It's a war. It's a war. It's a war.
The beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaida today should make it clear to the left where the real evil lies. It's not George Bush. It's not Abu Gharaib. It's Al Qaida.
Let's hammer them into oblivion already. They are a threat to the entire West and they must be dealt with. Unequivocably. Unflinchingly. Dealt with.
Enough already.
Friday, June 18, 2004
"9-11 Commission Can't Find Their Butts with Both Hands"
Okay, that is the headline I would have written instead of the real headline in most newspapers Thursday morning: "9-11 Panel finds no link between Iraq and Al Qaida".
This is the same panel that can't even, as I've delineated for you in previous posts, spot the obvious conflict of interest of one of their own panel members. And we're going to trust them to analyze complicated terror networks.
Here's what I want before I'm satisfied: I want a full national discussion of the Salman Pak training camp in Iraq where a parked airliner was used to train hijackers on techniques using small knives. I want to know if the obvious is true, that this camp played a part in the training of the 9-11 "muscle" hijackers who took over the plane. That's what I want and it's completely missing in all the mainstream coverage of the commission.
This is the same panel that can't even, as I've delineated for you in previous posts, spot the obvious conflict of interest of one of their own panel members. And we're going to trust them to analyze complicated terror networks.
Here's what I want before I'm satisfied: I want a full national discussion of the Salman Pak training camp in Iraq where a parked airliner was used to train hijackers on techniques using small knives. I want to know if the obvious is true, that this camp played a part in the training of the 9-11 "muscle" hijackers who took over the plane. That's what I want and it's completely missing in all the mainstream coverage of the commission.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Quick Takes
I'm on the road this week. So, with Fox News Network - O'Reilly Factor in the background as mood music, I'll throw out some quick takes from my perch in my hotel room.
1. The Reagan funeral was very moving and was America on display at it's best. The spit and polish of the military funeral details was impressive. Those guys should get a unit citation.
2. On the Left -
- Kerry is being seriously eclipsed lately with the funeral, with the release of Bubba's memoirs, and with Michael Moore's film coming out.
- I did see Mrs. Theresa Heinz Kerry on TV being interviewed this week. Let's see - she's from South Africa, she disdains America, and she speaks softly in a French accent about obsure French philosophers. Please put her on TV in a debate with Laura Bush. Please. It's too bad the potential 1st Ladies don't debate.
3. From the right:
I've made a decision about the Bush administration's approach to the election and their puzzling quietness on the successes of the Iraq War component of the War on Terrorism.
Either:
- They are very confident in how the summer will unroll into the election. Good economic news, a positive spin out of the handoff to Iraqi sovereignty on June 30th, a good bump out of the convention.
or:
- they're just not competent and they're making the usual Republican mistake of playing nice while the opponents are at war.
I'm going with the "confident" option.
1. The Reagan funeral was very moving and was America on display at it's best. The spit and polish of the military funeral details was impressive. Those guys should get a unit citation.
2. On the Left -
- Kerry is being seriously eclipsed lately with the funeral, with the release of Bubba's memoirs, and with Michael Moore's film coming out.
- I did see Mrs. Theresa Heinz Kerry on TV being interviewed this week. Let's see - she's from South Africa, she disdains America, and she speaks softly in a French accent about obsure French philosophers. Please put her on TV in a debate with Laura Bush. Please. It's too bad the potential 1st Ladies don't debate.
3. From the right:
I've made a decision about the Bush administration's approach to the election and their puzzling quietness on the successes of the Iraq War component of the War on Terrorism.
Either:
- They are very confident in how the summer will unroll into the election. Good economic news, a positive spin out of the handoff to Iraqi sovereignty on June 30th, a good bump out of the convention.
or:
- they're just not competent and they're making the usual Republican mistake of playing nice while the opponents are at war.
I'm going with the "confident" option.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Reagan taught me that I'm teachable
In honor of the passing of President Ronald Wilson Reagan this weekend I'll say this: I was wrong about him.
We're going to be seeing hours and hours of footage and commentary about Reagan and his presidency this week. But I don't need the footage to remember. It was all live and in color to me.
Two facts framed his presidency for me. First, the 1980 election was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. Second, I was a college student then, and a raving left-wing liberal. In the clutches of liberal academia and not correctly informed about politics.
As for the election, I did pay attention. Reagan or Carter - choose. I read. I watched the debates. And I voted - absentee because I was off campus working as a co-op student at election time. I remember wanting the voting experience so badly that when my ballot arrived in the mail I took it into the shower, pulled the curtain around me, and punched my ballot. The ballot booth experience in my little apartment. Who did I vote for? I'll tell you at the end.
When I was on campus passions ran high. I remember speakers on the quad railing about Ronnie and his "Super Cosmic Ray-Gun" (clever huh?) who was going to drag us into a nuclear war.
And I was passionate about Reagan, in opposition. I believed he was stupid. I believed his policies were wrong headed and caused the huge deficit. I believed he was a dangerous right-winger. I believed he was going to drag us into nuclear war with the Soviets. And I wanted him impeached over Iran-Contra.
Now I think differently. He didn't change of course. I did. I read more about history and politics from different sources. Frankly, Rush Limbaugh's two books did quite a bit to change my mind about Reagan. You should read them if you haven't.
Now I recognize that his committment to principle, namely the goodness of America and the need for limited government were right on target.
I changed. I'm teachable. That's what my experience with Reagan taught me.
Who did I vote for in my first election in 1980. John Anderson - Indpependent.
We're going to be seeing hours and hours of footage and commentary about Reagan and his presidency this week. But I don't need the footage to remember. It was all live and in color to me.
Two facts framed his presidency for me. First, the 1980 election was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. Second, I was a college student then, and a raving left-wing liberal. In the clutches of liberal academia and not correctly informed about politics.
As for the election, I did pay attention. Reagan or Carter - choose. I read. I watched the debates. And I voted - absentee because I was off campus working as a co-op student at election time. I remember wanting the voting experience so badly that when my ballot arrived in the mail I took it into the shower, pulled the curtain around me, and punched my ballot. The ballot booth experience in my little apartment. Who did I vote for? I'll tell you at the end.
When I was on campus passions ran high. I remember speakers on the quad railing about Ronnie and his "Super Cosmic Ray-Gun" (clever huh?) who was going to drag us into a nuclear war.
And I was passionate about Reagan, in opposition. I believed he was stupid. I believed his policies were wrong headed and caused the huge deficit. I believed he was a dangerous right-winger. I believed he was going to drag us into nuclear war with the Soviets. And I wanted him impeached over Iran-Contra.
Now I think differently. He didn't change of course. I did. I read more about history and politics from different sources. Frankly, Rush Limbaugh's two books did quite a bit to change my mind about Reagan. You should read them if you haven't.
Now I recognize that his committment to principle, namely the goodness of America and the need for limited government were right on target.
I changed. I'm teachable. That's what my experience with Reagan taught me.
Who did I vote for in my first election in 1980. John Anderson - Indpependent.
One Judge shuts down Democracy
It took years to shape this law - the law banning partial-birth abortion procedures.
435 duly elected Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives passed the law - twice.
100 duly elected senators in the United States Senate passed it - twice.
1 duly elected President, Bill Clinton, vetos the law - twice.
A new election, a new president. The law passed again constitutionally by the House, passed again constitutionally by the Senate, signed now constitutionally by an elected President.
And now one federal judge in San Francisco of all places declares it unconstitutional and void. One judge, elected by nobody. One judge has that much power.
Does that make any sense at all?
435 duly elected Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives passed the law - twice.
100 duly elected senators in the United States Senate passed it - twice.
1 duly elected President, Bill Clinton, vetos the law - twice.
A new election, a new president. The law passed again constitutionally by the House, passed again constitutionally by the Senate, signed now constitutionally by an elected President.
And now one federal judge in San Francisco of all places declares it unconstitutional and void. One judge, elected by nobody. One judge has that much power.
Does that make any sense at all?
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Iron(y) Man
8 airplanes, 6 cities, in 4 days. Tough week of business travel.
And to top it off I had to watch the Al Gore speech to MoveOn.org. Okay, I didn't have to. But I am a newsjunkie. So I had to.
Vice President Gore gave a passionate left-wing speech to a stridently partisan left-wing organization, MoveOn.org. (If you remember, this is a left-wing website that started up during President Clinton's impeachment to defend the president. The concept was "it's only about sex, there's nothing to see here, let's move on..."). The speech was an attack on President Bush, and his Attorney General John Ashcroft, and their record on civil liberties in the aftermath of 9-11. It was all one-sided of course. There was no real recognition that we are at war. Only rebuke of our reaction to war. And it was distorted of course. Gore painted every issue in the worst possible interpretation.
He closed his speech with a recap of the 2000 election. He opined that, while he did his duty by conceding the election for the good of the country, he had no idea that the Bush administration would trash out the "rule of law".
As to style - Gore was his usual stiff self. The Iron Man.
But he was more the Irony Man. Irony abounds in his speech.
Let's start with recapping the 2000 election in a speech to a group called "MoveOn". I guess he's not moving on.
Gore railed at the adminstration about not providing more airline security in spite of warnings about terrorists wanting to hijack aircraft. The irony, of course, is that Gore chaired a Presidential Commission to improve airline security. 19 men proved his commission's work to be woefully and fatally ineffective.
