As more and more activists and liberals take the side of Palestinians in the war, I think about the past and how it has come to this.
�Never again,� were the words spokenn after the Holocaust. But as Hamas declares they will drive the Israelis into the sea and kill every Jew, I wonder why would anyone even deal with this sort of genocidal organization run amok in the streets of Gaza and in Jerusalem.
The militants in the liberal community have rushed to the aid of the Palestinians and have been killed in the process. I hear about it and think the same thing that I thought before: Kill them all. This is not a good thing, and I knew that my view of the Israelis had not only been attacked in the past, and this previous action had put the Arabs we have come to think of as Palestinians in this position of being in the occupied territory.
Think of the wars that have happened. The failed invasions of 1967 resulted in the land that is now under Israeli control. Since then, the Arabs living there have not been treated well. Various uprisings have been put down and the current Intifada has been rumored to now have a small truce and cease fire. The people under Israeli control have not been treated well, however their leaders have always rejected the Palestinian state. I wonder why. Could it be that there is no thought of coexisting? Could it be the hatred of the Jewish people and their call to be exterminated?
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has now begun to make sure that illegal settlements made in the occupied lands are being torn down, much to the chagrin of the militants on both sides. Mahmoud Abbas has no real power to take down the groups like Hamas. I heard on NPR that Hamas is more powerful in terms of military than the Palestinian Authority. So why is he trying to get them to stop the fighting? Will the peaceful coexistence of ancient hatreds come to light?
I would dare say that from the time Joshua led his bands of 12 tribes into what is now Israel was the start of the hatred for the Israelites. Instead of naming them the Jews, they are now known to the militants who oppose them as the Zionists, people who seek Zion. Zion as a refuge and Zion as a way of life will never be possible unless there is one of two things.
1. One of the sides is eliminated, or
2. The life of one more innocent is not lost and people wake up and realize that war is pointless and hatred can be eliminated.
I, of course, know how to get the latter done. It is a religious answer, but it is my answer. The peace of the world is nothing compared to the peace of Christ. If it can work in my stupid life and make me realize that violence and hatred is not the answer, then maybe it can work in the hearts of those who seek to kill for killings� sake. I know I am wrong when I think that I am better off when people who rise up against Israel are killed. I know that even though the battle is ancient and polarizing, it doesn�t have to last forever. But in my heart I know that people won�t change until something big happens. But even that�s not enough. It has to happen again or at least people have to be reminded of it. But, even that doesn�t work as the winds change, people affected by tragedy just go back to the way they were before. So it must be a personal change, not something drastic or tragic, but something has to work inside of each and every person. The changing of the heart takes time.
I don�t know what else to say.
6/27/03
Wow, so it must be tough to be a liberal anymore. Everything they say is wrong when they criticize the president or the war effort. It came in basically three waves regarding the war: Before; During; and After. Pundits never take a day off from criticizing the president, so it would seem to me to be a good time to refute some of what's being said.
Before the war, the quagmire of urban warfare to the uprising of the �Arab Street� were touted as what was going to happen by the "experts" and liberals.
The terrorism didn't happen, and it relates to the two pronged attack on Bush with possible increase of terrorism and the criticism during the war that he was neglecting the war on terror. They are interrelated.
The Arab Street didn�t rise up because the war on terrorism is working better than ever and the war in Iraq is simply an extension of the war on terror. The terrorism that was so feared seemed to be worse off now that Iraq is out of the picture. Gone is a source of funding, weapons and training locations. The simple fact of the matter is the regime of Saddam Hussein supported terrorism in finding, training locations and a potential source of WMD, seeing that none have been used by the terrorist cells who would have bought them.
Speaking of the Arab street, the new PM of Palestine is supported by the administratiojn in an effort to rid groups like Hamas and the Al Aqsa Brigade, both of which are bent on eliminating the evil Zionists and their backers the hated Americans. Also by the way, what would the liberals think if Lieberman was in power? He being Jewish, and they being for the Palestinians and currently very anti-Semitic, what would their anti-Israel sentiment be like if he was elected president next year? But I digress.
Also during the war, many of his detractors complained of the cost of the war. I will get to that more at the end of this piece.
After the war it is the lack of cohesive government, the looting of the National Museum, the aircraft carrier photo-op, and the lack of finding the weapons of mass destruction.
