Friday, October 31, 2003

Note to Dem 9: Even the FRENCH Think A Pullout Now is a Bad Idea


A U.S. pullout from Iraq would be "catastrophic," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Thursday, urging countries to take a strong united stance to stabilize Iraq.
...
When asked whether he could envision the United States pulling out of Iraq, de Villepin responded: "Obviously, a pullout from Iraq today would be catastrophic and would absolutely not correspond to the demands of the situation."

He also said he and fellow foreign ministers favour a rapid transfer of power to the Iraqis. "We must . . . define an approach that will truly allow the Iraqis to take their destiny in hand."


Get the rest of the story by Angela Doland from CNEWS.

Matt's Chat

Frenchie, there already is an approach that will give the Iraqis their destiny. It has been outlined many times before, but I'll help you out with this international "crisis." First, order must be restored. Second, Iraqis must develop a consititution. And third, the Iraqis must hold elections. That's it. That is the master plan. This is the only way to transfer full power back to the Iraqis. France has done enough; had France not sold missiles to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions, we might be done by now.

Mark's Remarks

See, France wants us to keep peace, as long as they do not have to do any work, then they will run in and pat themselves and the UN on the back for doing nothing but the standard French routine...Turn tail and run!!! It has been shown time and again, that we do have a plan, there is a timetable...Maybe instead of being so unwilling to help, if they really want to speed Iraq's self government, maybe they could send troops to help and help in the rebuilding..NO, we can't do that...we are the liberal french....We have no clue, and we hate anyone who thinks they can do something we cannot think of.....And, you nasty Americans took away a big buyer of our weapons....Oooops...was that out loud?

Exhibit B: O'Connor's Bio


Born 1930 in El Paso, TX

Federal Judicial Service:
Supreme Court of the United States
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on August 19, 1981, to a seat vacated by Potter Stewart; Confirmed by the Senate on September 21, 1981, and received commission on September 22, 1981.

Education:
Stanford University, A.B., 1950

Stanford Law School, LL.B., 1952

Professional Career:
Deputy county attorney, San Mateo, California, 1952-1953
Civil attorney, Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany, 1954-1957
Private practice, Phoenix, Arizona, 1957-1965
Assistant state attorney general, Arizona, 1965-1969
Arizona state senator, 1969-1975
Majority leader, 1973-1974
Judge, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, 1975-1979
Judge, Arizona State Court of Appeals, 1979-1981

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Female

Exhibit A: Justice O'Connor - US Supreme Court Must Reflect International Decisions


American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at an awards dinner in Atlanta.

"The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark," O'Connor said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
...
O'Connor told the audience, according to the Atlanta paper, the U.S. judicial system generally gives a favorable impression worldwide, "but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out."

Matt's Chat

Madame Justice, please allow me to tell you exactly what your job is. Your job, as a member of the highest court of the United States of America, is to render judgement, based on merit and argument, on the law of the land. Let me define "the land." "The land" refers to the United States of America. Therefore, your job is NOT to render judgement on any other nation or body of nations laws, but rather you and your collegues are to use AMERICAN LAW.

Here is Section 2 of Article III of the AMERICAN Constitution, which the Supreme Court is to defend and uphold.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Show me, Madame Supreme Court Justice, just where in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA you see that the Supreme Court is to utilize anything but American law? Madame, please feel free to email me the answer when you find it, but I won't be holding my breath.

Mark's Remarks

Matt, Ms. O'Connor must be getting senile...I would suggest replacing her, but God knows when the Dems would allow another candidate to be confirmed.....Madame Justice, we are a nation of freedom and American Law...do the British observe our law? When Iranians, Syrians, and others fully observe the full internationl law and such, or when international law proves effective, I will listen to this argument...right now, and it has been proven time and again, we have the most fair and equitable justice system in the world, why should we follow other laws, when they have no respect for our rules (China, Mexico, others)?

You are not a justice of some international mishmash court...You are a justice of the Supreme Court of THE UNITED STATES.....

Flash Poll #1: Judicial Legislation


The "official" vote is over! An overwhelming 95% of WMD readers believe that our judges should not be legislating from the bench. The official tally closed at 20 to 1.

The flash poll takes the first 21 responses as the official results. WMD will keep the poll running for awhile though...

