Saturday, June 26, 2004


I haven't seen the piece of crap myself - and I won't because I don't want to give Michael Moore any of my money to support his sick, demented campaign against Bush. But someone has to review it so that we know just how disgusting it is that Tom Daschle, Terry McAuliffe and Tom Harkin think its worth viewing (see my commentary at the end of this post).


Unbelievably enough, Moore asks whether Bush wakes up and thinks about Saudi national interests before he thinks about America's.


Iraq. It is a happy place where citizens where children fly kites and loving families spend quality time together. It is a "sovereign nation". Perhaps Moore will say that he was being sarcastic or humorous when he decided to make no mention at all of the horrific atrocities that Saddam Hussein committed. The rape, the murder, and the torture chambers. Perhaps Moore will say that he just wanted to present a picture as outrageous as the one George W. Bush presented to the American public.

Frankly, Moore could use that defense to explain just about any inaccuracy in the film. Misleading? No, just mocking the Bush administration's own propaganda. Except, of course, that life under Saddam really was hell, even if Iraqi mothers still loved their children, some of whom were allowed to fly kites.

and of course Christopher Hitchens:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

and later in the article Hitchens' response to the "Saddam wasn't the enemy" argument:

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer (the crippled American who was murdered and thrown overboard from the Achille Lauro in his wheelchair for the sin of being a Jew - ed.). Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)(emphasis added)

Moore is a self-satisfied, socialist moron who believes somehow that terrorists and tribal butchers in Iraq "...are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." You understand what he means here - they will win because the REVOLUTION is always right. Revolt against THE MAN, the evil captialist system; Halliburton is the bloody shirt! Comparing Baathist butchers and Islamic terrorists who decapitate civillians (who Moore sneeringly refers to as "mercenaries") to the Minutemen? Paul Revere must be spinning wildly in his grave.

His gross ignorance of history and distortion of fact could be laughed off as the fevered ravings of a lunatic if not for the fact that political leaders of the opposition party take it seriously.

Byron York notes "Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe says he believes radical filmmaker Michael Moore's assertion that the United States went to war in Afghanistan not to avenge the terrorist attacks of September 11 but instead to assure that the Unocal Corporation could build a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan for the financial benefit of Vice President Dick Cheney and former Enron chief Kenneth Lay. (empahsis added)

McAuliffe and a number of other prominent Democrats attended a screening of Moore's new documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, at the Uptown Theatre in Washington Wednesday night. McAuliffe called the film "very powerful, much more powerful than I thought it would be." When asked by National Review Online if he believed Moore's account of the war in Afghanistan, McAuliffe said, " I believe it after seeing that." The DNC chairman added that he had not heard of the idea before seeing the movie, but said he would "check it out myself and look at it, but there are a lot of interesting facts that he [Moore] brought out today that none of us knew about."

A short time later, McAuliffe was asked by CNN, "Do you think the movie was essentially fair and factually based?" "I do," McAuliffe said. "I think anyone who goes to see this movie will come out en masse and vote for John Kerry. Clearly the movie makes it clear that George Bush is not fit to be president of this country."

Not only that but he goes on to report: "In addition to McAuliffe, other Democrats at the Washington screening included Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, and others. Harkin told the Associated Press that all Americans should see the film. "It's important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore."

Please take a moment to reflect on what this means. This is akin to the president, vice-president and Senate Majority leader Frist attending a screening of a film by the modern-day equivalent of the John Birch Society whose premise is that John Kerry is the head of an anti-American, communist cabal who's aim is to give away American soveriegnty to the United Nations. What would the reaction of the national media be if such a film were produced(it would be just a plausible as Moore's tripe - which is to say not at all)and were to be taken seriously by the leadership of the Republican Party? Dan Rather would be apoplectic.

There was a day when both major political parties could be taken seriously on foreign policy issues. The Democrats have proven that they no longer can be trusted to do anything other than attack Republicans regardless of the cost to the country(sometimes a cost that is paid in the lives of US servicemen). That the head of the Democratic National Committee believes that the President of the United States took us to war in Afghanistan not to pursue the people who murdered 3000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11 but to build an oil pipeline when NO ONE questions that Osama bin-Laden was using Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorists and was being harbored by the government there should tell you everything you need to know about the mindset of the Democratic Party. McAuliffe is either insane or he is cynically dishonest beyond the imagination of the most partisan politico. Anyone who is thinking of voting for John Kerry in the fall needs to take this under advisement.

Absolutely disgusting!

Thursday, June 24, 2004


Abortion - woooo, we can't talk about that one either, right? It's all about a woman's right to choose!

It amazes me that the same people who get incensed over the fact that we test new products on rats and eat meat would defend to the end the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy for convenience at any time. Wesley Clark, who is an asshole, actually gave an interview where he maintained that nothing...absolutely nothing...should be allowed to interfere with the decision of a woman (consulting with her doctor) to end the life growing within her even in the EIGHTH MONTH of the pregnancy.

Let me ask you this - why is it OK to kill a fetus in the last trimester, when it could not survive on its own but could be saved if delivered early, and not OK for a woman to abandon her newborn? The only differences are 1)the fetus hasn't left the womb yet and 2)the abandoned newborn suffers probably a little more than the 8 month old fetus. Are you really comfortable with that? This is the position of the snivelling simps of the Democratic party - pandering as they must to radical feminists.

Rats deserve more protection than fetuses in the 9th month? According to the "progressives" yes.


I saw a couple of gay women on the TV tonight...apparently some cable program was going to document their travels to Massachusetts where they were to be "married" according to the Commonwealth (yeah, right). Sorry, not my idea of education or entertainment.

