Thursday, May 29, 2003


Out of a whopping 42 votes cast, the Rotund One wins the first Texsanity Poll as the person who "made the biggest ass" out of himself during the war.

For awhile there he was neck and neck with Nancy Pelosi and Scott Ritter but he pulled away in late returns to win with 28% of the votes cast.

Congratulations Fatso!

If you look at the actions of the French, Russians, Germans and Chinese in the years leading up to and through the aftermath of the Second Gulf War, their motivation cannot seem more clear - money. The temptation to engage in illicit technology and weapons sales was too great - especially when the competition from US technology companies was eliminated by their adherence to the sanctions.

Since our adversaries knew that the US would refuse to allow high-tech or weapons sales to Iraq as long as Saddam was in power, the elimination of sanctions would have allowed them access to Iraqi oil while continuing to operate in a marketplace free of American competition. The best of both worlds. As Pollack correctly pointed out, if Saddam were to cause any more trouble the Americans could be counted on to shoulder the military burden with little cost to them.

Clearly the stance of the weasels was the more cynical and profit motivated. The United States engaged Iraq in a war where the best case scenario, from an American standpoint, was a quick victory cutting off another potential supply route for terrorist funding and weaponry and a transition to a democratic and friendly Iraq.

The position of the ant-war left was reduced to opposing US action regardless of the consequences of US inaction. They supported the brutal dictator who was siphoning off the country's oil wealth to line the pockets of himself, his family and countries (France, Russia) and politicians (George Galloway) who assisted him. Apparently, in the minds of the conspiracy theory left, the proper policy on any issue can be determined by adopting the opposite stance to the Americans - no need for analysis.

It must be really great to be so sure of your own goodness and superiority. That must be why these types are always the ones who advocate a socialist response to everything. Got a problem? We have the answer! Just give me your money and get out of the way - we know what needs to be done.

And empirical data? Not important. Facts? Nope. Feelings - that's how we know what course to take.

The scary part is that our educational system pumps out more and more of these Einsteins every day. Indoctrinated by cynical, anti-American socialists and ex-hippies, taught to blindly ignore any facts that get in the way of how things should be. You know the type. When confronted with an argument they can't rebut, they resort to name-calling and Bush-bashing (after all, he was put in place by a Supreme Court-sponsored coup).


Wednesday, May 28, 2003


Browsing through The Threatening Storm tonight and stumbled upon this:


(The Russians, French and Chinese) will fight any U.S. effort to tighten the sanctions. Nor is there reason to believe that they would agree toactions designed to maintain the military embargo. They publicly say that they recognize the need for the military sanctions, but their actions often speak otherwise. Chinese firms have violated the sanctions by selling equipment to Iraq that would enhance its military capabilities. The missile gyroscopes Iraq illegally acquired in 1995 came from Russian submarine-launched nuclear armed ballistic missiles, which strongly suggests that the Russian government too has been at least cavalier about illegal arms exports to Iraq. In addition, Russia would benefit enormously from the repeal of the military embargo and has become so subservient to Baghdad's interests that it is hard to imagine that Moscow would not take Iraq's side in this debate as well.... Likewise, the French are actively competing with the Russians for Baghdad's favor, and Paris appears to have decided that if Saddam is able to reconstitute its military capabiltiy, that will be Washington's problem, not theirs.....

The whole notion of going to the United Nations to strengthen the sanctions misses the crucial changes that have occured in international opinion in the last ten years. There is no meaningful support for a tough containment policy toward Iraq. The vast majority of the countries simply want the problem to go away.

So, the anti-war types demanded that we get approval from the the French and the Germans before we took action. Good thing we didn't listen to them...we DID make the problem go away.

I'm about to fall over now. Goodnight.


Ananova among others (tip Instapundit) reports that:

Bob Geldof has astonished the aid community by praising George W Bush's work to help Africa deal with hunger and Aids.

Geldof said Washington was providing major assistance, in contrast to the European Union's "pathetic and appalling" response to the continent's humanitarian crises.

The EU? The only organization standing between America and world domination? There must be some mistake! The French have always been best friend of Africa - ever since colonial times!

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

The Bush administration had proved unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, Geldof added: "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side."

By contrast, Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits: "Clinton was a good guy, but he did f*** all."

His comments caught off-guard some aid organisations that have accused Washington of using its food aid as a covert subsidy for American farmers.

Well, well...looky here. Seems like some folks got caught mindlessly parroting the (democrat) company line.

Once again, Bush confounds his critics. How can a lowbrow like him, beholden to Big Bidness, thirsty for Iraqi oil, a zealous Christian-facist-bigot, take an active roll in providing AIDS funding for Africa? Didn't he get the Republican National Committee memo about those people? His KKK backers are really gonna be pissed now!

I have to give Geldof credit for not wearing the political blinders that hamstring most celebrities. He doesn't mind giving Bush credit for his actions even though he probably agrees with the administration on few other policies. How refreshing.

It's also a breath of fresh air to hear somebody calling Clinton for always talking about compassion while his actions were mostly business as usual. But hey, the stereotype is that Democrats care about the common man and Republicans only care about money so why bother actually evaluating what they do. I mean, sterotypes are always correct, aren't they?

Lord Alli, the aid activist who is accompanying Geldof on the trip organised by the UN children's aid agency Unicef, echoed his praise of the Bush administration.

"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk, but does deliver," Lord Alli said.

Thank you, Lord Alli!

Justin Forsyth, Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, said Geldof's remarks "shouldn't be taken out of context".

Poor Justin, just found out this week that the Earth is not flat and now this! Yes, Justin must be careful to spin this properly...he'd hate it if Bush actually got credit for foreign aid.

All of you root causers take note. America is taking the lead in the global fight of AIDS while the European Union dawdles. Gosh, if we keep this up, what ever will you have to complain about?

Tuesday, May 27, 2003


The good captain of the
USS Clueless points out the stupidity of the International Criminal Court:

The United States never came even close to actually ratifying the ICC, and the reason why was that it was viewed here (by leaders of both parties) as being a venue where disgruntled losers would harass and persecute Americans. Such concerns have been ridiculed, but are now shown to be entirely justified. The ICC has only been online for 2 months and already the fruitcakes are trying to use it to persecute their political enemies. The only reason that these lawyers are trying to indict Blair and not trying to indict Bush is that the UK ratified the treaty and we didn't. If we actually had ratified that monstrosity, there can be no doubt at all that every American official down to the official dog-catcher in Washington DC would have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by now, just because they were American and were drawing breath.

This is exactly what those of us opposed to ICC ratification were predicting would happen. Not that it was a very difficult thing to anticipate.

The socialist oppostion in Europe and, to a lesser extent in the US, were primarily interested in US ratification as a tool to use against the "hegemon". Just envision Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and President Bush all indicted for "crimes against humanity". I'm sure this would please Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Norman Mailer and Osama bin Laden all just fine, but it wouldn't do a hell of a lot for the advancement of world peace and stability.

And as I've pointed out here before, one man's justice is another man's war crime. The action in Kosovo, in a different political climate, would have just as easily produced charges of '''crimes" as it was not officially sanctioned by the UN Security Council (although France did support it and apparently that gives it legitimacy in the eyes of world socialist organizations).

ICC and Kyoto, our failure to ratify these monstrosities is why, in the view of the left, the rest of the world (France and Germany) hate us. Yeah, right. We've again frustrated their efforts to hamstring our foreign policy. Tough - they'd better get used to it.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=