Gore railed at the administration for poor treatment of immigrants since 9-11. Improper searches and detaintments and such. The irony, of course, is that Gore spearheaded an effort for the Democrats in 1996 called "Citizenship USA" to pressure the INS to circumvent immigration laws in order to get more immigrants eligible to vote in time for the election. (see this article) They bypassed background checks and rushed naturalization for up to a million immigrants to get them eligible to vote. Who knows who they let in. TheClinton-Gore administration's trashing of immigration laws is directly responsible for allowing terrorist to infiltrate America and set up terrorist cells in our midst. All in the name of political correctness and Democratic votes.
Gore quoted a recent study that indicated that Al Qaida membership has reformed (after their devasting defeat, I would add), in Afghanistan to a membership of approx. 18,000. He was implying that Bush had not succeeded in stopping Al Qaida. The irony, of course, is the Clinton-Gore administration's total inattention to terrorism for 8 years while Bin Laden was running 10,000 terrorist through his training camps and dispersing them throughout the world. It was those cells that formed in the 90's that have allowed them to regroup after the pounding that Bush gave them.
Oh, the irony. Actually, the absurdity.
I have not doubt who I would want leading the War on Terrorism, that was not of our choosing but was forced on us. Bush and Ashcroft. Or Gore and Reno. No doubt of that at all. I'm very thankful for the results of the 2000 election. I'm moving on.
And to top it off I had to watch the Al Gore speech to MoveOn.org. Okay, I didn't have to. But I am a newsjunkie. So I had to.
Vice President Gore gave a passionate left-wing speech to a stridently partisan left-wing organization, MoveOn.org. (If you remember, this is a left-wing website that started up during President Clinton's impeachment to defend the president. The concept was "it's only about sex, there's nothing to see here, let's move on..."). The speech was an attack on President Bush, and his Attorney General John Ashcroft, and their record on civil liberties in the aftermath of 9-11. It was all one-sided of course. There was no real recognition that we are at war. Only rebuke of our reaction to war. And it was distorted of course. Gore painted every issue in the worst possible interpretation.
He closed his speech with a recap of the 2000 election. He opined that, while he did his duty by conceding the election for the good of the country, he had no idea that the Bush administration would trash out the "rule of law".
As to style - Gore was his usual stiff self. The Iron Man.
But he was more the Irony Man. Irony abounds in his speech.
Let's start with recapping the 2000 election in a speech to a group called "MoveOn". I guess he's not moving on.
Gore railed at the adminstration about not providing more airline security in spite of warnings about terrorists wanting to hijack aircraft. The irony, of course, is that Gore chaired a Presidential Commission to improve airline security. 19 men proved his commission's work to be woefully and fatally ineffective.
Gore railed at the administration for poor treatment of immigrants since 9-11. Improper searches and detaintments and such. The irony, of course, is that Gore spearheaded an effort for the Democrats in 1996 called "Citizenship USA" to pressure the INS to circumvent immigration laws in order to get more immigrants eligible to vote in time for the election. (see this article) They bypassed background checks and rushed naturalization for up to a million immigrants to get them eligible to vote. Who knows who they let in. TheClinton-Gore administration's trashing of immigration laws is directly responsible for allowing terrorist to infiltrate America and set up terrorist cells in our midst. All in the name of political correctness and Democratic votes.
Gore quoted a recent study that indicated that Al Qaida membership has reformed (after their devasting defeat, I would add), in Afghanistan to a membership of approx. 18,000. He was implying that Bush had not succeeded in stopping Al Qaida. The irony, of course, is the Clinton-Gore administration's total inattention to terrorism for 8 years while Bin Laden was running 10,000 terrorist through his training camps and dispersing them throughout the world. It was those cells that formed in the 90's that have allowed them to regroup after the pounding that Bush gave them.
Oh, the irony. Actually, the absurdity.
I have not doubt who I would want leading the War on Terrorism, that was not of our choosing but was forced on us. Bush and Ashcroft. Or Gore and Reno. No doubt of that at all. I'm very thankful for the results of the 2000 election. I'm moving on.
Patient Justice
Kudos to the State of Oklahoma for their perserverance for a decade in the prosecution of Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 169 people. Though already convicted and sentenced to life in a federal court, the state prosecuted as well with the power to impose the death penalty.
Some thoughts:
Nichols is definitely guilty of an abhorrent crime. I hope this second conviction gives some comfort to victims families.
The judge limited testimony regarding other conspirators who helped McVeigh, including middle eastern connections. I'm sure this was helpful in the narrow interest of convicting Nichols. It was not helpful broadly for Americans to learn the full nature of the conspiracy to bomb the building. There is clear evidence that Nichols met in the Phillipines with terrorists with Iraqi and Al Qaida connections. When is that going to get examined in public? And why don't more Americans know about that connection.
One hidden tidbit I learned by reading news accounts closely is that Nichols was convicted of killing 160 people and 1 fetus. Killing a fetus is a convictable offense? How can that be when it happens 4,400 times a day in America under the banner of choice?
Some thoughts:
Nichols is definitely guilty of an abhorrent crime. I hope this second conviction gives some comfort to victims families.
The judge limited testimony regarding other conspirators who helped McVeigh, including middle eastern connections. I'm sure this was helpful in the narrow interest of convicting Nichols. It was not helpful broadly for Americans to learn the full nature of the conspiracy to bomb the building. There is clear evidence that Nichols met in the Phillipines with terrorists with Iraqi and Al Qaida connections. When is that going to get examined in public? And why don't more Americans know about that connection.
One hidden tidbit I learned by reading news accounts closely is that Nichols was convicted of killing 160 people and 1 fetus. Killing a fetus is a convictable offense? How can that be when it happens 4,400 times a day in America under the banner of choice?
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Let the Witnesses Speak
I thought they were all finally going to get to speak. The witnesses in the Oklahoma bombing case. I was wrong.
Just to recap: Terry Nichols is being tried in a state court for murder for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Nichols was already convicted in a federal court and is serving life. The state of Oklahoma wants him also for the deaths of their citizens. Nichols defense includes the argument that McVeigh had numerous other co-conspirators.
I absolutely think that Nichols conspired in the bombing, is guilty, and should have gotten the death penalty.
However, I'm also convinced that McVeigh had other conspirators with him in Oklahoma City that day and I want them brought to justice also. I finished reading Jayna Davis's definitive book "The Third Terrorist" and I think it's clear and convincing on the presence of Middle Eastern terrorists in the plot that day. If you haven't read it, you need to. Lot's of witnesses to Middle Eastern men with McVeigh. None of them called to testify. Why?
It's important to remember a few facts:
1. Nichols was in Kansas on that day, April 19th. Did he conspire to build the bomb. Absolutely, I'm convinced of that. Davis presents the evidence that Nichols travelled to the Phillipines to learn bombmaking from Ramsi Yousef. Yousef built the bomb for the World Trade Center in 1993 and was connected to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. And Nichols spent time with him. But he was not present when the bomb was constructed and delivered.
2. There are witnesses that saw McVeigh with other people in OKC that morning. Several witnesses. They got to testify in Nichols trial. A quote from the Associated Press in USA Today:
If it wasn't Nichols, and it wasn't, who was it who helped McVeigh deliver the bomb downtown.
3. There are ample witnesses who place McVeigh in Elohim City, a white supremacist group in Oklahoma before the bombing. More co-conspirators. You can read about them in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's excellent book "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton". But you can't read about them in the trial transcripts of this trial. Why? The judge said so:
No substance? Why not hear from the witnesses and let the jury make that decision?
When are we going to get to hear from these witnesses under oath?
Just to recap: Terry Nichols is being tried in a state court for murder for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Nichols was already convicted in a federal court and is serving life. The state of Oklahoma wants him also for the deaths of their citizens. Nichols defense includes the argument that McVeigh had numerous other co-conspirators.
I absolutely think that Nichols conspired in the bombing, is guilty, and should have gotten the death penalty.
However, I'm also convinced that McVeigh had other conspirators with him in Oklahoma City that day and I want them brought to justice also. I finished reading Jayna Davis's definitive book "The Third Terrorist" and I think it's clear and convincing on the presence of Middle Eastern terrorists in the plot that day. If you haven't read it, you need to. Lot's of witnesses to Middle Eastern men with McVeigh. None of them called to testify. Why?
It's important to remember a few facts:
1. Nichols was in Kansas on that day, April 19th. Did he conspire to build the bomb. Absolutely, I'm convinced of that. Davis presents the evidence that Nichols travelled to the Phillipines to learn bombmaking from Ramsi Yousef. Yousef built the bomb for the World Trade Center in 1993 and was connected to Al Qaida and Bin Laden. And Nichols spent time with him. But he was not present when the bomb was constructed and delivered.
2. There are witnesses that saw McVeigh with other people in OKC that morning. Several witnesses. They got to testify in Nichols trial. A quote from the Associated Press in USA Today:
Defense attorneys allege that other coconspirators gave McVeigh substantial help in planning the bombing. They put several witnesses on the stand who said they saw McVeigh with another man who was not Nichols in the days and even the moments before the bombing.
If it wasn't Nichols, and it wasn't, who was it who helped McVeigh deliver the bomb downtown.
