Lee, at Right-Thinking, responds to the worn out leftist ideology in today's Guardian editorial.


Right-Thinking Comments - Lefties on Iraq: "It seemed to work quite well in Europe after WWII. In fact, the US and UK 'imposing' democracy on Germany and Japan is one of the greatest successes of the 20th Century. It is what has prevented war in Europe for the last six decades, and enabled the nations therein to create the type of massive socialist bureaucracies that the Guardian feels will prevent terrorism. "

As usual, if you want a reasoned and calm evaluation of anything to do with W, it takes a fellow Republican. The kvetching Democrats are really proving to be even loonier than I imagined. There are legitimate questions about our intelligence services, yet the Jackals on the Left are so close to devouring themselves chasing the small and irrelevant quarry of "the 16 words."
The problem is, I suppose, that if the Jackals actually attacked W from the right on the problems within the CIA, their record of emasculating the agency since the Church Committee would become relevant. So by doing the right thing, putting pressure on Bush to reform the CIA, they would attack their own credibility on national security.
I suspect the Jackals' feeding frenzy will not end until they finally consume themselves. Here's to hoping it happens at just the right moment to finally ostracize the Left.



Clifford D. May on "Yellowcakegate" on National Review Online: "What may be the biggest mystery in this melodrama has been missed by all the major media as far as I'm aware. Early in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about reports of Saddam buying uranium from Niger. So he asked the Central Intelligence Agency to find out the truth. Consider: Here's a request from the White House on a vital national-security issue. Does the CIA put their top spies on the case? No. Who do they put on the case? No one. Instead, they apparently decided to give the assignment to a diplomat."

Thankfully, I am at home today and was able to catch Tony Blair's amazing speech to Congress. I tried to write down some of my thoughts as he was speaking and stopped because it got in the way of appreciating it. A few thoughts for those who might have missed it:

-If only W could be so eloquent

-He implored Congress to "never apologize for your values," isn't that the Democratic Party's platform? To apologize for being America?

-"Never has there been a time when the power of America has been so necessary or so misunderstood." A good 30% of the country wants to decapitate American power and completely misunderstand the role of American power in global stability.

-I am paraphrasing; Blair declared that if we back down from fighting the war on Terror and implicitly, Iraq, we will have 'Hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership.' This was a clear shot across the bow of the Democratic Party. They have offered no leadership on the issue of defending the West and liberty and have demanded paralyzing caution and hesitation at every decision point since 9/11.

-Finally someone laid out the democratic vision for the Middle East by warning those who provide succor to the Islamists who seek to destroy the West (Syria and Iran) and asking us to envision a stable, democratic, and prosperous Middle East. Bush should have done this a long time ago and should continue to do it. He needs to make his vision clear so that we can all understand that the war in Iraq, the peace process with Israel and Palestine are part of a broad strategic change in the entire region. Bush's end goal is transforming the region. It goes beyond Israel and Iraq. The problem is that it has not been laid out clearly or frequently enough by Bush.

Blair's speech was simply marvelous, eloquent, morally clear, impassioned, inspiring, with an uncompromised vision. It would be cliché to call it Churchillian, but I'll call it that anyway. When you think about it, it was more pro-American than anything I have heard out of the Democratic Party.

That sound you hear is a giant extinguisher putting out the propaganda pyre that the political arsonists on the left have set aflame.

A Mark Steyn gem:

The Spectator.co.uk: "But here’s a much more pertinent question than whether BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!: how loopy are the Democrats? One reason why the President, in defiance of last week’s Spectator, is all but certain to win re-election is the descent into madness of his opponents. They’ve let post-impeachment, post-chad-dangling bitterness unhinge them to the point where, given a choice between investigating the intelligence lapses that led to 9/11 and the intelligence lapses that led to a victorious war in Iraq, they stampede for the latter. Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure by government to fulfill its primary role of national defence. But Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not a serious party. "


I entirely forgot about the Aspirin factory in Sudan. While I had my suspicions that Clinton didn't care whether or not the building was housing nerve agent, I hardly thought he was perpetrating a fraud. He was doing too good of a job of that with a civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit.

It's no wonder that the Democratic Party is the home of Jerry Springer...