Matt's Chat

This is no surprise to me. I think that our judges have been taking liberties with their duties for quite some time now. They have been trying to make themselves more important than they were ever intended to be. Judges aren't supposed to impact the law, they are supposed to interpret the law and oversee the administration of justice according to the law. Judges these days are seeing things in the Consitution that aren't there. One could make an argument that some judges are attempting to enact in their courts what liberals have been unable to slip through Congress. That isn't to say that there aren't "bad" conservative judges too.

For me, it comes down to the very simple concept that judges shouldn't be making law. It seems apparent to me that judges think they are the most important cog in the government machine. They think they can do whatever they want with no consequences. And for the most part, they are getting away with perverting the law to their advantage. That needs to cease...

Mark's Remarks


Nowhere does it say that judges should make law.....nowhere does it say that judges should be above the very law which gives them their power, but that is what more and more judges are trying to do....Of course, there have been extraordinary times, like Brown v. Board, etc., when the 13th-15th amendments were extended, but more and more, judges are trying to make the law, not interpret them, not enforce them...They have become a detriment, and it shows their own lack of fulfillment of their duties with all the judicial backlog, and the growing distrust of our legal system. Instead of trying to legislate and such from the bench, they should be trying more cases......

Commentary: Schiavo Case Illustrates Who Is and Who Is Not A Civil Rights Activist


The latest proof that the group calling itself American Civil Liberties Union isn't what it claims to be is its call to starve Terri Schiavo to death. Apparently it thinks the inconvenient and the disabled don't deserve civil liberties, civil rights or anything else.
...
The media establishment barely mentioned Monday that a coalition of disability rights groups urged that Mrs. Schiavo's life be spared.

"The belief that people with disabilities like [Mrs. Schiavo's] are 'better off dead' is long-standing but wrong. It imperils us all," said the statement signed by 14 organizations, including ADA Watch, Center on Human Policy and World Association of Persons with Disabilities.

However, Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson, routinely described by Big Media as a "civil rights activist" despite his support for racial discrimination against people with white or yellow skin, hasn't been picketing about this case. Apparently he couldn't find an angle that would let him line his pockets.

The groups that blubber when murderers are executed aren't getting out their handkerchiefs for Terri. And her only crime is existing.

So-called feminist groups such as the Democrat organization that calls itself National Organization for Women have also been uncharacteristically quiet. Do they think that all men should get to kill wives who become handicapped and expensive to care for?


Get the rest of this commentary from NewsMax.

Matt's Chat

Some very interesting points. May have to put this on the list of M Files-to-be...

Mark's Remarks


The American Criminal Liars Union is a disgrace....What about Terri's rights? What about her right to exist? They cannot use the fetus argument, she is an adult....they can defend killers who admitted to their crimes, they can do everything in their power to remove God from our public places, but they choose to fight to kill an innocent woman, a woman whose husband might have ulterior motives for seeing her done in? Further proof this organization has become a sham.....

Isr. Gen.: Israeli Tactics Too Strong


Israel's senior military commander told columnists for three leading newspapers this week that Israel's military tactics against the Palestinian population were too repressive and were fomenting explosive levels of "hatred and terrorism" that might become impossible to control.

In remarks that suggest a dramatic split with the approach of the current government, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, said that crackdowns, curfews and roadblocks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were crippling the lives of innocent Palestinians and that the military's tactics were now threatening Israel's own interests.

The military chief directed most of his complaints at restrictions imposed on the West Bank four weeks ago, after a suicide bomber from the West Bank city of Jenin killed 21 people in a restaurant in the Israeli port of Haifa. Yaalon said the current curfews and travel restrictions, some of the tightest since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, were preventing Palestinians from carrying out critical olive and other agricultural harvests, hampering thousands of children from attending school, increasing hatred for Israel and strengthening terrorist organizations.

"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interests," Nahum Barnea, columnist for the Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper, quoted Yaalon as telling him.


Get the rest of the article from the Washington Post.

Matt's Chat

Far be it for me to disagree with an Israeli general, but I think his logic is faulty. The only way for Palestinian leadership to figure out that terrorism doesn't work is to make terrorism punishable. And you want it to be a lesson that they will remember. While I will admit that terrorism has a 100% failure rate, I will also point out that the terrorists appear to have infinite patience as well. In their minds, the strategy will eventually work. And depending on what the world leaders do, it just might. We must never allow our leaders to give in to terrorism; doing so will only bring about more terrorism. Give them an inch and they'll want a mile. Appeasement isn't the answer.