So what's wrong with that...why should we care if homosexual unions are given government sanction. Because its wrong, that's why. You don't have to be religious to come to the conclusion that giving society's blessing (yes, that's what it is folks) to an immoral and unnatural lifestyle.

We can have the discussion about it...but don't give me any bullshit about human rights, OK? I've said this a number of times and I'll repeat myself - we deny people the right to do things they would like to do ALL THE TIME. We don't let men have sex with or marry their adult daughters. If we agree that society has the right to do that then we agree that society has the right (obligation) legislate against behaviors that are collectively judged as detrimental to it.

Homosexuals are making their argument as is their right. But as responsible members of society we would be derelict in our duties if we did not object to their efforts at the normalization of their perverted lifestyle as injurious to our children. It is therefore our duty to fight the encroachment of gays into the area of "holy matrimony".

Unfortunately many do not recognize our rights as citizens to express our opinions on this matter. Since they claim homosexuals' right to marry as a human right they characterize their opponents as villains and agents of repression - the evil "Christian Right". As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to oppose homosexual marriage (or in fact homosexual behavior period), but the fact that one's religion informs one's opinions regarding public policy should not be accepted as evidence that those opinions are wrong. Think about where we have come as a country - gay marriage is "progressive" and Christians are dangerous reactionaries for practicing their faith outside of church.

Well, count me as a knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal Christian if that's what you think. Homosexual marriage is wrong and what's worse it's bad for children to be exposed to and so bad for the fabric of society. And, no apologies to Andrew Sullivan and other Libertarians who argue otherwise, it is an important issue that must be addressed, not because President Bush decided it would be a winning campaign issue but because the courts of the People's Republic of Massachusetts and the wackos in San Francisco have decided to thrust it upon us.

If America falls it will not fall because our enemies devise a new weapon against which we are defenseless...if we fall it will be because we rot from within. Because we no longer hold dear the values that made us prosperous and strong. The road to hell is not chosen all at once but we shall arrive there, if we are not careful, nonetheless.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004


"It has been a long time since that ideal of freedom which inspired modern Western civilization and whose partial realization made possible the achievements of that civilization was effectively restated. In fact, for almost a century the basic principles on which this civilization was built have been falling into increasing disregard and oblivion. men have sought for alternative social orders more often than they have tried to improve their understanding or use of the underlying principles of our civilization. It is only since we were confronted with an altogether different system that we have discovered that we have lost any clear conception of our aims and possess no firm principles which we can hold up against the dogmatic ideology of our antagonists.

In the struggle for the moral support of the people of the world the lack of firm beliefs puts the West at a great disadvantage. The mood of its intellectual leaders has long been characterized by disillusionment with its principles, disparagement of its achievements, and exclusive concern with the creation of "better worlds". This is not a mood in which we can hope to gain followers. If we are to succeed in the great struggle of ideas that is under way, we must first of all know what we believe. We must also become clear in our own minds as to what it is that we want to preserve if we are to prevent ourselves from drifting. No less is an explicit statement of our ideals necessary in our relations with other peoples. Foreign policy today is largely a question of which political philosophy is to triumph over another; and our very survival may depend on our ability to rally a sufficiently strong part of the world behind a common ideal."

This could have been written in the months following September 11, 2001 but it wasn't. This is from the Introduction to The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek from 1959.

The Bush administration is constantly accused of ridiculous things from having suspended the First Amendment to condoning the torture of al-Qaida prisoners to having prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (!-Howard Dean). My biggest complaint is that Bush seems not to understand that he must rally the West around our common beliefs - that's hard because we seem to have less and less in common, but Bush doesn't seem to be trying. Or perhaps he assumes that battle lines are clearly understood by the people here at home and our allies abroad. They aren't...and part of his job is to make everyone understand what is at stake and why we fight.

Bush is good at deciding what action to take and staying the course, but he is failing as an ideological and spiritual leader. Not that the constantly equivocating John Kerry could do any better (and what a horrible signal to our enemies if Bush and Blair are defeated). The president appeared to grow into a better leader after 9/11...he needs to find his voice again and explain to those who don't understand, to those who question why America must stand and fight this enemy now. Why casualties in Iraq, as tragic as they may be, are necessary to prevent a holocaust. Until he does, Kerry and his anti-Bush allies in the domestic and foreign media, will carry the argument.

As in 1959 these are dangerous times indeed.

Monday, June 21, 2004


Here is the link to Putin's remarks referenced in the previous post. Curious that he waited until now to speak up and that the Russians opposed us in the UN given this knowledge. (from Reuters)

Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that Saddam's special forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing 'terrorist acts' on the United States and beyond its borders," he told reporters.

"This information was passed on to our American colleagues," he said. He added, however, that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam's agents had been involved in any particular attack.

This is nice but it is only another small piece of evidence that Saddam had to go...of course the New York Times is doing its best to try and make everyone forget all the rest. Wonder how they'll spin this in the weeks to come?


This is about as succinct an argument as I've seen for the war - supported by statements from Clinton (The Captain's Quarters via Instapundit):

First, Vladimir Putin tells people that Saddam Hussein planned terror attacks in the US, and the Left scoffed. Now, Bill Clinton says that George Bush had no choice but to remove Saddam Hussein after 9/11, based on the intelligence reports both men saw as President:

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

Clinton only disagrees with Bush on the timing of the attack. He would have preferred to wait until Hans Blix "finished his inspections," but the problem is that Blix spent over three months trying to confirm Iraqi cooperation under UNSC Resolution 1441 and reported that the Iraqis continued to evade their responsibilities. Blix wanted a longer, drawn-out inspection regime, the kind of program that had failed miserably in 1998 and earlier. After 9/11 the US could not afford to sit around for years while Saddam played cheat-and-retreat yet again.

Not much more to add.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=