It seems St. Dean is having an identity crisis. The liberal media loves to paint their political puppets as centrist, moderate, or even "conservative on issues". Expect this tactic to be used more often the closer we get to November of next year. It will go hand in hand with conservatives being labled "extreme right wing". Why do they do this? Deception. Instead of being proud of their liberal accomplishments, they distance themselves from the lable due their reputation. Keep your eye out for this stuff friends.

Check this out:

Google Toolbar

The new Google Toolbar 2.0 is in Beta and it includes a popup blocker and a Blog This! icon. I updated it last night and it works great for me so far.

The person in charge of getting to the bottom of Saddam's WMD program is not John Kerry. Howard Dean is not in charge either. I realize I am testing credulity by informing you of this, but the man in charge of investigating the WMDs in Iraq is not Terry McAuliffe. By reports in the press, one might think that these doyens of the political gutter actually know something the rest of us don't. History will make a laughing stock of these three no matter how much the D.C press corps tries to prop them up.

The man who actually is in charge of investigating the WMDs in Iraq is named David Kay. In an interview with Tom Brokaw he made a few statements that must have these mendacious opportunists a bit nervous.

Looking for the smoking gun: "

Brokaw: And the documents had real value?
Kay: The documents have extreme value. They relate to the program that the Iraqis used to hide their weapons program from international inspectors over twelve years.
Brokaw: When I look at a room like this, with all these documents, and this is just the tip of the iceberg
Kay: It is indeed."

After reading this remember that the casus belli was not the possession of WMD but not complying with the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire and numerous UN resolutions. The documents Kay speaks of provide the casus belli.

Another response from Kay puts to rest the notion that the inspectors could have found the WMD and contained Saddam if only given more time:

Kay: You cannot believe how many cases we have of documents and equipment that are stored in private residences. I mean, no inspection regime was ever geared up for going into private residences.

The inspection regime did not even routinely search private residences. This shows how doomed to fail the inspectors were from the start and proves true the Administration's assertion that they could only be successful if Saddam cooperated. Does anyone really believe that if the coalition occupation of Iraq has yet been unable to find WMD that Hans Blix and the boys would have had any luck? Not only were they leaving private residences unchecked, but they were not even securing scientists' families so they could be interviewed off-shore.


I suggest reading the entire thing.

Typical left-wing liberalism from Time magazine. Note how their criticisms of US energy policy leave Clinton untouched. They don't even mention his lame duck executive orders restricting over a million acres from any natural gas extraction.

To make their bias even worse, they hardly mention the power of the environmental lobby, yet the oil men get their due. If the left wing environmental lobby were so insignificant as to not merit any attention in a wrap up of 30 years of energy policy, then why is there no drilling in ANWR? Clearly the fact that American oil companies cannot get their dirty hands on ANWR is proof that the left wing environmental lobby is worthy of mention for their sway over D.C politicians.

Yet more proof of the uncritical liberalism of the Time article is how they quickly dispense with just another of the energy bogey-men on the left, nuclear power:

"The Senate bill also contains an assortment of goodies. It would hand out $3.5 billion to revive America's moribund nuclear power industry—even though the last order for a plant that actually went online was placed in 1973."

So this is how they deal with the method of energy that fuels most of France? Nuclear power is to be eschewed because the last order for a plant that actually went online was in 1973? Why don't they discuss why it has been 30 years since the last order for an online nuclear plant was placed? Might it be because the left and the collectivist environmental movement have demonized nuclear power? Now I am not saying we should construct nuclear plants without a constructive debate on how to safely do so, but it is entirely irresponsible and points at the underlying agenda of these hacks at Time to dismiss nuclear power with haste.

In the end, I do believe we have a pending energy crisis. The price of natural gas has risen steadily. The greatest damage has not been to citizen consumers but to industry. With large chemical manufacturers fleeing the States due to the high cost of doing business, largely attributable to stiff environmental laws and the rising cost of natural gas, it's the economy and job rolls that suffer. I also think there is some value to conservation. I agree with Cheney that it is not the basis for an energy policy, but it is a component. The more salient issue, though, and the reason why this article from Time is irresponsible and points to the agenda of the limousine liberals at AOL/Time Warner, is that any reasonable view of at least the near future understands that energy use is going to increase in this country and that any commentary that avoids the impact of the far left environmentalists and the heavy restrictions on energy production in this country is far more deceptive than Bush's "16 words."