3. There are ample witnesses who place McVeigh in Elohim City, a white supremacist group in Oklahoma before the bombing. More co-conspirators. You can read about them in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's excellent book "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton". But you can't read about them in the trial transcripts of this trial. Why? The judge said so:
An April 21 ruling by Taylor kept the defense from calling hundreds of other planned witnesses. He said there was no substance to defense allegations that McVeigh had links to a gang of white supremacist bank robbers and residents of Elohim City, a separatist enclave in eastern Oklahoma.
No substance? Why not hear from the witnesses and let the jury make that decision?
When are we going to get to hear from these witnesses under oath?
Hillary visits the VRWC
Re: Hillary Clinton's appearance on Fox News Network's Sunday show this morning:
- Her 1st appearance at the epicenter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
- Did I hear her right, that she agreed with me on the handover of power in Iraq on June 30th? In early April I was advocating that we keep the date. Dems (and most Republicans) at that time were jabbering that there was no way we could turnover power on that date with the situation on the ground there. I made the argument to my friend that the wildcard in the argument was George W. Bush. The man has an iron core. He set the date, and he wasn't going to deviate. June 30th it was going to be. I also made the argument that doing so would disarm his opponents. I'm sure I heard Sen. Clinton say this morning that we were going to meet the date.
- It was the height of political irony seeing Hillary paired on the show with Sen. Lindsay Graham. They were having a political lovefest of bipartisanship over Iraq. Closing ranks for the sake of the troops. Awesome! The irony: Graham was one of the leading House managers presenting the case to the Senate that President Clinton should be convicted and removed from office! Time marches on in politics, I guess.
- Her 1st appearance at the epicenter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
- Did I hear her right, that she agreed with me on the handover of power in Iraq on June 30th? In early April I was advocating that we keep the date. Dems (and most Republicans) at that time were jabbering that there was no way we could turnover power on that date with the situation on the ground there. I made the argument to my friend that the wildcard in the argument was George W. Bush. The man has an iron core. He set the date, and he wasn't going to deviate. June 30th it was going to be. I also made the argument that doing so would disarm his opponents. I'm sure I heard Sen. Clinton say this morning that we were going to meet the date.
- It was the height of political irony seeing Hillary paired on the show with Sen. Lindsay Graham. They were having a political lovefest of bipartisanship over Iraq. Closing ranks for the sake of the troops. Awesome! The irony: Graham was one of the leading House managers presenting the case to the Senate that President Clinton should be convicted and removed from office! Time marches on in politics, I guess.
Monday, May 17, 2004
"Do you take this woman" - or is it man?
They're popping the champaign corks in Massachusetts as they legalize gay marriage - the first in the nation to do so. In honor of this historic event I thought I would finally comment. Here are my thoughts, in brief:
1. I believe that homosexuality is probably nature driven rather than nuture and is hormonally/chemically driven rather than genetic. However, whether it is a result of nature or through some developmental factor of parenting or environment - it's not the individual's choice in most cases. And I believe that individuals, who did not make a choice of who to fall in love with, want naturally to get married.
2. I also believe that the Bible is clear on the topic and that marriage is designed, biologically, for a man and a woman. Thousands of years of history in all civilization supports this concept.
3. I also recognize that the first two are in conflict. I've resolved it for myself this way.
- I believe in civil marriages for everyone as a state sanctioned function. I believe encouraging monogamy is in the best interest of a stable society. Getting married at the courthouse is fine with me. I believe that represents the conservative position politically as I know it.
- I also believe churches have an absolute right to set doctrine on the issues of marriage in the church, ordination, membership, etc. I believe it is incompatible with Christian doctrine for gays to get married in the church or hold leadership positions. I'm ok with membership. But all that is for each church hierarchy to work out independent of the state.
That's just how I've worked it out. You're on your own.
1. I believe that homosexuality is probably nature driven rather than nuture and is hormonally/chemically driven rather than genetic. However, whether it is a result of nature or through some developmental factor of parenting or environment - it's not the individual's choice in most cases. And I believe that individuals, who did not make a choice of who to fall in love with, want naturally to get married.
2. I also believe that the Bible is clear on the topic and that marriage is designed, biologically, for a man and a woman. Thousands of years of history in all civilization supports this concept.
3. I also recognize that the first two are in conflict. I've resolved it for myself this way.
- I believe in civil marriages for everyone as a state sanctioned function. I believe encouraging monogamy is in the best interest of a stable society. Getting married at the courthouse is fine with me. I believe that represents the conservative position politically as I know it.
- I also believe churches have an absolute right to set doctrine on the issues of marriage in the church, ordination, membership, etc. I believe it is incompatible with Christian doctrine for gays to get married in the church or hold leadership positions. I'm ok with membership. But all that is for each church hierarchy to work out independent of the state.
That's just how I've worked it out. You're on your own.
Who was really lying?
For months now Democrats in general, and the Kerry campaign in particular have been advancing two arguments:
1. Bush lied about WMD's being present in Iraq to drag us into war (probably for oil).
2. Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida
The story goes that Bush was pre-determined to go to war with Iraq before 9-11 either to avenge his father or to pay back his rich oil buddies, and that he used these pretenses to achieve his evil agenda.
Months and months of far left protesters carrying "Bush lied, kids died" signs.
Not only are those two arguments wrong on their face. 17 UN resolutions in 12 years give weight to the argument about WMD's in Iraq. And we've known about connections between Iraq and Al Qaida for some time now, as Ann Coulter documents well in her latest column.
But I offer 3 recent news stories as further proof:
1. Authorities thwart terrorist bombing in Jordan. Jordanian officials identified the terrorists as Al Qaida members. Among their supplies were explosives and chemical nerve agents supplied by Syria. Intelligence estimates that Syria never produced these types of chemical agents. Probable source, Iraq. (Bolsters the argument that Sadaam simply transferred his stockpile over the border to Syria in the months preceding the March invasion). Estimates are that this attack would have killed as many as 80,000 in Jordan.
2. Nicholas Berg is executed by Al Qaida. In Iraq.
3. Chemical weapon explodes today in Iraq. Sarin gas is detected. American explosives experts who detonated the explosive had to be treated for exposure to Sarin gas. Sarin being a WMD outlawed in Iraq which Sadaam claimed to have destroyed before the 1st gulf war.
I personally think both claims were true from the beginning. Sadaam had WMD's, which he likely transferred to Syria. And Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaida were working together on 9-11 not because they like each other, buth because they have a common enemy in us.
So, who's been lying? I'll hold my breath for an apology from the left.
1. Bush lied about WMD's being present in Iraq to drag us into war (probably for oil).
2. Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida
The story goes that Bush was pre-determined to go to war with Iraq before 9-11 either to avenge his father or to pay back his rich oil buddies, and that he used these pretenses to achieve his evil agenda.
Months and months of far left protesters carrying "Bush lied, kids died" signs.
Not only are those two arguments wrong on their face. 17 UN resolutions in 12 years give weight to the argument about WMD's in Iraq. And we've known about connections between Iraq and Al Qaida for some time now, as Ann Coulter documents well in her latest column.
But I offer 3 recent news stories as further proof:
1. Authorities thwart terrorist bombing in Jordan. Jordanian officials identified the terrorists as Al Qaida members. Among their supplies were explosives and chemical nerve agents supplied by Syria. Intelligence estimates that Syria never produced these types of chemical agents. Probable source, Iraq. (Bolsters the argument that Sadaam simply transferred his stockpile over the border to Syria in the months preceding the March invasion). Estimates are that this attack would have killed as many as 80,000 in Jordan.
2. Nicholas Berg is executed by Al Qaida. In Iraq.
3. Chemical weapon explodes today in Iraq. Sarin gas is detected. American explosives experts who detonated the explosive had to be treated for exposure to Sarin gas. Sarin being a WMD outlawed in Iraq which Sadaam claimed to have destroyed before the 1st gulf war.
I personally think both claims were true from the beginning. Sadaam had WMD's, which he likely transferred to Syria. And Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaida were working together on 9-11 not because they like each other, buth because they have a common enemy in us.
So, who's been lying? I'll hold my breath for an apology from the left.
Squeamish Americans
I want to see the video of the Nicholas Berg execution by Al Qaida in Iraq. I've attempted unsuccessfully to find it and view it on the internet.
I'm deeply puzzled by our news media's filter on war issues. Prison mistreatment photos take by American GI's from Abu Grhaib are ok to show over and over again. Why because they are not too gruesome and are important. But Nicholas Berg's execution by Islamic terrorists can't be shown because it's too gruesome and would offend the sensibilities of civilized people. Same with the video of Daniel Pearl's slaughter by Islamic terrorists. Same with the graphic video of people jumping out of the World Trade Center towers after being attacked by Islamic terrorists.
Are we getting the picture here? American mistreatment - not too gruesome. Islamic terrorists activities - too gruesome to show. That should give you all the perspective you need. As Sean Hannity said on his radio program all week, it should define for you the difference between mistreatment and atrocity.
But it's not enough. I think Americans are way too squeamish on this and should suck it up and view the videos so that we fully know what this War on Terrorism is all about. The full depth of it. I frankly don't have patience with my fellow countrymen on this point. We're going to commit troops to fight and die for a cause, but we can't be bothered to be offended by viewing the reality of that war?