Mark's Remarks

Matt, I could not agree more....if we present weakness to terrorists, then we are giving them a window of opportunity and continuance for tomorrow...we have to take a hard line with these animals, because while they talk about their plight, they are sending women and children to kill and maime other women and children...appeasement only gives them to to become stronger and more deadly.

NYT: Bush Got $500,000 From Companies That Got Contracts, Study Finds


Executives, employees and political action committees of the 70 companies that received government contracts for work in either Iraq or Afghanistan contributed slightly more than $500,000 to President Bush's 2000 election campaign, according to a comprehensive study of the contracts released on Tuesday.

The overwhelming majority of government contracts for billions of dollars of reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan went to companies run by executives who were heavy political contributors to both political parties.

Though the employees contributed to both parties, their giving favored Republicans by a two-to-one margin. And they gave more money to Mr. Bush than any other politician in the last 12 years.

Among the biggest contributions to Mr. Bush's election and re-election efforts were those from executives and employees of Dell Computer at $113,000; of Bearing Point, a business consulting firm, at $119,000; of General Electric at $72,000 and of Halliburton Inc. at $28,000, according to the report.

Nine of the 10 biggest contractors — the biggest of which were Bechtel Corporation and Halliburton, either employed former senior government officials or had close ties to government agencies and to Congress.


[Buried in the article was this...]

The State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, told reporters on Thursday that "the reason that these companies get the contracts has nothing to do with who may have worked there before."

He added: "The decisions are made by career procurement officials. There's a separation, a wall, between them and political-level questions when they're doing the contracts."

One of the report's most basic conclusions is that neither the Pentagon nor the State Department or the Agency for International Development were eager to provide comprehensive or accurate information about contracts that total about $8 billion over the past two years.

Ellen Yount, the spokeswoman for the Agency for International Development, disputed that claim and said her office had cooperated with the center and that requests for proposals for Iraq contracts had been publicly available on the agency's Web site for more than six months. "I found the report sloppy and inaccurate in many instances," she said


Get the rest of the story from the "Paper of Record," the New York Times.

Matt's Chat

The Times is not at all partisan. I have no idea why anyone would think there isn't a liberal slant in the media. To borrow from my collegue, here we go again floating black helicopter theories.

Mark's Remarks


Let's look at this closely....the key people awarded contracts contributed to BOTH parties...although some favored the republicans....wow...I guess selling our national security and missle codes for Chinese campaign contributions is nothing compared to governmental contracts? Nope, who cares if the Chinese and North Koreans get our missle technology, but by God, we have to make sure haliburton has no advantage....

And for heaven's sake, the report showed that there are walls between buyers and procurers...But facts never get in the way of the New York Times Liberal slant....
Freak of the Week

Senators holding up the confirmations of Judicial nominees which are resulting in backed up courts. These Senators decided to continue to filibuster costing the taxpayer $$$.

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Check out the full results of this vote from the Senate website.

Voices of Freedom


"I should have freedom to wear or not to wear the veil. I don't want to let these people dictate my thoughts. I am an educated woman. I am a religious woman. I know my duties to God."

Kawkab Jalil, a woman in Baghdad who decided to take off her veil, The Washington Post, 6/17/03

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Nominee Watch: Pickering The Target This Time


Senate Democrats succeeded again today in blocking the elevation of Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. to a federal appeals court, thus prolonging a two-year drama with elements of history, race relations and bare-knuckle politics.

The Senate voted, 54 to 43, to end a parliamentary delay by Democrats and move on to the nomination itself. However, Senate rules require 60 votes to end such a delay, or filibuster, so Judge Pickering's nomination remains stalled.


Get the rest of the story from the New York Times.

Matt's Chat

What is that I smell? Ahh, pure partisan gridlock... Stinks, don't it? What I find most interesting about this one is that the Democrats appear to be harping on the nominee's past. When a liberal is being challenged for their past (Clinton, for example), said past is considered irrelevant. People change, they say. Indeed.

Mark's Remarks

Well, people only change, apparently, if they are liberal....if you are conservative, or claim to have those leanings, every sin you ever committed is paraded out. Well, I hope the Republicans make the Dems go through a real filibuster, not the crap we have seen in other nominations.......

Army Medical Quagmire


More than 400 sick and injured soldiers, including some who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, are stuck at Fort Knox, waiting weeks and sometimes months for medical treatment, a score of soldiers said in interviews.