Concerning the WMD, James Taranto�s Opinion Journal Best of the Web May 6 had a great quote:
�In any case, before these guys complain about the coalition's failure to find weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't it behoove them to wait at least as long as they wanted to give the U.N. inspectors?�
In all the time leading up to the enforcement of the UN Security Council�s resolutions, all we heard form the anti-Bushers was that we needed to give the inspectors more time. After 12 years of fruitless searching and being kicked out from time to time, the inspectors couldn�t find any WMD�s in a country the size of California. It would seem that after at least a year, and this is not only my thought, if there are no WMD�s found, or at least proof of the one time existence of the WMD�s, then maybe there would be something to say. But hey, it�s been about a month since the fall of Baghdad, I would think that we need to give the boys a chance to actually find something.
Also, consider the �looting� of the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad. The numbers started at 17,000 missing pieces, and is now down to 38, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Here�s an excerpt:
�Damage to the museum's administrative offices was extensive, with desks, wiring, fixtures and chairs hauled out by looters. Artifacts, apparently obscured in some instances by the rubble left by looters, emerged largely unscathed.
�There is no comparison in the level of destruction seen in the museum and that seen the administrative offices,� Bogdanos said. �It's absolute wanton destruction in the offices. We didn't see anywhere near that destruction in the museum. [People] stole what they could use. ... They left the antiquities.�
Investigators, compiling information about what occurred during the chaotic takeover of Baghdad by U.S.-led troops, are concluding that little damage occurred to antiquities displayed at the museum. Investigators counted 17 display cases destroyed out of 300 to 400 cases. Many of the items apparently were removed before the looting.
In addition, investigators have counted 22 items that were damaged, including 11 clay pots on display in corridors. Most of those damaged artifacts are restored pieces and can be restored again, museum officials told investigators.�
Most of the loot was gone before the war, much like the banks that were a little light on cash before the shooting started, thanks to billion dollar raids by Saddam�s boy. Also the figures of the museums collection were based on 1991 figures. They weren�t even up to date.
The lack of government in Baghdad has concerned some. Since Saddam has been out of power for a month, there has been no government formed. Well, geez, we didn�t even get the Constitution of the United States signed until 1787. That was 11 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. And yet, if some of the media were alive then, we might have headlines that would bemoan the lack of a working government following the end of hostilities with the British. These things take time.
Finally, I just wanted to mention the cost of the war and the president�s landing on the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier. The war has been a good opportunity to bash the Bush tax cut plan. Besides the fact that the unforeseen spending of military operations which would go above and beyond what was allocated by Congress for FY03, there is the simple fact that the economy is on a more stable footing when the government allows the taxpayers to keep more of their money. And of course the rich benefit, because it is the rich who pay the taxes in America. Over 96 percent of all taxes are paid by 50 percent of taxpayers. Those who pay the taxes will see more of the benefit. But I must remind those of you who are still not convinced, that there are provisions for us lower salary types who got big refund from the IRS based on newly implemented rules to benefit us. This is anecdotal, but I make under $30K per year. Because of the new tax codes, brought to me by President Bush, I was able to have a refund of over $2,500. Do you think that this doesn�t help me or the economy? All it does is helps pay for a variety of needs for my family. Now, there is a little less for the Democrat�s social programs that just suck up more and more money like giant Hoovers. But hey, I can live with that.
But what it all boils down to is this: When more people have a chance to earn and spend money, the income of the average American goes up. This results in more taxable income from people and businesses. Thus more money for the government, for all of those who think it should spend as much as possible.
And has there been a prouder moment for President Bush than when he landed on the carrier and addressed the men and women who protect us day and night? I don�t think so. But for those who see the world through their jaundiced eye of cynicism, well, it was a photo op, and that�s all it was. Expensive too. Clearly, it looked great, and the president�s advisors sure as heck set it up, but hey, it works. President Bush is the Man. And everyone knows it. I detect a slight hint of jealousy. The problem is that a Democrat who doesn�t have a love for the military wouldn�t be able to be genuine in that situation. With Bush, it is real and genuine the admiration he has for those who protect our country. And far be it for me to come out against that.
May 7, 2003
The charge of unilaterally rushing to war has been levied against the foreign policy of President Bush. Of course this has been the case for the past 6 months. In fact, there is no rush, as all strategic surprise has been lost.
But the unilateral thing has me a bit angry. I was doing some research on what countries have pledged support or troops or accommodation for troops for the US led war on terror and evil in the fro of Saddam Hussein. I think they are the same because I believe Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush when they say that Iraqi intelligence has met with members of Al Qaida. But one either believes that or not. And this will be dealt with later in the piece as well.