I see it as analogous to "The Passion of the Christ". Sure I already knew the story of the crucifixion of Christ. Sure it meant a lot to me. But Mel Gibson correctly understood that people needed to be visually confronted with the reality of those last twelve hours, in all of their violent content, to truly internalize the meaning. It's the same principle here. Sure we understand the pure evil of Berg's killing. But have we, in a two day news cycle, really internalized what it means about the enemy that we are in a life and death struggle with daily?
I think public opinion of the war in Iraq would be far different and far more committed if Americans had been allowed to view the complete Twin Towers video, the Daniel Pearl video, and the Nicholas Berg video.
To the networks: stop censoring the video.
To my friends and family: stop averting your eyes. You owe it to our troops to be fully committed to why we sent them there.
I'm deeply puzzled by our news media's filter on war issues. Prison mistreatment photos take by American GI's from Abu Grhaib are ok to show over and over again. Why because they are not too gruesome and are important. But Nicholas Berg's execution by Islamic terrorists can't be shown because it's too gruesome and would offend the sensibilities of civilized people. Same with the video of Daniel Pearl's slaughter by Islamic terrorists. Same with the graphic video of people jumping out of the World Trade Center towers after being attacked by Islamic terrorists.
Are we getting the picture here? American mistreatment - not too gruesome. Islamic terrorists activities - too gruesome to show. That should give you all the perspective you need. As Sean Hannity said on his radio program all week, it should define for you the difference between mistreatment and atrocity.
But it's not enough. I think Americans are way too squeamish on this and should suck it up and view the videos so that we fully know what this War on Terrorism is all about. The full depth of it. I frankly don't have patience with my fellow countrymen on this point. We're going to commit troops to fight and die for a cause, but we can't be bothered to be offended by viewing the reality of that war?
I see it as analogous to "The Passion of the Christ". Sure I already knew the story of the crucifixion of Christ. Sure it meant a lot to me. But Mel Gibson correctly understood that people needed to be visually confronted with the reality of those last twelve hours, in all of their violent content, to truly internalize the meaning. It's the same principle here. Sure we understand the pure evil of Berg's killing. But have we, in a two day news cycle, really internalized what it means about the enemy that we are in a life and death struggle with daily?
I think public opinion of the war in Iraq would be far different and far more committed if Americans had been allowed to view the complete Twin Towers video, the Daniel Pearl video, and the Nicholas Berg video.
To the networks: stop censoring the video.
To my friends and family: stop averting your eyes. You owe it to our troops to be fully committed to why we sent them there.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Making it Personal
Even as a news junkie it's hard to put all that's happening in Iraq and in the War on Terrorism in perspective. How can you take in the daily toll of casualties, the complete disheartening of the prisoner abuse photos, the atrocity of the beheading of the American contractor by Al Qaida in Iraq. It's mind numbing.
And most of all it's remote. Even with Guard and Reserve troops from our area to Iraq I only know 1 person directly involved militarily. Even being a veteran myself it's hard to relate to our troops and the events unrolling on the screen.
So I decided to make it personal, and yesterday's news of the beheading of Mr. Berg made me do it. Here's how I made it personal:
I have a coworker who became a friend over the last year. I don't know him outside of work. I didn't know anything about his family. I know snippets about his hobbies. But I got to know him and admire him as a coworker and a mentor over the last year.
Around March of last year, when the Iraq invasion started, we were having lunch in the cafeteria. I was chattering on about events and my take on it. He wasn't talking much. Finally I asked him what he thought about us going to Iraq. "We don't have any business being there" he said in a quiet but deeply intense way. It surprised me. What's that all about, I thought.
Last month we were together again for a business dinner. We had more time to talk. It seems my friend has a son in the military. Assignment: Baghdad. And he won't say it, but he's clearly deathly afraid for his son's safety. "Stay on the base", he told him. "There's no reason to go to town".
So that's how I make it personal. I don't know a troop, but I know a troop's father.
So I watch the news of the beheading and I think "What if that was my friend's son? Is it worth his death for us to be in Iraq? Is it worth the heartache my friend would have?"
My answer for the invasion would have been yes. I believe Sadaam represented a real threat with a real connection to terrorism and a real grudge against the U.S. and was, in sum, a danger to us that needed to be defanged at a cost.
That's done. My answer now is no. We should go home.
I know that we have stated objectives to build a democracy in that area of the world as a base against terrorism. I don't buy it. They'll never like us there. Never.
I know pundits like Cokie Roberts make the argument that "We broke it, we bought it". I don't buy it. Sure we should rebuild some bridges, turn the water and power back on, etc. But nation building, no.
They're defanged. They can't hurt us. We should say simply "we did the right thing to prevent terrorism. Don't do it again or we'll be back." Then bring my friend's son and all the troops home.
If the Sunnis want to fight the Shiites, or vice versa, I don't care. It's not our fight.
And most of all it's remote. Even with Guard and Reserve troops from our area to Iraq I only know 1 person directly involved militarily. Even being a veteran myself it's hard to relate to our troops and the events unrolling on the screen.
So I decided to make it personal, and yesterday's news of the beheading of Mr. Berg made me do it. Here's how I made it personal:
I have a coworker who became a friend over the last year. I don't know him outside of work. I didn't know anything about his family. I know snippets about his hobbies. But I got to know him and admire him as a coworker and a mentor over the last year.
Around March of last year, when the Iraq invasion started, we were having lunch in the cafeteria. I was chattering on about events and my take on it. He wasn't talking much. Finally I asked him what he thought about us going to Iraq. "We don't have any business being there" he said in a quiet but deeply intense way. It surprised me. What's that all about, I thought.
Last month we were together again for a business dinner. We had more time to talk. It seems my friend has a son in the military. Assignment: Baghdad. And he won't say it, but he's clearly deathly afraid for his son's safety. "Stay on the base", he told him. "There's no reason to go to town".
So that's how I make it personal. I don't know a troop, but I know a troop's father.
So I watch the news of the beheading and I think "What if that was my friend's son? Is it worth his death for us to be in Iraq? Is it worth the heartache my friend would have?"
My answer for the invasion would have been yes. I believe Sadaam represented a real threat with a real connection to terrorism and a real grudge against the U.S. and was, in sum, a danger to us that needed to be defanged at a cost.
That's done. My answer now is no. We should go home.
I know that we have stated objectives to build a democracy in that area of the world as a base against terrorism. I don't buy it. They'll never like us there. Never.
I know pundits like Cokie Roberts make the argument that "We broke it, we bought it". I don't buy it. Sure we should rebuild some bridges, turn the water and power back on, etc. But nation building, no.
They're defanged. They can't hurt us. We should say simply "we did the right thing to prevent terrorism. Don't do it again or we'll be back." Then bring my friend's son and all the troops home.
If the Sunnis want to fight the Shiites, or vice versa, I don't care. It's not our fight.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Crossing the line
They're disconcerting of course. The pictures of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Absolutely unacceptable and appalling. And definitely damaging to our efforts to rebuild Iraq.
So are the soldiers who did it animals? Not likely in my estimation.
I attribute it to 2 things. Skirting the line by trying to gather intelligence thru psychological rather than physical torture. And putting troops untrained in that practice in charge of it for months at a time. Both things add to a failure of leadership. In skirting the line they crossed it. Court-martialling the privates won't accomplish anything. Some leaders have to take the fall.
There's no doubt that the Bush-haters and the anti-war folks will rightfully make good mileage out of this dreadful situation.
Fix it. Fire someone. And move on.
So are the soldiers who did it animals? Not likely in my estimation.
I attribute it to 2 things. Skirting the line by trying to gather intelligence thru psychological rather than physical torture. And putting troops untrained in that practice in charge of it for months at a time. Both things add to a failure of leadership. In skirting the line they crossed it. Court-martialling the privates won't accomplish anything. Some leaders have to take the fall.
There's no doubt that the Bush-haters and the anti-war folks will rightfully make good mileage out of this dreadful situation.
Fix it. Fire someone. And move on.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Do More than Remember
Today is the 9 year anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City.
We should remember it, and more.
The best way to honor the fallen is to investigate further the Mideast connections to the attack.
I bought an advance copy of "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis, which documents the Mideast connections and the involvement, at the very minimum, of an Iraqi army intelligence soldier who has been identified as "John Doe #2" seen in the vehicle with Tim McVeigh. I'm about 1/2 way through. Her evidence, which has been vetted by David Schippers who I trust, is compelling.
I was encouraged that the topic came up at the 9-11 hearings. We won't fully understand 9-11 until we understand how fully we have been under attack since 1992.
Honor the victims by following all the leads. Give them justice.
We should remember it, and more.
The best way to honor the fallen is to investigate further the Mideast connections to the attack.
I bought an advance copy of "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis, which documents the Mideast connections and the involvement, at the very minimum, of an Iraqi army intelligence soldier who has been identified as "John Doe #2" seen in the vehicle with Tim McVeigh. I'm about 1/2 way through. Her evidence, which has been vetted by David Schippers who I trust, is compelling.
I was encouraged that the topic came up at the 9-11 hearings. We won't fully understand 9-11 until we understand how fully we have been under attack since 1992.
Honor the victims by following all the leads. Give them justice.
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Speaking Up - My email to the 9-11 Commission
Honorable Chairman Kean and co-Chairman Hamilton,
I am a resident of xxxxx, Illinois. I am a registered Republican voter with no further political or activist affiliations.
As a private citizen I have been watching the televised 9-11 hearings with interest. I believe the Commission has done impressive work and has heard in the last few weeks from an impressive roster of national policy makers. I believe the Commission's work is valuable if you will follow the facts and avoid partisanship.