The delays appear to have demolished morale -- many said they had lost faith in the Army and would not serve again -- and could jeopardize some soldiers' health, the soldiers said.

The Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers are in what the Army calls "medical hold," like roughly 600 soldiers under similar circumstances waiting for doctors at Fort Stewart, Ga.


Get the rest of this travesty from the United Press International again courtesy of the Drudge Report.

Matt's Chat

Here is the only quagmire I see in the whole situation. These medical problems that the Army is experiencing is ridiculous. I am stunned to believe that our troops are not receiving the care they deserve. The Army Surgeon General should be charged with negligence.

Mark's Remarks

Well, these delays are sad, they are reprehensible...but they do have historical precedent. The same lag in care has occurred since WWI. However, I would hope we have enough learning and reflection to have advanced in our care of soldiers....maybe it is an issue of needing more funding, of having a better medical care system...I do not know, but this is not right.....our soldiers deserve better...I am sure that there are some other issues at hand, but it is not right at all.....

How We Lookin' in the Economy? GOOD


Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984

The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.


Get the rest of the news from My Way News thanks to the Drudge Report.

Matt's Chat

This will look good on the Bush Resume. And no, my friends, I have not forgotten our promise to examine what the liberals are calling the Bush Resume. We just haven't set aside time to dig in to it...but we will...

Mark's Remarks


Matt, are you sure this was not cooked up in Texas? Are you sure it is not part of the vast right wing conspiracy, are you sure that it is not part of the conservative dominated media? OF COURSE IT IS NOT. Analysts have said this is tremendous growth, as anything over 3% is considered substantial....Also, do you know what those independent analysts said was the catalyst? The Bush Tax Cuts....Wow, guess it really DOES benefit more than the wealthy, with jobless claims going down as well...hmmm...where is the mea culpa from all the naysayers, where is the honest documentation and acknowledgement of a mistake? Rather, where are your apologies? King? Brokaw? Pelosi? And we know Kennedy won't apologize, he is too busy reading comics to cook up new crazy conspiracy theories...Where is the fairness now? Wait, if the media were really controlled by conservatives, this would get praises sung with it, as in other admins....But this just gets a passing reference.....Makes you wonder about the whole objectivity of the media, eh? Despite what some who deny the obvious say, THERE IS A LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MEDIA....

Also, I guess the whole idea that more people are hiring, that jobs are forecast to grow, and that there is projected growth through 2005; is pure fiction, even though independent analysts have come up with this...so much for the doom and gloom theories from most liberals.......

Iran Demands Concessions


Iran said Wednesday that it would not share intelligence with the United States on operatives of Al Qaeda or hand over Qaeda suspects in Iranian detention and would resume dialogue only after the United States undertakes what it termed measures to build confidence.

It was not clear whether the United States would first have to restore diplomatic relations broken after the storming of the American Embassy in Tehran in the fall of 1979.

"You cannot threaten from one side and freeze assets from the other side; level accusations from one side and then request dialogue from the other side; we need to see America's practical steps," the government spokesman, Abdullah Ramezanzadeh, told reporters.

"They have leveled too many false accusations against us and they should stop that," he said. "They should also unfreeze our assets and lift the sanctions."


Get the rest of the story from the "fair and balanced" New York Times.

Matt's Chat

False accusations? It seems clear to me that Iran has been supporting terrorists by allowing them to live, work, and operate from Iran. They aren't denying that they have al Queda terrorists. What false accusations is Iran demanding that we stop? I've not heard any...

Mark's Remarks

When you Iranians allow your people to vote, when you Iranians quit with the exercises in medieval torture you call a justice system, when you Iranians come clean about your terror camps and the way you still continue to support them, then the sanctions will be lifted....until then...have a day....

Iran is looking more delusional by the moment...however, I am sure the UN will buy it, as they seem willing to take anyone's assent or notions these days....The United States does not negotiate with terrorists, and Iran has allied themselves with the terrorists by not providing intelligence. If they truly want to be seen as being less fanatical, and welcomed into civilization, then the onus IS ON THEM to prove they are at that point. It is not up to the United States to give, give give until it hurts. That is the way of appeasement, and we have seen (WWII) where that leads.

UN Is Pulling Out of Baghdad


Unimportant Nobodies

The United Nations is pulling out its international staff from Baghdad while it re-evaluates the security situation, a spokeswoman for the organization said today.

The move comes after a series of deadly suicide bombings in Iraq earlier this week; in August, a bombing at the United Nation's headquarters in Baghdad killed 22 staff members and visitors and injured more than 150 people.

