Saturday, September 13, 2003


Howard Dean, continuing his all out effort to prove his unworthiness to serve, recently claimed that it isn't America's place to "take sides" in the conflict between the Israeli's and the Arabs. He's also taken a lot of flack for asserting that the Hamas suicide brigades are "soldiers".

Maybe the good doctor needs a history lesson - and this one can be brief.

All of the Arabs and their Jew-hating allies (e.g., the French who think of Israel as "that shitty little country") all talk about how Israel is to blame for the occupation and the settlements, blah, blah, blah. So why is it that the Palestinian Liberation Party (Fatah) was founded in 1957 and the PLO in 1964 when the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (Jordanian and Egyptian territory respectively) didn't occur until the Arabs were defeated in a war they started in1967? If the territory was the issue, why didn't Egypt and Jordan give the Palestinians a state between 1948 and 1967 when it was fully within their power to do so? In fact, the Palestinians could have had a state in 1948 without relying on any other country - the UN mandated a territory for a new state that was larger than the West Bank and Gaza combined.

The answer to the question of why we should take the side of Israel is that the land at issue isn't the West Bank and Gaza but the whole of Israel. Since Israeli independence in 1948 the Arabs have continually attempted to drive the Jews off of their land by either direct military confrontation or terrorism. The Arabs are wrong. Israel has a right to exist and until their actions indicate that they accept this the Palestinians should be denied a new state.

This is the problem with the Democrat party - they have been taken over, by a large degree, by "sophisticated" post-modernists who can't view things in terms of right an wrong. Both sides must be equally to blame, no? Uhh, NO Dr. Dimwit. We aren't to blame that Osama bin Laden is a crazed, Islamic Ultra-Nationalist murderer and Israel isn't to blame for Muslim hatred of the Jews. It really is that simple.

I bet if you asked Dr. Zero about any of this he wouldn't know the history of it. So much of national opinion today is uninformed that it staggers me. People (including national political candidates) develop deeply held convictions about issues without informing themselves about the facts and history involved. They hear other people's opinions and listen to the news (which increasingly is uninformed and full of the opinions of "journalists" instead of news) and think they understand the problem. The Palestinians are victims! Jenin was a massacre! Sharon is evil! - it's all propaganda swallowed whole by people and politicians who can't be bothered to research the issue and take a principled stand.

Howard Dean is a clown. And they slam Bush for being dumb - what a joke.


Welcome Theif's Den to the blogroll. Another recruit in the army against idotarianism.

Friday, September 12, 2003

A not very funny cartoon brought to our attention by Merde in France.

I suppose if the Eiffel tower were knocked down by terrorists Le Monde would run a cartoon showing the tower with an inscription "Suez 1956" or "Vietnam 1954" on the side of it with a plane bearing down about to slam into it?

Yes, we know that a lot of the world hates us (including the French) for various reasons - AND WE DON'T CARE.

When the IslamoFascists start their terrorist bombings in Paris, don't come whining to us Chirac. (By the way, thank you Merde in France for shining the light under the rock of French anti-Americanism).

Thursday, September 11, 2003


Three thousand twenty-one faces that will never smile again.
Three thousand twenty-one hearts that will never beat again.
Three thousand twenty-one dreams never dreamt again.

Two hundred eighty million memories that will never forget,
The three thousand twenty-one friends they never met.

Prayers to the families of all of those who lost loved ones on that tragic day. The bloodiest day in US history since the Civil War. God bless them all and the souls of their lost loved ones.

God bless America.

Bill Whittle is on the money as usual:

And we have been blessed with a President who for all his faults, gaffes, mistakes and compromises has nevertheless maintained the one simple, essential, necessary character trait needed to fight -- and win -- a war against ruthless enemy and the armies of useful idiots that rally to its defense: single-minded determination and an utter disregard for criticism from those who should know better. For all his many manifest failures, it is hard to imagine a politician less effected by the legions of hysterical people determined to put off this fight. In my eyes, he has not tired, he has not faltered, and he has not failed.