I wanted to address the issue of unilateralism. As I said, doing some research revealed the allies that stand by us without UN Security Counsel approval. This list of nations represents those who have pledge troops, support for our troops or have taken a positive stand for the US cause. The links for the sources are: �Eastern Europe: Does The Vilnius 10 Group Have A Future?� From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, www.rferl.com and from the USA Today article entitled, �A look at military support offered for possible Iraq war.�
The list:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Netherlands
Germany (Troops training for chemical warfare but not allowed to cross border)
Australia
Belgium
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Romania
Slovakia
Poland
Slovenia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Seeing the list, the word unilateral doesn�t come to mind. What I see I overwhelming support. In addition to this list, there are a variety of countries that have pledged support in the far fetched event that France doesn�t stonewall UN approval of forceful compliance to UN Resolution 1441.
The support or defiance of the US is rooted in the personal attacks of President Bush. When one sees the hypocrisy in allowing human rights atrocities to go on unchecked on the same scales of Screbrenica and Rwanda, we see that the defiance is personally directed against the president.
This is tied to the same charges brought from the democrats at home who have had to deal with the fact that everything they say is increasingly stupid and worthless.
I just want to explore some of the criticism of Bush and Bush counter points.
1. Dems criticize Bush for wanted Ballistic Missile defense saying that no more wars are fought like this.
2. Dems criticize Bush for not dealing with North Korea, because all of a sudden it�s revealed that they have ballistic missiles capable of reaching California (Have fun mom!)
3. Then they say Bush isn�t doing enough in the war on terror. But after the capture of the Al Qaida #2 guy, one leading Dem calls it �Huge.� Sorry democrats, still going strong on the war on terror. And, I already said this, but the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror in my opinion, because I believe what the government said about the ties between Al Qaida and Iraq, but I already said that.
4. Dems criticize Bush for unilaterally rushing to war. Addressed that previously.
5. Speculation that is going around: It will be revealed that government ties between France, Germany and Russia, the primary opponents to Bush, that their governments have very strong ties with the current Iraqi government in terms of economics and defense. It will also be revealed the scope of the human rights violations that have taken place under the Hussein dictatorship in terms of torture and repression. The unwillingness to do anything about this despite reports to the contrary just illustrate the true agenda of the left wing Iraq supporters: anything to stonewall Bush, even if it comes at the cost of human lives. Let�s not forget those innocents, in addition to those who may die during the liberation.
6. The �Smoking Gun� has been revealed. The illegal arms, drone and chemical warheads that keep turning up without being briefed to the UN SC previously are the smoking gun, the evidence that Iraq has committed the crime in the face of the �Resolution.�
7. Future Iraqi government will be a democracy. It will take time, but Europe wasn�t rebuilt in a day after WWII. By the way European US haters: remember the Marshall Plan? And to those who say that Afghanistan is a failure because there is only democracy in Kabul, I say a little democracy is better than a nation wide theocracy enforcing conduct by the sword and harboring terrorists.
I would say the list of nations and the Bush counter points offsetting the illogical and ill thought out comments and criticisms of his policies leave no doubt in my mind that the arguments to support Bush�s policies make sense, no matter how much one must deny it. It must really burn up the liberals and socialist detractors for the Bush foreign policy that he is pretty much always right and their arguments are red herrings and wholly without merit. The real issue is that they hate Bush. There�s just no way around it. The marches in the US are a tribute to that fact. The recent destroying of 9/11 memorial in California by so called peace activists are a testimony that the peace activists are anti American or at least anti Bush, no matter how good the cause of liberating millions from a sadistic dictator is.
With a new government, the UN sanctions will be dropped allowing food and investment capitol to come pouring into the country. Aid will be allowed to thrive and hopefully the principles of democracy and freedom can prevail. That�s a big hope in a Muslim country, but hey, I can hope. Let�s face it, Muslim dictatorships are as bad as any communist dictatorship. Like the Nazi�s of old, Muslim based theocracies seek only to subjugate to the �superior� way of their God. But we can�t do anything about any of that. No, we must respect their culture and watch millions starve while females are beaten and mutilated and anyone who speaks out is stoned. No thanks.
3/12/03
You see, the big story that is told by the liberal members of the press to try and dispute the liberal slant given to political news, or the agendas for newsworthiness, is that the parent conglomerates are conservative, and are therefore calling the shots. The parent companies (That are conservative, they argue and assume) are the ones who are driving the media agenda. Well, I wondered, are the parent companies of the Big 3 (NBC, ABC and CBS) more prone to giving money to the Democrats or the Republicans?
Here�s what I found on Opensecrets.org, a website devoted to campaign spending and tracking things like that. (You can track down info by company name, party and industry among others. Really a nice site, though incomplete as we will see.)