However, I am disturbed by the events of this week regarding Commissioner Gorelick's conflict of interest exposed by the Justice Department's declassification of the "wall" memo that she authored. I have 3 comments:
1. Commissioner Gorelick clearly has a conflict of interest and must not be allowed to remain on the Commission if your report is to be valid. Congressman Sensenbrenner has delineated the clear language of your recusal statute and Commissioner Gorelick clearly meets that standard. It is unfathomable that she would be allowed to vote on the final report in light of her conflict. She should, in fact, be a witness before the Commission and not a member.
2. Commissioner Gorelick has indicated that she will not resign. You must do your duty as chairman and remove her. To fail to do so will taint your final report fatally.
Circling the wagons here is the wrong thing to do. Defending the indefensible leads to silly public statements like your recent statement that "people should stay out of our business". The work of the Commission is the public's business and your statement was ill advised and arrogant. Make a clear evaluation of the conflict, which is inarguable, and act.
3. It is, to me, the height of irony that your Commission, some members of which have been engaged in a public "gotcha" game of asking "How could they not know", suffers the same fate. I ask you:
How could you not know when she was selected for the Commission that Commissioner Gorelick's work as a policy maker in both the Justice Department and the Department of Defense during the time period in question put her in direct conflict of interest with the stated mission of the Commission?
I understand that replacing a Commissioner at this late stage is problematic. However, how could you not know that it would eventually be required and let it go this long?
You must do your duty and remove Commissioner Gorelick from the 9-11 Commission.
Best Regards,
I am a resident of xxxxx, Illinois. I am a registered Republican voter with no further political or activist affiliations.
As a private citizen I have been watching the televised 9-11 hearings with interest. I believe the Commission has done impressive work and has heard in the last few weeks from an impressive roster of national policy makers. I believe the Commission's work is valuable if you will follow the facts and avoid partisanship.
However, I am disturbed by the events of this week regarding Commissioner Gorelick's conflict of interest exposed by the Justice Department's declassification of the "wall" memo that she authored. I have 3 comments:
1. Commissioner Gorelick clearly has a conflict of interest and must not be allowed to remain on the Commission if your report is to be valid. Congressman Sensenbrenner has delineated the clear language of your recusal statute and Commissioner Gorelick clearly meets that standard. It is unfathomable that she would be allowed to vote on the final report in light of her conflict. She should, in fact, be a witness before the Commission and not a member.
2. Commissioner Gorelick has indicated that she will not resign. You must do your duty as chairman and remove her. To fail to do so will taint your final report fatally.
Circling the wagons here is the wrong thing to do. Defending the indefensible leads to silly public statements like your recent statement that "people should stay out of our business". The work of the Commission is the public's business and your statement was ill advised and arrogant. Make a clear evaluation of the conflict, which is inarguable, and act.
3. It is, to me, the height of irony that your Commission, some members of which have been engaged in a public "gotcha" game of asking "How could they not know", suffers the same fate. I ask you:
How could you not know when she was selected for the Commission that Commissioner Gorelick's work as a policy maker in both the Justice Department and the Department of Defense during the time period in question put her in direct conflict of interest with the stated mission of the Commission?
I understand that replacing a Commissioner at this late stage is problematic. However, how could you not know that it would eventually be required and let it go this long?
You must do your duty and remove Commissioner Gorelick from the 9-11 Commission.
Best Regards,
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Soundbites
I saw bits and pieces of the 9/11 hearings today, with the Justice Department lineup. Here some tidbits:
1. Louis Freeh. Looked and sounded credible. Sharp command of the facts. Hammered by Democrats. Took an interesting shot at Richard Clarke. "By the way, Richard Clarke wasn't at any of those meetings. I don't know why Sandy Berger didn't want him there".
2. Janet Reno. A mess. Incoherent. Not credible.
3. Jim Thompson. Republican - former governor of Illinois. Totally kissed up to Janet Reno, gushing praise and asking softball questions. Ridiculous. Reminded me why I didn't vote for him.
4. John Ashcroft. Didn't see him, but saw a soundbite of him trashing the rules prior to 2001 that the Clinton adminstration imposed in 1995. Reminded the commission that one of it's members, Jamie Gorelick authored the rules.
5. Jamie Gorelick. Why is she on the commission, when she as Deputy Attorney General obstructed a lot of the anti-terrorism activities. She should be in the witness chair answering tough questions.
1. Louis Freeh. Looked and sounded credible. Sharp command of the facts. Hammered by Democrats. Took an interesting shot at Richard Clarke. "By the way, Richard Clarke wasn't at any of those meetings. I don't know why Sandy Berger didn't want him there".
2. Janet Reno. A mess. Incoherent. Not credible.
3. Jim Thompson. Republican - former governor of Illinois. Totally kissed up to Janet Reno, gushing praise and asking softball questions. Ridiculous. Reminded me why I didn't vote for him.
4. John Ashcroft. Didn't see him, but saw a soundbite of him trashing the rules prior to 2001 that the Clinton adminstration imposed in 1995. Reminded the commission that one of it's members, Jamie Gorelick authored the rules.
5. Jamie Gorelick. Why is she on the commission, when she as Deputy Attorney General obstructed a lot of the anti-terrorism activities. She should be in the witness chair answering tough questions.
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Keep to the timetable
Mr. President - some unsolicited advice:
Given that:
1. You've met your objective. You've de-fanged Iraq from their capacity to harm us or cause much mischief in the Mideast. You've verified for the feckless UN that there are not stockpiles of WMD's.
2. They're not our friends. Not the murdering Baathists you deposed and killed or imprisoned with Sadaam. Not the Sunni minority who were on the side of Sadaam. Not the Shia majority who should be grateful for their liberation and instead take up arms against thier liberator. They're Islamic fanatics. All of them. And we should be shed of them.
My recommendation is -
1. Pacify the country. Hard. Right now in April and May. Whatever it takes - gunships, missiles, MOAB's. Establish, as George Will put it this week as the responsibility of government, "a monopoly on violence".
2. Hand the country over to Iraq as promised on June 30.
3. Withdraw. And warn the other terror sponsors on the way out that we'll be back if they didn't learn the lesson.
Return from occupier to liberator and get out. It's the right thing to do. Plus, it will throw the Democrats for a loop and they won't know how to attack you anymore.
Keep your date with history on June 30th.
Given that:
1. You've met your objective. You've de-fanged Iraq from their capacity to harm us or cause much mischief in the Mideast. You've verified for the feckless UN that there are not stockpiles of WMD's.
2. They're not our friends. Not the murdering Baathists you deposed and killed or imprisoned with Sadaam. Not the Sunni minority who were on the side of Sadaam. Not the Shia majority who should be grateful for their liberation and instead take up arms against thier liberator. They're Islamic fanatics. All of them. And we should be shed of them.
My recommendation is -
1. Pacify the country. Hard. Right now in April and May. Whatever it takes - gunships, missiles, MOAB's. Establish, as George Will put it this week as the responsibility of government, "a monopoly on violence".
2. Hand the country over to Iraq as promised on June 30.
3. Withdraw. And warn the other terror sponsors on the way out that we'll be back if they didn't learn the lesson.
Return from occupier to liberator and get out. It's the right thing to do. Plus, it will throw the Democrats for a loop and they won't know how to attack you anymore.
Keep your date with history on June 30th.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
I see Richard Clark everywhere!
I know I'm writing a lot about Richard Clarke lately. But he really ticked me off with his ubquitous appearances promoting his Bush bashing book just in time to grandstand before the 9-11 hearings.
I'd never heard of Richard Clarke, former White House Chief of Counter-Terrorism, before last week. Now I see him everywhere. It' like when you're buying a car and you're looking at a new model you hadn't thought of before and suddenly you're seeing that car everywhere you drive. Only worse.
Example. I was up late one night this week in insomnia mode. I was flipping on the remote when I settled in on a PBS Frontline special called the Ghosts of Rawanda. It recounted the genocide there in the early 90's and the world's failure to stop it. Including the Clinton administration. One storyline involved why the U.S. pulled troops out of the UN peacekeeping mission. Apparently Belgium wanted to pull out after loosing 6 soldiers in an attack. Not wanting to look weak, although not fearing being weak, they wanted cover and they pressured the US to pull out too. For political reasons, the US granted cover. Madeline Albright was instructed to support UN pullout at the General Assembly. After listening to an impassioned plea from the Nigerian ambassador rebutting the pullout, Albright decided against the plan. She called Washington and "screamed into the phone" that it was the wrong thing to do. Who was on the other end of the phone screaming back demanding the pullout - Richard Clarke. Never mind that 800,000 people were slaughtered. We, via Richard Clarke and Bill Clinton, gave Belgium cover.
Example: After TWA Flight 800 exploded over Long Island there was immediate evidence, including more than 100 eyewitnesses, indicating that the jet was brought down by a missle. I personally believe that evidence. However, a terrorist attack was an inconvenient fact to the Clinton administration. They didn't know who to blame, did not want to get into a war, and were trying to get Clinton re-elected. So the official story became a fuel tank explosion. Who was at the center of the story change? From pressuring the FBI, to twisting eyewitness accounts, to involving the CIA to dummy up an animation supporting the official version (source: Newsmax.com). Richard Clarke, of course.
