology that is always the same, and it always hankers to break down whatever humanity has built to date.

All the hateful totalitarian ideologies come from the left. The left has done a superb job of pinning Nazism & fascism on the right, but the fact remains that it is a creation based on Marxist ideals. Only the radical idiot still tries to claim communism was and is anything but a horribly evil ideology. We have the USSR, communist China, North Korea, Cuba, and a slew of African shitholes that bought into that evil and it shows. True, some like the idiots that put Chavez in power in Venezuela and the idiots that put Ortega back in power in Nicaragua, are still giving it a shot, and they deserve all they will get from it. Sad that those that knew better are likely to take the brunt of the hit. Anyway and unfortunately, because the left was so successful at associating Nazi fascism with the right, socialism has not lost its credibility. And that is why many of these thugs now claim to be socialists and pretend that stealing from the productive to buy votes from the unproductive is a good thing. Me, I would not like for us to go down that path in the US. I have had first hand experience with totalitarianism, and prefer not to have to live in a country where it holds reign.

Monday, August 06, 2007

Another header that is worng..

I was absolutely flabbergasted when I saw the headline in tha AJC stating that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had made the claim that the Bush Admin. had claimed the GWoT was phony. Well all it took was to read the article to discover that this was a big lie. What Gingrich claimed was not that the GWoT was phony, i.e a lie concocted by the Bushies, but that the way the Bush Admin is going about dealing with the GWoT was not effective. Newt’s main points were to ask why we had not come up with a new energy independence strategy - and contrary to the libs that want to replace oil with pie-in-th-sky fairy dust I am certain he is means building nuke plants and drilling for our own oil - to wean off the imported oil. He of course is right about this. Then again most of our imports come from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, but it would not be a bad idea to stop imports from the ME entirely. But of course reporting that would not help the agenda these leftists have of making the Bush WH look bad and forcing us to waste trillions on idiot technologies the left thinks will finally stick it to the evil oil corporations.

Of course the NYT doesn’t like this..

Anyone surprised that the NYT thinks this is an evil plan and a bad thing? I mean the NYT has gone out of its way to undermine the Bush Administrations ability to conduct the GWoT and to protect American lives by divulging critical issues that both compromised national security and American lives, claiming that it did so to halt the spread of fascism from this administration (you commies at the NYTs should remember that fascism is a child of socialism and not some right wing phenomenon like your own liberal propaganda of the last 30 or so years have claimed), when it was clearly done for political reasons and to help the democrats. “The damn Bushies can now listen in on calls that involve suspected terrorists or terror supporters outside the US calling people here and that is a violation of their rights!” Why the hell are these libs so concerned with the rights of terrorists & their supporters? Wish they had the same level of concern for lets say the security of our troops whom they so often put in more dangers with their politically motivated hack jobs or the victims of the evil socialist policies that have relegated millions to poverty & government dependence of the party they shill for. But no, as a good arm of the DNC the only thing the NYT seems to be concerned with is the Bush Administration actually stopping terrorist and winning the GWoT. Can’t have Bush succeed at anything because he has to go down to pay for Bill Clinton being a scumbag.

Me, I remain unconcerned, and I talk frequently with people overseas. But since I neither support terrorism, terrorists, or radical causes - and of course don’t forget the pet peeve of a ton of these concerned leftists, drug use & child porn, neither of which I engage in ever - I have to admit I have nothing to fear. Of course if you tend to be a scumbag lefty that thinks it is OK to support terrorists against your own country because you have been driven insane from BDS, this move should frighten you. Everyone else however will actually welcome the fact that the government is trying to stop monsters from killing Americans.

What I suspected..

As the news came out about the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge, I saw a couple of things that caught my attention: there was heavy construction going on, and there looked to be a large amount of heavy equipment on site. So it now comes as no surprise to me to hear that investigators are leaning towards that as the cause of the collapse. I will limit my speculation here, but I am betting money they find this to be the cause of the collapse. When you load a large amount of seriously heavy equipment and materials onto a small area on a bridge, you should not be surprised that it produces dangerous stress that can lead to failure.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

I call bullshit!

Holy crap it looks like Obama, in order to look less incompetent & inexperienced and more presidential, now has stated he would attack Pakistan. So let me get this straight. This idiot that wants us to cozy up and talk to every evil dictator in the world - remember he would talk face-to-face with the bastards in Iran & North Korea as president and thus legitimize these thugs, and thinks Chavez & Castro would be our buddies if we but gave them the time of day to tell us how much they hate us and want us to die - now wants to take on a nuclear armed nation of 170 million people that while not the best kind of ally still has been helping us fight the GWoT? Where the hell do these meatheads come from, and why isn’t the MSM hammering home on this neophyte? Can you imagine what kind of coverage a republican would have recieved if they had uttered but a fraction of the idiocy these democrats do?

But the scary thing here is how easy the left these days finds no problems in kissing up to some of the most evil people in the world while talking about going to war or cutting off with those that are helping America. Maybe as someone pointed out Obama and the other crew of retards know they would never have to pull the trigger on Pakistan, and hence they could say idiotic crap like this. Could be why they have no qualms about pissing off Muslims that work with us while bending over backwards to kiss the asses of those that want to kill us. Pakistan is under control and would not strike back like the other bastards they can’t wait too line up to kiss on the rear. How pathetic. At least Hillary is not as naive as the rest of the morons trying to sheister us into making them presidents, but she is also a consumate liar and powerhungry socialist in sheeps clothing. I guess I remain biased and unable to vote for any of these fools.



UPDATE: As if theis moron could not make it any worse, we now have the following attributed to Senator Obama:

OBAMA: NO NUKES…

Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons ‘in any circumstance’… ‘I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,’ Obama said, with a pause, ‘involving civilians’ Then he quickly added, ‘Let me scratch that’…

Are you freaking for real? If this moron became president any nut job with nuclear weapons could attack the US, kill us all if they have enough weapons like Russia or China do, thinking this idiot would not retaliate. Frankly we should laugh at these Mickey Mouse pacifist idiots and run them off the stage. If you had any doubts Obama was not ready to be president there is your proof. There is a reason that the US has never been nuked: we have made it clear we would wipe the assailant, and likely any friends too, out of existence. Anyone still believe we can take the lefty nut types seriously and let htem be in charge of our national security? This is not a Hollywood happy ending movie. We are talking about the real world, and the real world has some seriously crazy & evil bastards in it.