"We have asked our staff in Baghdad to come out temporarily for consultations with a team from headquarters on the future of our operations, in particular security arrangements that we would need to take to operate in Iraq," the spokeswoman, Marie Okabe, said.

She said it was not an evacuation from Iraq, and that staff would remain in the northern part of the country.


Get the rest of the story from the New York Times

Matt's Chat

And this is why UN control of Iraq would not work. Instead of digging in and denying the terrorists what they want (to get the UN and everyone else out), they succumb to the easy way of appeasement. Even if it is to "consult" with headquarters, the reality is they could have consulted from Baghdad. They chose to give in to the terrorists. And that is why they fail.

Mark's Remarks

Of course, it is the classic french manuever, the classic UN Manuever, the classic Clinton manuever...THE OL CUT AND RUN. Remember the French crying out for assistance in Vietnam? The moment we went, they pulled out.....Remember Somalia, ditto with the UN and the United States, rather than staying and fighting the enemy, we gave in and knuckled up. I am sure some would call that diplomatic leadership, but it is cowardice, and it is appeasement.

The UN has become even more irrelevant after this. They are cutting and running. I am sure this is all the fault of the United States, that we are at fault for the actions of terrorists, but maybe people would not see the UN as a weak target and easy if they would have joined with us in the battle? Maybe, just maybe, if they could have gotten member states to send troops for protection and security (HELLO, FRANCE AND GERMANY, LINE 1)then maybe this could have been avoided. However, instead of realizing what appeasement and apathy do, they continue to give credence and confidence to the terrorists.

We must not follow in the UN's footsteps. The Nincompoop 9 Dem candidates are all for leaving Iraq in the mess it is in. We do that, the terrorists win. They get back another nation, and more people will see the US as gutless, as not willing to stand with people, as not coming through on its promises and goals. WE cannot let that happen.....If we do, we will see someone far worse than Saddam come to power, we will encourage another generation of terrorism, and the 9/11 attacks will be only the first of many.....We cannot cut and run. WE must see this through.....The UN proved again why it is not up to the task of leading the world.....We must show why we are still the best and brightest beacon of freedom and liberty, and see this through.
Voices of Freedom


"Why call us occupied? We are liberated."

Mohammed Hanash Abbas, co-owner of Iqra'a bookstore in Baghdad, Associated Press, 6/17/03

Iraq Developments: Intelligence Leading to Mastermind


The United States believes it has gathered intelligence pointing to the man financing and coordinating attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, Pentagon sources told CNN Wednesday.

Former Iraqi Gen. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is suspected of carrying out the attacks, possibly with help from Iraqi regime loyalists and "foreign fighters," sources said.

However, FBI Director Robert Mueller, whose agency is assisting in the investigation of recent terrorist attacks in Iraq, said it would be "premature" to lay responsibility for a wave of recent bombings "at the feet of any one entity."


Get the rest of this story from CNN.

Matt's Chat

I wonder how many more of these "masterminds" we have left to track down. It is clear that the intelligence capabilities that we are employing are taking their sweet time to wo be effective, but they are delivering. I know our troops will find this guy and whoever else is left and deal with them accordingly. I am still amazed at how far we've come in Iraq with such few casualties, especially considering what they are facing.

I am not one of those who makes light of terrorists. I do think they are crafty people bent on destruction. Does that make them more or less dangerous than a standing army? An army can be met on the battlefield, and america has the strongest, best, and brightest military in the world. But when the enemy hides among the populace and strikes unconventionally, I am not so sure that our military advantage comes in to play. Our Special Forces units need to be leading this fight and our intelligence gathering capabilities need to strengthened and enhanced. This is a non-traditional conflict, it is time we start thinking outside of the box. Isn't that what the Rumsfeld memo was all about?

Mark's Remarks


NO, Matt, the Rumsfeld memo was about doubts in Bush, don't you know? Just ask liberals..that is what they think. They encourage Americans to be so squeamish and lacking of fortitude, have encouraged us to view war as a video game, and not be able to understand that we are dealing with real people, and that in REAL war, some people are going to die. It is sad, but those are the facts of war.