That's why Clarke bashing the Bush administration for being weak on terrorism is more than I can stomach.
I'd never heard of Richard Clarke, former White House Chief of Counter-Terrorism, before last week. Now I see him everywhere. It' like when you're buying a car and you're looking at a new model you hadn't thought of before and suddenly you're seeing that car everywhere you drive. Only worse.
Example. I was up late one night this week in insomnia mode. I was flipping on the remote when I settled in on a PBS Frontline special called the Ghosts of Rawanda. It recounted the genocide there in the early 90's and the world's failure to stop it. Including the Clinton administration. One storyline involved why the U.S. pulled troops out of the UN peacekeeping mission. Apparently Belgium wanted to pull out after loosing 6 soldiers in an attack. Not wanting to look weak, although not fearing being weak, they wanted cover and they pressured the US to pull out too. For political reasons, the US granted cover. Madeline Albright was instructed to support UN pullout at the General Assembly. After listening to an impassioned plea from the Nigerian ambassador rebutting the pullout, Albright decided against the plan. She called Washington and "screamed into the phone" that it was the wrong thing to do. Who was on the other end of the phone screaming back demanding the pullout - Richard Clarke. Never mind that 800,000 people were slaughtered. We, via Richard Clarke and Bill Clinton, gave Belgium cover.
Example: After TWA Flight 800 exploded over Long Island there was immediate evidence, including more than 100 eyewitnesses, indicating that the jet was brought down by a missle. I personally believe that evidence. However, a terrorist attack was an inconvenient fact to the Clinton administration. They didn't know who to blame, did not want to get into a war, and were trying to get Clinton re-elected. So the official story became a fuel tank explosion. Who was at the center of the story change? From pressuring the FBI, to twisting eyewitness accounts, to involving the CIA to dummy up an animation supporting the official version (source: Newsmax.com). Richard Clarke, of course.
That's why Clarke bashing the Bush administration for being weak on terrorism is more than I can stomach.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Is Clarke's 15 minutes up yet?
Please tell me that Richard Clarke's 15 minutes of fame is up. I can't bear to hear him say even one more time that the Clinton administration's #1 priority was anti-terrorism and that Bush did nothing. It's the most outrageous blatant falsehood I've heard on the public stage in years.
Please tell me that the American electorate is not that misguided that they believe him.
Please tell me that at least one journalist on mainstream TV is going to ask him a hard question.
There is ample rebuttal out there in the electronic media, but only us junkies see it. Here's a couple of great examples:
Ann Coulter with a blistering timeline and rebuke of Clarke/Clinton, on How 9-11 happened.
Charles Krauthammer, on Clarke's Blabbering.
Finally, a Newsmax article on, Clinton's real attention span for terrorism.
And for some good news from the Iraq front, that you don't hear on mainstream media:
Jeff Jacoby, on What has gone right in Iraq..
Thanks to Town Hall and Newsmax, stalwarts of the electronic media, for keeping it real.
Please tell me that the American electorate is not that misguided that they believe him.
Please tell me that at least one journalist on mainstream TV is going to ask him a hard question.
There is ample rebuttal out there in the electronic media, but only us junkies see it. Here's a couple of great examples:
Ann Coulter with a blistering timeline and rebuke of Clarke/Clinton, on How 9-11 happened.
Charles Krauthammer, on Clarke's Blabbering.
Finally, a Newsmax article on, Clinton's real attention span for terrorism.
And for some good news from the Iraq front, that you don't hear on mainstream media:
Jeff Jacoby, on What has gone right in Iraq..
Thanks to Town Hall and Newsmax, stalwarts of the electronic media, for keeping it real.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
On our terms
Yes, it was outrageous. The bombing, burning, and killing of 4 American contract workers in Fallujah, Iraq yesterday. And the dragging of the bodies through the streets was barbaric, defining of a barbaric belief system.
We have options:
1. Pack up and leave. Decide that we have no business there and that no more soldiers should be in harm's way. The Somalia solution.
2. Massive retribution. Make them all pay.
3. Capture those responsible and keep to our plan for Iraq.
The problem with the 1st and 2nd options is that it shifts attention to their agenda, not ours.
I know some people want to pull out. Both people of good intent and misguided people. But to pull out only emboldens the terrorists. That was the lesson of Somalia. They interpreted our pullout there as weakness and as encouragement to strike again. All you have to do is drag bodies in the street and America will run.
Solution 2 is tempting. Strike back hard. Devastatinly so. But it puts us on their terms.
Solution 3 is correct. Stay the course. Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure on our terms. Then hand it over. Then leave. President Bush has the core strength to do that.
We have options:
1. Pack up and leave. Decide that we have no business there and that no more soldiers should be in harm's way. The Somalia solution.
2. Massive retribution. Make them all pay.
3. Capture those responsible and keep to our plan for Iraq.
The problem with the 1st and 2nd options is that it shifts attention to their agenda, not ours.
I know some people want to pull out. Both people of good intent and misguided people. But to pull out only emboldens the terrorists. That was the lesson of Somalia. They interpreted our pullout there as weakness and as encouragement to strike again. All you have to do is drag bodies in the street and America will run.
Solution 2 is tempting. Strike back hard. Devastatinly so. But it puts us on their terms.
Solution 3 is correct. Stay the course. Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure on our terms. Then hand it over. Then leave. President Bush has the core strength to do that.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Judicial underexposure
The Supreme Court ruled today that the government does not have to release a photo of Vince Foster's body at the crime scene that was sought by a California lawyer under the Freedom of information act.
The Court stated that family's should be afforded privacy in these matters.
I agree, normally. Unless:
- the victim is the Counsel to the President of the United States
- he is also the President's personal lawyer in charge of scandal defense, and knows where the skeletons are
- the victim shows up mysteriously dead in a Federal Park the day after the President fires the Director of the FBI
- witness identified a "neck wound' that is inconsistent with the suicide story and is shown in one of the disputed photos.
I could go thru all of the evidence, but Newsmax has already done it better than I can.
Bottom line: There is a strong conspiracy theory that argues that the President's personal lawyer was murdered. There's evidence that shows it, including this sought after photo. Unless that evidence is made public the conspiracy will rage.
I want to see the photo.
The Court stated that family's should be afforded privacy in these matters.
I agree, normally. Unless:
- the victim is the Counsel to the President of the United States
- he is also the President's personal lawyer in charge of scandal defense, and knows where the skeletons are
- the victim shows up mysteriously dead in a Federal Park the day after the President fires the Director of the FBI
- witness identified a "neck wound' that is inconsistent with the suicide story and is shown in one of the disputed photos.
I could go thru all of the evidence, but Newsmax has already done it better than I can.
Bottom line: There is a strong conspiracy theory that argues that the President's personal lawyer was murdered. There's evidence that shows it, including this sought after photo. Unless that evidence is made public the conspiracy will rage.
I want to see the photo.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Getting personal - not
The administration aquitted itself well on the Sunday talk shows today defending against the ridiculous charges by Dick Clarke re: 9/11.
The laugh-out-loud silliness came from the liberal panelists like Ceci Connelly on Fox News Sunday who decried the "personal attacks" from the White House on Dick Clarke for speaking up. Personal? What's personal about rebutting the attacks by producing evidence to show that he's either lying or has faulty recollection and his charges are spurious. Clarke's sworn testimony to the committee has been amply rebutted by contradictory testimony in secret to the committee, in background briefings to the press, and by radio interviews. His credibility is shot. But is that a personal attack. Not hardly.
Yes the President's defenders have made the case that Clarke is a disgruntled demoted employee who quit mad and who has a grudge. That's not getting personal. It just explains the motive for Clarke's hit piece.
I say again, can you really take someone serious who believes that Clinton did a better job on counter-terrorism than Bush? Really?
The White House is making only two mistakes in this 9/11 Hearing situation:
1. The should be more aggressive, not less, in pressing the case that the President showed true leadership after 9/11 and has been very effective in the War on Terrorism.
2. They should find a way for Condi Rice to testify in the hearings instead of blocking her. I understand the historical precedent argument for keeping the President's closest advisors out of subpoenas. However, Condi would certainly be very credible blow away Dick Clarke. It would be - case closed.
The laugh-out-loud silliness came from the liberal panelists like Ceci Connelly on Fox News Sunday who decried the "personal attacks" from the White House on Dick Clarke for speaking up. Personal? What's personal about rebutting the attacks by producing evidence to show that he's either lying or has faulty recollection and his charges are spurious. Clarke's sworn testimony to the committee has been amply rebutted by contradictory testimony in secret to the committee, in background briefings to the press, and by radio interviews. His credibility is shot. But is that a personal attack. Not hardly.
Yes the President's defenders have made the case that Clarke is a disgruntled demoted employee who quit mad and who has a grudge. That's not getting personal. It just explains the motive for Clarke's hit piece.
I say again, can you really take someone serious who believes that Clinton did a better job on counter-terrorism than Bush? Really?
The White House is making only two mistakes in this 9/11 Hearing situation:
1. The should be more aggressive, not less, in pressing the case that the President showed true leadership after 9/11 and has been very effective in the War on Terrorism.
2. They should find a way for Condi Rice to testify in the hearings instead of blocking her. I understand the historical precedent argument for keeping the President's closest advisors out of subpoenas. However, Condi would certainly be very credible blow away Dick Clarke. It would be - case closed.