TIME.com: Why U.S. Is Running Out of Gas -- Jul. 21, 2003

WHY THE LEFT'S FRENZY OVER THE URANIUM IS NOT ONLY STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE, BUT DANGEROUS:

I do not doubt former Defense Secretary Perry's conclusion that war may be inevitable with North Korea this year. We cannot live with a maniac, hell-bent on destroying the West, madly replicating nukes.

But here is where Perry shows that he just does not get it, and for that matter neither does the rest of the Left, when he says:

"My theory is the reason we don't have a policy on this, and we aren't negotiating, is the president himself," Perry said. "I think he has come to the conclusion that (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and it is immoral to negotiate with him."

Does Perry forget about the Agreed Framework? His boss and that foreign policy wimp Jimmy Carter already tried negotiating with Jong Il and they were snookered big time. If you replace the word "immoral" with "counterproductive" or "useless" then Perry will have gotten it right. Unfortunately, I think he speaks for 35% of the country who just does not get it. You cannot negotiate with people who have already deceived you based on your previous negotiations. Moreover, it becomes pretty difficult to apply international pressure on anyone when this 35% of the country is trying to tear the country apart and discredit our foreign posture with the asinine notion that Bush intentionally lied and misled to bring the country to war.

All these Democrats have proven, if they have not proven it many times before, is that the country would not be safe under their leadership, and that they really have no real understanding of the threats we face in the 21st century. For the good of the country, it's time to marginalize these power hungry zealots.

Smacking around the "Bush Lied" crowd

Good morning everybody! A couple of new links for ya, found as I was reading National Review Online.

First up, an article about how the Left is slitting it's own throat as it screams "BUSH LIED" The normal Leftist supporters won't even blink at the damage being done to the Donk party, because they're part of the problem. However, the middle votes, the Swing Votes if you will, are taking notice. Blind partisan hatred doesn't get you very much.

Next up, an article taking on the Bush critics. It's an excellent piece, so I'll just give you a quote and let you read the rest.

"Such hyperbole, of course, ignores the fact that the President's
statement was actually correct. The Brits had indeed concluded that
Saddam went uranium-shopping in Africa -- a practice utterly consistent with his
pattern of seeking to import from wherever he could weapons of mass
destruction-related technology, materials and know-how. Indeed, Britain
continues to stand by this assessment based on multiple sources,
notwithstanding the dubious provenance of one particular document that purports
to confirm a specific uranium sale to Saddam's Iraq by Niger."

(emphasis mine - RD)

I'll post more a bit later, once I'm finished reading the news.

Just another example of liberal bias in the mainstream press. No comment necessary as this happens every time ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, PBS, et al cover news.

The ABCs of tax cuts - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED

Got another link for ya

from the DANEgerus blog. Let me give you the money quote.

As I previously posted... the (D)'s used to get big bucks from the few ( that's called elitism ) and the PAC's of Lawyers ( people who like to argue over bad laws ), Public Employee Unions ( people who like economy crushing public spending )...
While the (R)'s get a lot of donations from many people... Gore got 80% of his money in 2000 from 16 sources.. Bush got 80% of his money in chunks under $ 200.

Now... for 2004, Bush is raising money the same way at a rate four times that of the Dummocrit9 combined. Rural America is responding to Bush just as they did in 2000 and Urban America isn't responding to the Dummocrits.

Of course the Dummocrits are even more hysterically crying that the (R)'s are the party of the rich... while the numbers prove it's the (D)'s that are in fact exactly that.

I can't say this enough. Look at the red states in America. Hell, just look at the midwest, most of which voted for Bush. This isn't Manhattan or Malibu, folks. These are the conservative heart and soul of America. They're not rich limosene liberals, these are people that come home sweaty and dirty after a hard days work. This is "flyover" country.

And we won the 2000 and 2002 elections.

My Apologies...

.....for yesterday's post-without-a-link. For those who are still interested, the link is right here.

Honestly, it's funny as hell. It reminds me of the old saying (that my dad beat into my head often enough):

"If you don't believe in something, you'll believe in anything."

Well, it's near San Fran. Doesn't take much for the barking moonbats to show up there.

I read the article in the Tennessean with great interest. My guess is that the Left will ignore it just like they've ignored everything else we've found, or they'll come up with some bizarre explination.

By the way, if there's one single person from the US military who can tell me what the hell an artilary balloon is, I'd appreciate it. In my five years of active duty, I've never heard of, seen, or learned about an "artillary balloon".