I was not the greatest George Bush fan in the world when he started his run for president. But I have to say that the more I heard Al Gore talk, the more I supported George Bush for president. Whatever opinion you might have about Bush's policies, I believe that it is clear that, regarding the primary issue of the age, he has a belief in the basic righteousness of America and a resolve to do what is necessary to protect the country regardless of feckless naysaying that Gore so obviously lacks.

Yes, George W. Bush is a politician. But who could have guessed, back in the summer of 2000, that he had it in him to be a great war leader? Thank God for a few hanging chads in Florida.

You may think I'm a little too partison. But if you have doubts about why we need Bush go read this ugly anti-American tripe by Jonathan Schell.

The main mistake of American policy in Iraq was waging the war at all. That is not a conclusion that anyone should have to labor to arrive at.

Sorry, I beg to differ. Exactly how much longer did you expect for the US and Great Britain to continue to patrol the "no-fly zones" and get shot at before Saddam got lucky and brought a plane down. And if we left, what would save the Kurds who had taken steps to self-government in the North? Or are freedom and human rights only reserved for people other than Arabs and Muslims?

Something like the whole world, including most of its governments and tens of millions of demonstrators, plus the UN Security Council, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Governor Howard Dean, made the point most vocally before the fact. They variously pointed out that the Iraqi regime gave no support to al-Qaeda, predicted that the United States would be unable to establish democracy in Iraq by force (and that therefore no such democracy could serve as a splendid model for the rest of the Middle East), warned that "regime change" for purposes of disarmament was likely to encourage other countries to build weapons of mass destruction

Hardly the "whole world" unless you don't include Eastern and Southern Europe who supported us along with the UK. Admittedly, France, Germany, the Benelux, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were against the war. God help us if we give those idiots veto power over our foriegn policy. And what about the 70% of the American people who supported the war - don't they count?

Germany didn't attack the United States at Pearl Harbor. Neither did Italy. But we went after them first. Why? Because, whether they were directly attacking us or not, they were declared enemies and we had to defeat them to win the war. Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - doesn't that make him a terrorist? You can see a transcript of Congress' findings regarding Hussein in 1998 here including the attempted assasination of former President Bush. In a little reported aside, it also appears that Iraq was involved, with al-Qaida, in the assasination of US diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan. So, no reason for war here...everyone just MOVE ALONG.

Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war – a harder task, in many ways, than winning, for it requires admitting mistakes and relinquishing attractive fantasies. This is the true moral mission of our time (well, of the next few years, anyway).

I'd wager that few of your fellow Americans agree with your analysis, asshat.

The cost of leaving will certainly be high, but not anywhere near as high as trying to "stay the course," which can only magnify and postpone the disaster. And yet – regrettable to say – even if this difficult step is taken, no one should imagine that democracy will be achieved by this means. The great likelihood is something else – something worse: perhaps a recrudescence of dictatorship or civil war, or both. An interim period – probably very brief – of international trusteeship is the best solution, yet it is unlikely to be a good solution. It is merely better than any other recourse.

What? Oh, I see, the Muslim Arabs are incapable of self rule. They NEEED dictators. What racist crap. An "interim period...of international trusteeship"? How many times does this have to be tried to be proven wrong?

Sorry, jon-jon, time for bedy-bye now. That's it take your blankey with you...no, no the evil Americans will not hurt you.....they're well known for their tolerance for morons.

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Dennis Kucinich thinks the US should get out if Iraq now - that's what he said during the Democrat "debate" (Bush-bashing-fest) last night. He thinks the UN should be in charge of the peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts, in part so that there will be no more sweetheart contracts for Halliburton.

Let's put aside for the moment that a couple of Halliburton employees have been shot and killed in the course of performing their tasks in Iraq making the Midget's remarks a little classless in my book. What if pigs sprouted wings, took to flying and DK was elected president tomorrow?