9/11 Navel Gazing
Some thoughts on the 9-11 Commission Hearings this week:
1. The media and the Democrats annointed Richard Clarke this week. Clarke, the former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush-Clinton-Bush, wrote a book criticizing the Bush administration's alleged mistakes on Al-Qaida. The Bush haters were sure they had a scandal in the making. (They're still trying to simultaneously peddle the theories that Bush and Co. were too passive before 9/11 and too aggressive after 9/11. Say what?)
2. The gist of the "scandal" is that Bush erred by "talking" on 9/12 about Iraq and not Al-Qaida despite Clarke's brilliant advice. The problem with the scandal is the witnesses. Those witnesses being the whole world - who saw Bush's "action" of projecting massive force across the world to Afghanistan to cripple Al-Qaida and depose their sponsors, the Taliban, with lightning speed and efficiency. The victory negates the scandal. Sorry. Clarke worried about the talking, Bush responded by acting.
3. Who are you going to believe:
- Clarke a disgruntled functionary who has an axe to grind and who failed at his job for several years
- Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. Powell was excellent.
I'll take Colin Powell and be glad the Democrats are staking their reputation on Clarke. Are you really capable of hearing that Clarke believes that Clinton took counter-terroism more seriously than Bush without laughing out loud.
4. Clearly the results of the hearings should be this simple formula:
- before 9/11 (especially during Clinton) our national counter-terrorism strategy was defensive and legalistic. Wait until they strike and then go after them with law enforcement.
- after 9/11 our national counter-terrorism strategy is offensive and military. Go after them, in their home, before they strike and do it with Special Forces and the 4th ID. Shock and Awe.
I like our current policy, thank you very much, of which George Bush and Co. are the architects. John Kerry wants to return us to the pre-9/11 strategy.
That's all I need to know in order to vote in November. All of the rest is just navel gazing.
1. The media and the Democrats annointed Richard Clarke this week. Clarke, the former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush-Clinton-Bush, wrote a book criticizing the Bush administration's alleged mistakes on Al-Qaida. The Bush haters were sure they had a scandal in the making. (They're still trying to simultaneously peddle the theories that Bush and Co. were too passive before 9/11 and too aggressive after 9/11. Say what?)
2. The gist of the "scandal" is that Bush erred by "talking" on 9/12 about Iraq and not Al-Qaida despite Clarke's brilliant advice. The problem with the scandal is the witnesses. Those witnesses being the whole world - who saw Bush's "action" of projecting massive force across the world to Afghanistan to cripple Al-Qaida and depose their sponsors, the Taliban, with lightning speed and efficiency. The victory negates the scandal. Sorry. Clarke worried about the talking, Bush responded by acting.
3. Who are you going to believe:
- Clarke a disgruntled functionary who has an axe to grind and who failed at his job for several years
- Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. Powell was excellent.
I'll take Colin Powell and be glad the Democrats are staking their reputation on Clarke. Are you really capable of hearing that Clarke believes that Clinton took counter-terroism more seriously than Bush without laughing out loud.
4. Clearly the results of the hearings should be this simple formula:
- before 9/11 (especially during Clinton) our national counter-terrorism strategy was defensive and legalistic. Wait until they strike and then go after them with law enforcement.
- after 9/11 our national counter-terrorism strategy is offensive and military. Go after them, in their home, before they strike and do it with Special Forces and the 4th ID. Shock and Awe.
I like our current policy, thank you very much, of which George Bush and Co. are the architects. John Kerry wants to return us to the pre-9/11 strategy.
That's all I need to know in order to vote in November. All of the rest is just navel gazing.
The 2nd Person
President Bush is going to sign a bill passed by the Senate that will make it a second crime with extra punishment for hurting or killing an "unborn baby" during the commission of a crime. President Bush said that Americans "know intuitively" that when a mother and an unborn baby are killed that there are two victims.
The pro-abortion camp and their political arm, the Democratic Party, oppose the bill because it could lead to unravelling abortion rights. The proposed an amendment, which was defeated, agreeing to extra penalties but not naming it as a separate crime. John Kerry voted for the defeated amendment and against the final bill.
Some thoughts:
1. The news reader that I heard this story from on the radio is apparently off the reservation and didn't get the memo from her handlers in the media. There are no "unborn babies" in feminist land or in journalism. There are only "fetuses". She'll get her hand slapped, I'm sure.
2. The pro-abortion camp cannot have an "unborn baby" recognized, by means of a 2nd crime, as a 2nd "person". They fight tooth and nail against granting personhood because then all of their euphemisms about how it's just a "blob of tissue" or a "product of conception" fall apart.
3. The Democrats still don't understand how illogical their position is. They proposed an amendment agreeing to extra penalties, but refusing to acknowledge that there is an extra victim. If there is no extra victim, why would you penalize the perp extra?
4. Why are they so worried. It only kicks in if you hurt or kill an unborn baby...... Oh yeah, now I see it. But it only counts if you hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of a "crime". If your hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of an "abortion", it's just business as usual in America 4400 times a day and the preferred public policy of the feminist extremists and their puppets, the Democratic Party.
Especially Democratic presidential candidates.
All you need to know is that George Bush will speak up to recognize the personhood of unborn babies. John Kerry voted no.
The pro-abortion camp and their political arm, the Democratic Party, oppose the bill because it could lead to unravelling abortion rights. The proposed an amendment, which was defeated, agreeing to extra penalties but not naming it as a separate crime. John Kerry voted for the defeated amendment and against the final bill.
Some thoughts:
1. The news reader that I heard this story from on the radio is apparently off the reservation and didn't get the memo from her handlers in the media. There are no "unborn babies" in feminist land or in journalism. There are only "fetuses". She'll get her hand slapped, I'm sure.
2. The pro-abortion camp cannot have an "unborn baby" recognized, by means of a 2nd crime, as a 2nd "person". They fight tooth and nail against granting personhood because then all of their euphemisms about how it's just a "blob of tissue" or a "product of conception" fall apart.
3. The Democrats still don't understand how illogical their position is. They proposed an amendment agreeing to extra penalties, but refusing to acknowledge that there is an extra victim. If there is no extra victim, why would you penalize the perp extra?
4. Why are they so worried. It only kicks in if you hurt or kill an unborn baby...... Oh yeah, now I see it. But it only counts if you hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of a "crime". If your hurt or kill an unborn baby in the commission of an "abortion", it's just business as usual in America 4400 times a day and the preferred public policy of the feminist extremists and their puppets, the Democratic Party.
Especially Democratic presidential candidates.
All you need to know is that George Bush will speak up to recognize the personhood of unborn babies. John Kerry voted no.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Turn the volume down on the whining please.
What's up with the "I'm a victim" whining from the left this last week? Can we turn it down a bit?
example 1: Omarosa (black woman) gets "fired" as an intern on Donald Trump's hit reality show "The Apprentice". Why? Trump "fired" her for being a slacker (she wanted to take a long lunch when there was work to do), a complainer (she milked a small bump on the head as a major concussion to get out of doing things), and for "making excuses" every week.
On the loser ride out in the taxi during the credits Omarosa said she wished her peers would be open to learning new things like "diversity".
Say what? How does that track? What does getting canned for being a slacker and a whiner have to do with diversity? Are we supposed to, for diversity's sake, be tolerant of the effort-challenged?
Wait a minute, of course that's not what she meant by diversity. On the morning talks the next day she said it was because she was a black woman. Please. Enough already.
example 2: Martha Stewart gets convicted on all 4 counts for lying to federal investigators about insider trading. She was once a professional trader. She knew better. She did it. And she lied to cover it up. And she was convicted by a jury on all counts.
Immediately Hillary Clinton and MS. magazine start clamoring that Martha was prosecuted or convicted because she was a "strong woman".
Say what? What does committing crimes have to do with being a "strong woman"?
I think the lefties have the "I'm a victim" whining turned up to 11.
example 1: Omarosa (black woman) gets "fired" as an intern on Donald Trump's hit reality show "The Apprentice". Why? Trump "fired" her for being a slacker (she wanted to take a long lunch when there was work to do), a complainer (she milked a small bump on the head as a major concussion to get out of doing things), and for "making excuses" every week.
On the loser ride out in the taxi during the credits Omarosa said she wished her peers would be open to learning new things like "diversity".
Say what? How does that track? What does getting canned for being a slacker and a whiner have to do with diversity? Are we supposed to, for diversity's sake, be tolerant of the effort-challenged?
Wait a minute, of course that's not what she meant by diversity. On the morning talks the next day she said it was because she was a black woman. Please. Enough already.
example 2: Martha Stewart gets convicted on all 4 counts for lying to federal investigators about insider trading. She was once a professional trader. She knew better. She did it. And she lied to cover it up. And she was convicted by a jury on all counts.
Immediately Hillary Clinton and MS. magazine start clamoring that Martha was prosecuted or convicted because she was a "strong woman".
Say what? What does committing crimes have to do with being a "strong woman"?
I think the lefties have the "I'm a victim" whining turned up to 11.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Time Better Spent
I did watch "The Passion of the Christ". I did not watch ABC's movie "Judas" tonight. Why the difference? I could tell by the previews that it was not going to be faith inspiring treatment of the subject. The preview scene I saw had Jesus saying to Judas "Do what you have to my friend". He may as well as just said "Hey dude, whatever".