As far as terrorists, they are the most dangerous enemy we face, and the ones most necessary and at the forefront of needing to be defeated. However, Matt, you are right in saying we need to think outside of the box. These animals are not bound by rules of engagement, they do not value innocent life, they do not value life itself. They seek only their own ideas of power. While we have been fighting a just and fair campaign (with the few exceptions we have reported on here), these animals have targeted health centers, relief agencies....We need to fight these animals not just in the field but in the world of ideas. We need more than ever, to get the Iraqi people behind us, as well as the rest of the Arab world. These people have been brainwashed by fanatics over the years, and believe that nonsense that God rewards evil actions...Would a just and loving God really reward killing people working in an office building, or people being treated in a health center? That logic falls apart, to me....even taking an agnostic view....though I am a Christian. I find it hard to believe that Allah, Jehovah, or God would justify the murder of innocents for political gain. yet that is what the Osamas, the Ayatollahs, the Saddams of the world do. WE need to tell people that killing is not the answer, that there are other recourses besides torture and murder and car bombings. We need to get the word out, and not bicker among ourselves over this and that.

As far as this mastermind, I do not care if he is behind the latest rash of attacks or not. He is a loyalist, and he must be brought to justice for the hate crimes and crimes against Iraqis that he perpetuated and witnessed and encouraged during Saddam's regime.

Israel Is Behind It All...Again


As the bombing disaster early this week is cemented into people's consciousness, three emotions dominate: anger, ambivalence about the U.S. role in Iraq and a desire to lay blame at the door of adversaries rather than fellow Muslims.

"I am sure that the people who did this are enemies of Iraq, not the enemies of the Americans," Dunya Khalil Ismail, a 28-year-old college lecturer, said as she left work Wednesday. "Whether it was the Israelis or the Americans themselves, they are aiming at us.

"It started with the war, and this is just another stage," she said. "I don't know what can be done. The Americans have everything in their hands."
...
The alternative view — that Israel and the U.S. want an Iraqi partner rather than a subject, and have much to gain from this country becoming stable — is often greeted with a dismissive shake of the head.


Get more of this "theory" from the "fair and balanced" LA Times.

Matt's Chat

This woman does not represent the majority of Iraqis. Her viewpoint, while it does have a certain logic to it, is faulty. Either Israel runs the world or we do, which is it? You can't have both. And the LA Times can't make both arguments either.

The truth is, while some may still not believe it, we went in to Iraq to protect our interests and to liberate Iraq from a terrible regime. Israel has enough to deal with (you know, all those Palestinians blowing themselves up in suicide bombings) to waste time with Iraq. While we're on the subject, suicide bombings aren't Israel's modus operandi. Which groups and nations undertake actions like the suicide bombing of the Red Cross and the UN? Let me answer that for you, friends...Islamic extremists do that. Israel can be called many things, but terrorists isn't one of them. And we would never employ such tactics because quite frankly, we're not that good at blowing ourselves up for no apparent reason. We live life too well to do that.

Specifically, the attacks carried out the day of the Red Cross bombing were of the scope and complexity of an Al Queda operation. Coordinated attacks like that are the signature of Osama bin Laden. I have no evidence to support that position, but it makes more sense than blaming Israel or the United States. Surely, the LA Times could figure that out.

Mark's Remarks


I wonder if this woman and Ted Kennedy, and the Prime Minister of Malaysia are all pals, or write fiction together...this is ridiculous. If the US and Israel really ruled the world, would we really care about mid-East peace? Would we be telling Israel to calm its movements, would we be trying to get a Palestinian state created peacefully? Would we care about who we attack in Iraq? I don't think so. HOwever, we have gone out of our way to only attack imminent threats to our men in Iraq, not wholesale slaughter of the people. If the US and Israel controlled the world, why then would we even bother with going to the UN and asking permission? The whole argument, along with Kennedy's and the Malaysian prime minister's lack logic, reason, and indicates to me more than a spark of irrationality.

The sad part is, the LA Times reports this mindless conspiracy theory, but then gives lip service to the real culprits: Muslim terrorists. Muslim folks, in Iraq, around the world: WAKE UP!!! It is not Zionists, Israelis, or infidels that are killing your fellow Muslims by the truckload, it are fellow muslims who have perverted your faith, who have twisted the words of Allah into a hate filled message. The United States had nothing to do with suicide killers, and will have nothing to do with them, other than try to stop them and prevent them. Why can't you see what is going on? Are you so unwilling to confront these animals who pervert your faith that you are willing to see more and more bloodshed? Come on......

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Voices of Freedom

"The Americans did a very good thing when they crushed Saddam for the Iraqis."