I'm sure Chirac and Schoeder would be more than happy to take Prez K up on his offer to hand over all of the economic decision-making in the country to the UN. Of course, the Europeans don't have enough troops to commit to peacekeeping activities so American troops would STILL have to stay in the country to chase down the remaining Baathists, Islamofacists and criminals. Meanwhile, the French and Germans could get their grubby little hands back into the Iraqi wallet, selling God-knows-what without the limitations of any sanctions.

Syria too would be happy about the new Prez and would use their remaining months on the UN Security Council (now there's a bad joke) to increase their influence in the selection of a new government.

The same UN bureaucrats who botched up Bosnia and Rwanda will be in charge of the security situation. Once the Americans leave the Turks, Syrians and Iranians will all be tempted to establish spheres of influence within Iraq (and my bet is that the temptation will be much to great to resist). The Syrians and Iraqis have been allowing jihadists to infiltrate over the borders even with American troops in the country; this can only accelerate once they leave or their numbers are significantly reduced.

So if you follow DK's advice what you probably get is a decidedly non-democratic Iraq and constant low-level fighting between factions within the country backed by neighboring states. Al-Qaida should be expected to attempt to set up bases there with the tacit approval of the Baathists (Syrians). If there are WMD's in the country (and, despite the whining of the Dems there almost certainly are) the jihadists will find them.

The Iraqi people will be furious at the US for abandoning them AGAIN, so when the UN calls on America to bring in more troops the whole country will be against us instead of working with us as most do now.

Great strategy Dennis! In case you hadn't noticed the last time you were in New York there are a couple of buildings missing! The guys who did it were a bunch of fanatical, anti-semitic, Islamic fundamentalist radicals. We invaded Iraq as a part of the overall campaign. You may not have agreed with the decision to go to war, but as president you would have to deal with the situation as it is now. Your solution would be a huge blow to America in the global strugle against Islamic Facism.

Get a clue, asshat.

Tuesday, September 09, 2003


Terrell Bolton just can't keep his mouth shut.

Now he's assaulting Ron Kirk, the last (and first black) mayor of Dallas. According to the Dallas Morning News, Kirk "has said in recent days that he would have supported firing Mr. Bolton in 2001. 'I had seen enough'". That's what I always liked about Kirk, who I voted for even though he's a Democrat, he always seemed like a straight-shooter to me (he was also a pro-development mayor unlike the current mayor, Laura Miller).

Bolton responded by saying, "He kicked me while I'm down, and that's wrong". Bolton also claims that he "was hoping to ride off into the sunset" but that when Kirk attacked him he felt like he had to respond. Conducting tearful press conferences and making speeches at local churches decrying the people who stabbed him in the back (Benavides and Miller) repeatedly yellling out the mantra "Let freedom ring" is a strange way to "ride off into the sunset". Since Kirk is black, Bolton can't pull out the race card on him - I'm only supprised he didn't call the ex-mayor an "Uncle Tom".

In his conduct since the dismissal, Bolton has demonstrated to everyone, with his orgy of self-pity and his playing of the race card, everything you need to know about his fitness to run the police department of the nation's eighth-largest city. How could a petulant whiner like him turn things around here? He was a big part of the problem - good riddance.

Monday, September 08, 2003


Also, to follow up on the last post, the East Germans who long for the communist grip ought to look at some film from the Cold War.

Watch people being shot trying to escape into West Berlin to freedom. Watch Soviet tanks blocking the delivery of food and fuel to West Berlin. Watch the non-stop flights of supplies into West Berlin from the US too keep the citizens from starving. Watch Kennedy's speech at the wall. Watch Reagan's speech at the wall.

Now tell me you'd be better off if the communists still ran East Germany. And what about the Russian domination of the Poles and the rest of Eastern Europe.

These people are disgusting to me. They aren't worth the American money and lives that were sacrificed to keep them free.

I saw John Kasich tonight talking to some Fox News expert and he was advocating a new strategy in dealing with our allies. He thinks we should tell the Europeans to help us financially in Iraq or we pull our troops out of Europe to relieve the troops there. He included Japan in the equation also. I agree. It's time to play hardball - we have a few allies in Europe (east) and of course Britain, Spain and Italy...the rest of them should be given an ultimatum.