I agree with Ann Coulter's take on the subject in her column this week: that liberals just don't have a clue what Christianity's about. Therefore they can't tell the difference between a good movie on the topic and a bad one. And it's mostly liberals making movies, including the producer of "Judas". They really and truly can't tell the difference between a blasphemous portrayal like "The last temptation of Christ" and Mel Gibson's faithful portrayal in "The Passion of the Christ". That's why they can't understand the failure of the former and the radical success of the latter ($215 million in two weeks and counting) at the box office.
It's too predictable what will happen next in the liberal mind and elite media. It goes like this.
1. They didn't like or understand "The Passion" and don't believe bible stories can make money.
2. They predicted it's failure.
3. They didn't understand it's success.
4. They attributed it only to "brilliant marketing".
5. They'll assume that "Judas" will succeed because it's a bible story and they must be doing well now.
6. They'll be puzzled when "Judas" gets low ratings.
7. They'll conclude that bible stories must not do well after all and confirm their opinion that it was only Mel's marketing and the "controversy" that succeeded.
And they'll never get that there is a market for faithful films and not for the PC pap that they put out.
My time was better spent tonight re-watching "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". It has a positive, faith inspiring, message. I like it when Sam-wise tells Frodo at the end that "there's good in the world and it's worth fighting for". Who knows what Judas said in ABC's version.
I agree with Ann Coulter's take on the subject in her column this week: that liberals just don't have a clue what Christianity's about. Therefore they can't tell the difference between a good movie on the topic and a bad one. And it's mostly liberals making movies, including the producer of "Judas". They really and truly can't tell the difference between a blasphemous portrayal like "The last temptation of Christ" and Mel Gibson's faithful portrayal in "The Passion of the Christ". That's why they can't understand the failure of the former and the radical success of the latter ($215 million in two weeks and counting) at the box office.
It's too predictable what will happen next in the liberal mind and elite media. It goes like this.
1. They didn't like or understand "The Passion" and don't believe bible stories can make money.
2. They predicted it's failure.
3. They didn't understand it's success.
4. They attributed it only to "brilliant marketing".
5. They'll assume that "Judas" will succeed because it's a bible story and they must be doing well now.
6. They'll be puzzled when "Judas" gets low ratings.
7. They'll conclude that bible stories must not do well after all and confirm their opinion that it was only Mel's marketing and the "controversy" that succeeded.
And they'll never get that there is a market for faithful films and not for the PC pap that they put out.
My time was better spent tonight re-watching "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". It has a positive, faith inspiring, message. I like it when Sam-wise tells Frodo at the end that "there's good in the world and it's worth fighting for". Who knows what Judas said in ABC's version.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Schadenfruede
I've been thinking through all of the possible news stories to write about:
The election? I'm bored.
Haiti? I still can't figure out what the U.S. national interest is.
Martha Stewart? I really don't care about this trial and ...........
wait a minute......breaking news....... Martha Stewart: Guilty on all counts.
YES! YES! (Happy dance around the living room). Finally they find a jury that has an attention span longer than a reality show episode who can listen to the facts and produce JUSTICE! YES! YES! YES! (party balloons and confetti! Wake up the neighbors!) and finally a filthy rich snobby elitist who's obviously guilty as sin can't trade on her celebrity and buy her way out of a conviction and jail time YES!YES!YES! YES! (high fives all around) and finally there's a wakeup call to the elites that there are new sheriffs in town. YES!YES!YES!YES!YES! I say throw the book at her!
What was I saying? Oh yeah, I really don't care about the Martha Stewart story. If only there was something to write about.
*from Webster: Shadenfruede, Noun, "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others"
The election? I'm bored.
Haiti? I still can't figure out what the U.S. national interest is.
Martha Stewart? I really don't care about this trial and ...........
wait a minute......breaking news....... Martha Stewart: Guilty on all counts.
YES! YES! (Happy dance around the living room). Finally they find a jury that has an attention span longer than a reality show episode who can listen to the facts and produce JUSTICE! YES! YES! YES! (party balloons and confetti! Wake up the neighbors!) and finally a filthy rich snobby elitist who's obviously guilty as sin can't trade on her celebrity and buy her way out of a conviction and jail time YES!YES!YES! YES! (high fives all around) and finally there's a wakeup call to the elites that there are new sheriffs in town. YES!YES!YES!YES!YES! I say throw the book at her!
What was I saying? Oh yeah, I really don't care about the Martha Stewart story. If only there was something to write about.
*from Webster: Shadenfruede, Noun, "enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others"
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Buy a Clue
I got a rare opportunity to catch Rush yesterday while driving between appointments. Rush was talking to a liberal caller who was predicting an easy Democratic victory. The gist of his argument was the all the Dems were going to turn out to vote because of their "disappointment" (Rush corrected - anger) with "where the President has taken the country". And the caller couldn't imagine that the Republican base would turn out. Therefore - Democratic victory.
Buy a clue liberals. You're the same crowd who predicted that no one would show up for "The Passion of the Christ". Check the box office numbers on that one. I'm guessing that you're shocked. SHOCKED!
The base will turn out. I'm not worried about that. We understand what's at stake in the fight against terrorism and the disaster it will be if the Dems win and we return to the failed policy of trusting the UN and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue - ala John Kerry. We know. And we'll turn out.
Buy a clue liberals. You're the same crowd who predicted that no one would show up for "The Passion of the Christ". Check the box office numbers on that one. I'm guessing that you're shocked. SHOCKED!
The base will turn out. I'm not worried about that. We understand what's at stake in the fight against terrorism and the disaster it will be if the Dems win and we return to the failed policy of trusting the UN and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue - ala John Kerry. We know. And we'll turn out.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Just a Tuesday
I suppose I should be interested in the "Super Tuesday" Democratic primary races today. I'm not. For a conservative Republican right now is just the idle pre-convention period. Let the Dems fight it out and then bring on the rumble that counts - the general election. I can only muster two pertinent thoughts:
1. I'm glad Kerry is blowing it out. Bush can take him. Let's just get to it.
2. I had a surreal newsjunkie moment today driving to work. I heard a news report saying that John Edwards was pledging to stay in the race "no matter what happens today". I knew instantly what that meant - that he would be withdrawing from the race by midnight. It's just too predictive. It's like the movie cliche where a character shows a picture of his family and you know he's the guy who's going to get killed. Just rewind to Iowa caucus day with Dick Gephardt on the morning shows saying that he was going to win and stay in the race. Gone by nightfall. It's too easy.
The smaller stories are more interesting:
- Terry Nichols going on trial this week in Oklahoma City for the federal building bombing - state charges instead of federal. Nichols attorneys are alledging a conspiracy that includes Iraqis. The judge is chastising the FBI for withholding documents that indicate conspirators. This one's going to heat up.
- Haiti. What a mess. Thank you Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for the fine "fix" you did in '94. Really held up. Thank you France for the wonderful legacy in the colony you screwed up on our doorstep. Why are we sending troops there again? Is there a national interest, other than keeping our shores from getting flooded with refugees?
- Where did the elite media go this week re: "The Passion of the Christ"? Weeks of relentless hounding and wolf-crying and then they suddenly go silent. Why? Could it be that once the movie opened and people actually saw it for themselves they discovered that:
- it wasn't Anti-Semitic and the critics were all ridiculously wrong
- the predicted anti-semitic violence inspired by the movie didn't happen
- it was extraordinarily popular in the heartland ($125M box office) and the predictions of failure were equally all wrong. Why should we trust their box office predictions ever again? Would you do business with the studios that all passed on this film predicting massive failure?
Give me the smaller stories. They'll get me through primary season.
1. I'm glad Kerry is blowing it out. Bush can take him. Let's just get to it.
2. I had a surreal newsjunkie moment today driving to work. I heard a news report saying that John Edwards was pledging to stay in the race "no matter what happens today". I knew instantly what that meant - that he would be withdrawing from the race by midnight. It's just too predictive. It's like the movie cliche where a character shows a picture of his family and you know he's the guy who's going to get killed. Just rewind to Iowa caucus day with Dick Gephardt on the morning shows saying that he was going to win and stay in the race. Gone by nightfall. It's too easy.
The smaller stories are more interesting:
- Terry Nichols going on trial this week in Oklahoma City for the federal building bombing - state charges instead of federal. Nichols attorneys are alledging a conspiracy that includes Iraqis. The judge is chastising the FBI for withholding documents that indicate conspirators. This one's going to heat up.
- Haiti. What a mess. Thank you Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for the fine "fix" you did in '94. Really held up. Thank you France for the wonderful legacy in the colony you screwed up on our doorstep. Why are we sending troops there again? Is there a national interest, other than keeping our shores from getting flooded with refugees?
- Where did the elite media go this week re: "The Passion of the Christ"? Weeks of relentless hounding and wolf-crying and then they suddenly go silent. Why? Could it be that once the movie opened and people actually saw it for themselves they discovered that:
- it wasn't Anti-Semitic and the critics were all ridiculously wrong
- the predicted anti-semitic violence inspired by the movie didn't happen
- it was extraordinarily popular in the heartland ($125M box office) and the predictions of failure were equally all wrong. Why should we trust their box office predictions ever again? Would you do business with the studios that all passed on this film predicting massive failure?
Give me the smaller stories. They'll get me through primary season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)