Disney, which owns ABC, since 1990 gave both parties $7.39 million. 66% of which was given to the Democratic Party. The Republican Party conversely received 34% of the money, according to new math. But, in the 2002 campaigns, it was more evenly split, the $1.14 million given 52% to Dems and 48% to the GOP. This has been trending to the middle since 1990.
CBS is owned by Viacom, but did not make the list of large donors. I was able to find, however, under Democrat National Committee (DNC) donors in 2002, that Viacom gave just over $1 million, making the list of largest contributors at number 10. No such contributions were made to the RNC. By the way, Viacom also owns MTV, VH1, Paramount, Showtime and Blockbuster, as well as others.
General Electric actually gives more to Republicans. GE of course owns NBC. Since 1990, GE gave $8.76 million to both and was split 47% to Dems and 53% to the GOP. What�s more, GE gave 59% of the $1.64 million in 2002 to Republicans.
Overall, the TV/Movies/Music industry has given overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party. Since 1990, this industry has given $148.64 million dollars to the two parties. Of that, 72% was earmarked for the Dems. In the 2002 election cycle, $44.95 million was donated, 84% went to the Dems.
Narrowing the search, the TV Production industry alone gave $7.81 million since 1990, with 82% going to the Democrats. For 2002, $1.86 million has been given and 93% of that went to Democrats.
As a side note, the top three donators to the DNC in 2002 were from entertainment companies. The companies are Saban Entertainment, Shangri-la Entertainment and Newsweb Corp.
Is it any wonder that conservatives see the TV media as biased? The studios, the producers, and the industry as a whole, including the parent companies (except for the right leaning GE) support Democrats monetarily more than Republicans.
I don�t buy the conservative conglomerates argument anymore. The numbers just don�t tell that story.
Written 1/31/03
I also want to say a few words about Nelson Mandela's comments made regarding President Bush. I just want to know what he is smoking. Mandela chooses to go with the old, "Bush is stupid" and then accuses him of starting another Holocaust.
�What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust,� Mandela says.
Here's what gets me: Mandela says that Bush is acting alone, but then criticizes both Bush and Tony Blair. Then we see that there is Blair is bringing the support of eight European Union members. Unilateralism? I don�t think so.
Then he says that the UN must be involved. What is Resolution 1441, Nelson?!! That would be the vote of 15 Security Council member nations. Not to mention the previous resolution of the Senate, which a couple of Democrats (Kennedy and former KKK Grand Wizard Robert Byrd) are furiously trying to reopen the issue.
In the end, the coalition will stand, and if it comes to war, then the UN and the US allies will be there together. Don�t underestimate Bush. He is smart, patient and knows how to get things done.
Quite simply, the liberal pundits in the media, no matter how hard they try, cannot take the man down. From the immediate polling of CBS News last night, we learn that Bush has immediate and widespread support of himself and his policies. Let�s run down the list briefly.
(By the way, this is available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/29/opinion/polls/main538364.shtml)
To quote:
�According to a CBS News/Knowledge Networks Poll, President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address reassured viewers that he shares their priorities for the nation, convinced them that his tax cut proposals would be good for the economy, and solidified his case for military action against Iraq.
The speech helped Mr. Bush make the case for war against Iraq. Before the speech, support for a military strike was already high among viewers, with two-thirds in favor. After the speech, it climbed to 77% of viewers favoring military action.�
Turning to the economy, two-thirds of viewers said they believe President Bush's new tax proposals would be good for the economy. In 2002, 49% of speech watchers thought that the Bush tax cut proposals he announced that year would be good for the economy.
But there were large partisan differences on the subject. An overwhelming number of Republicans think the cuts will be a cure for the economy's ills, while only 43% of Democrats agree.
Overall, 81% of viewers now believe that the president has the same priorities for the nation as they do, a dramatic increase from the 54% who thought so before the speech. In 2001, 71% of people who watched Bush's first address to Congress came away thinking he shared their priorities.�
What we see here is the President communicating plainly and forcefully the ideas of what is necessary for the nation in terms of economy and foreign affairs.
It still gets me that his detractors see a frat boy, party boy, intellectual dimwit, cowboy and opportunist, plus whatever Maureen Down thinks of him, which I�m sure is infinitely more unflattering.
What the nation sees is a man whom they can trust: a strong, plainspoken everyman, who happens to have an MBA from Harvard. And last time I checked, they weren�t just giving them out. Every time they try to tear him down, he comes back with the overwhelming support of the American people. Every time they say he�s not good enough, his approval numbers shoot up into the 70�s.
In other words, the President remains strong while his detractors try everything they can to tear him down. This may backfire come November 2004, where I am predicting already a Bush landslide of at least 40 states.
Later,
ME
1/29/03