If they don't appreciate our friendship and help then we should no longer provide it. I, for one, no longer wish to pay extra taxes to allow European countries to enjoy a "peace dividend" while we must increase our expenditures on defence here. From now on France and Germany should shoulder their part of the burden.

Good luck boys, don't ask Uncle Sam for help anymore.


East Germans now are nostalgic for communist life! I guess the stress of freedom, of having to make choices for yourself is too much for them.

For more insight, read Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom. Chilling.


While sifting through the usual tinfoil hat tripe, I was stunned to see Ramsey Clark, one of the leaders of anti-American hate theology, utter the following:
"Now we say to the United Nations, 'Hey, you've got to share in this burden,'" Clark told reporters. "Well we created it. George Bush created it and we have to pay for it. Anyone who thinks that the United Nations has the skills or capacity to create security in Iraq hasn't been around... the U.N. can't possibly handle the situation in Iraq and the U.S. knows it perfectly well."

Wow. Ramsey Clark admits that the U.N. doesn't have the ability to add anything to the security or rebuilding of Iraq (other than financial contributions).! Of course he then disintegrates into this:
"Citing charges from the Nuremburg trials at the end of World War II, Clark said the war in Iraq was a "crime against peace" and called for Bush's impeachment. The U.S. government, according to Clark, cannot be trusted.

"While this government is in power it will continue its ways. It really believes it has the right to change regimes," Clark said, condemning Bush for asking Liberian President Charles Taylor, "elected in an internationally observed election," to step down. "What's going to happen in North Korea if we don't get some sense in the White House and in the Pentagon? Can we really trust them?"

Apparently, Clark, the senile hosebag that he is, doesn't think that we can call for a murdering dictator to step down if he has been "democratically elected". Wasn't Saddam Hussein almost unanimously re-elected just a few months ago? I guess the people who dragged his statues down in Baghdad just couldn't get registered in time to vote.

And what does RC want the US to do with regards to North Korea? Bush has been widely criticized as ignoring the problem. I guess Ramsey's idea of negotiation is to give your enemies (thats the North Koreans, RC) money and hope that they start loving you and give up their quest for nuclear weapons. Clinton tried that and then turned his back when intellegence agencies told him they were welching on the deal. Just like he turned down bin Laden because the legal case against him wasn't compelling enough.

I think I like the "realists" in the current administration a whole lot more.

Someone please guide Clark back to the asylum. I'm afraid he might fall and hurt himself.


I really find it hard to believe that the Democrats running for President actually believe the idiotic things they say. If you take Howard Dean that means he believes that the Republican Party is attempting to "undermine democracy in this country".

What does he mean?

His theory is that the 2000 Presidential election, redistricting efforts in Colorado and Texas, and the recall election in California are all a part of the Republican plan to subvert the will of the people. Of course, he believes the will of the people to be as defined how the federal judiciary hands it down (Texas redistricting) except when the Supreme Court comes to a decision he doesn't like (2000).

An excerpt from a mid-August blog on the subject of Texas:
"Texas redistricting usually proves highly contentious. During the 1990s, litigants brought no fewer than ten cases against the legislative and congressional plans. Plaintiffs in Vera v Richards (or Bush v Vera in the U.S. Supreme Court) challenged twenty-four of the state's thirty congressional districts as racial gerrymanders. Eventually, the courts ruled against three of the districts. The courts provided an interim map, which had to be used for the 1998 elections, and directed the Texas legislature draw a new congressional map by June 30, 1997. It failed to do so; therefore, the past two congressional elections have been held under the court-issued map.

This redistricting cycle has proven difficult. Because of the Legislature's inability to compromise on a plan, the court system has drawn the new map. Inundated by maps from the Republicans, Democrats, two non-partisan organizations, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, state District Judge Paul Davis took on the challenge of deciding upon the best redistricting map in September. Initially he released a map favoring the Republicans, but reversed himself shortly thereafter, drawing a map that helped Democrats. The Republican controlled state supreme court threw out the ruling and the matter passed on to federal court. A three-judge federal panel took the case, rejecting both versions of Davis's map. On November 14, 2001, the panel released an incumbent-friendly plan that will be used in the 2002 elections. "

Dean is unbothered by the fact that Texas votes at about a 55% rate for Republican candidates statewide but still has a majority Democrat delegation to the US Congress. Apparently, attempts to make the states representation more closely reflect the views of its voters (instead of just being incumbent friendly) qualify as the subversion of democracy in Dean's World. Texans should accept Democrat obstructionism and our elected officials should abdicate their responsibility to the Federal Courts in the name of fair-play.

This is how Democrats think. "If the people don't vote the way we want let's just go to the courts and override their wishes. The masses are too stupid to govern themselves anyway. We, the educated, cosmopolitan elite, must lead our fellow citizens out of the wilderness - whether they like it or not." Well, we don't like it down here Howie, and our elected representatives ARE doing something about it.

As for Florida 2000, the votes WERE recounted - by machine. The result wasn't what the Gore campaign wanted, so they threw the whole thing into the court system Their first case was denied so they appealed. Explain to me how this was a Republican attempt to "undermine Democracy".

Every California governor over the past thirty years has had to weather a recall attempt. Only Gray Davis was universally reviled enough to have a recall petition actually receive the required signatures equalling 12% of the voters in the previous election. Darrell Issa noted on Wolf Blitzer's show this weekend that 30% of the signatories of the petition were Democrats. I did not hear Howard Dean protesting when Californians were circulating recall petitions against Pete Wilson and have never heard him bemoan the unfairness of the same being done to Ronald Reagan. Apparently the recall process "undermines democracy" only when it is successful against a Democrat governor.

By the way, how can a process that allows voters to VOTE on whether or not to keep one of their elected officials subvert democracy (defined as: "government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" by the American Heritage Dictionary).

I don't know anything about the Colorado redistricting case and I'm not going to research it right now because I don't have time and I confident that Dean's claims are more of the same hyperbolic bullshit.

Here's a novel idea for Democrats - try changing your message to get people to vote for you at the polls instead of attempting to force your opinions down our throats with the legal system. That's how democracy works.

Sunday, September 07, 2003

Bob Graham is an ignorant asshole.

I saw him tonight on Larry King after Bush's speech. Other Democrat candidates ought to demand free air time; it was a campaign speech. Graham didn't like what the President had to say since Bush didn't admit to having completely fucked up the Iraq War and apologze for ever having engaged in it at all. That position is wrong but at least comprehensible. But Graham appears, like Ted Rall, to want US troops brought home post haste. He believes that we've "taken our eyes off the ball", which is the war against al-Qaida, with our focus on Iraq.

At least serious people, like Joe Biden and Chris Shays, understand that it is absolutely imperative that we succeed in reconstructing Iraq into an economically successful, secular, democratic state. As Bush said, "whatever it costs" we have to be willing to pay the price. Graham, exhibiting spectacular density, compared the $85 billion the president will be asking to be funded for the reconstruction efforts to the funds budgeted by Congress on education and road building. Maybe we could arrest control of the education agenda from the teachers unions, Bob, and get a better product for less money? Maybe we're willing to put of road repairs so we can have a chance of defeating a murderous enemy that tried to decapitate the US government on 9/11/01 and trains its youth from the cradle to hate Jews and Americans and die trying to kill as many of us as possible.

A Bob Graham presidency, as unbelievably unlikely as that might be, would be, if he truly believes the pablum that he spit out tonight, an unqualified foriegn policy disaster. If we, as he suggests, withdraw from Iraq it will become a human rights nightmare. Eventually pressure will mount for us to intervene AGAIN but this time there won't be any civilians happy to see us. An how long would it be before France and Germany begin to export the technology for nuclear reactors to Iraq again

But I'm sure President Graham would have it all covered; he seems to know it all.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=