Khither Jaafar, a member of a Shiite party outlawed by Saddam, Los Angeles Times, 7/08/03

Another Officer Charged With Misconduct in Iraq


The Army has filed a criminal assault charge against an American officer who coerced an Iraqi into providing information that foiled a planned attack on U.S. soldiers.

Lt. Col. Allen B. West says he did not physically abuse the detainee, but used psychological pressure by twice firing his service weapon away from the Iraqi. After the shots were fired, the detainee, an Iraqi police officer, gave up the information on a planned attack around the northern Iraqi town of Saba al Boor.

But the Army is taking a dim view of the interrogation tactic. An Army official at the Pentagon confirmed to The Washington Times yesterday that Col. West has been charged with one count of aggravated assault. A military source said an Article 32 hearing has been scheduled in Iraq that could lead to the Army court-martialing Col. West and sending him to prison for a maximum term of eight years.

Some soldiers are privately questioning the Army's drive to punish the officer for an interrogation technique that likely is used regularly to get information from terrorists.


Get the rest of the story from the Washington Times

Matt's Chat

There is a difference between protecting yourself and the men under your command and utilizing terroristic approaches to get information that you want. The situation in Iraq is tough...the terrorists aren't making it easy for us to accomplish our goals, but we can not lose our identity in this fight. Our military is the best and brightest force the world has ever seen. And while I won't condemn our troops or their mission over the action of a few, these kinds of stories are popping up a little too often for my taste. I look forward to hearing the results of the proceedings, because I think it is vital for our troops to know what is and what is not acceptable behavior in these situations. There are those who will say that we should do whatever it takes to get the information. Usually, I am among them. This time, I am not so sure that the tactics used were appropriate. But I don't have the whole story either...so I will give the colonel the benefit of the doubt.

Mark's Remarks


No, Matt, you cannot give anyone the benefit of the doubt, until you find out if they are liberal or not...only liberals deserve the benefit of the doubt...just ask them...they will tell you how sanctimonious you are if you are a conservative, they will tell you that you do not deserve the high road....however, if you are liberal, it is, why bring up the past? everyone deserves a chance? So what if he murdered before, give him a weekend furlough....

Seriously, this is a serious matter. It should be investigated, it should be detailed. However, with the pressure to get info, and not being able to conduct proper investigations, due to the pressure of some who want results yesterday, procedures be damned (read dems) then I can understand why measures would be used. THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE THEM, HOWEVER. WE need to make sure what was done here, and to make sure we are being above the level, as it were.

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

NIMA Chief Says: Iraq's WMDs Could Be In Syria


The director of an American spy agency said today that he believed that material from Iraq's illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the war last spring.

The official, James R. Clapper, Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said that satellite intelligence showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American-led invasion in March had led him to conclude "unquestionably" that illicit weapons material was moved outside of Iraq.

"I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse," said General Clapper, who heads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.


Get the rest of this article from the New York Times.

Matt's Chat

I still think there are plenty of places in Iraq for Mr. Kay to focus his efforts on, but there may yet be something to this theory as well.

My question is this: Why are we hearing about this now? Why not when it was happening? I assume that NIMA would have informed the Department of Defense and/or the White House. So, why haven't we heard this before? I remember hearing "whispers" about this earlier, but there really hasn't been much media coverage of this theory.

While we're on the subject, why haven't we heard conclusively what the Kuwaitis found in that raid wherein the Hindustan Times reported that chemical weapons and artifacts were recovered from a foreigner trying to smuggle items out of Iraq?

Mark's Remarks

I guess it is because we (meaning me) of the conservative bent control all the media and ...wait? If conservatives controlled the media, wouldn't they be painting a rosier picture, wouldn't they be jumping on these stories? Hmm..kind of puts a BIG HOLE in the ol' conservatives control the media department, heck, even most liberals with any sense of reality acknowledge there is a liberal slant in the media......except for when it is politically unfeasible, and they want to attack someone.....

We should be thinking about asking Syria what was up with the traffic....Of course, liberals will spin this into last gasps and straws, but come on....which is it? We know the weapons didn't just disappear, and there is no evidence they destroyed them....Are they in Ted Kennedy's liquor case, because god knows he cleaned that out long ago.....

UPDATE: Note Sent to Sen. DeWine


Sen. DeWine,

I am writing to express my support for the Internet Tax Moratorium. It would seem clear to me, that it is vital that the Internet remain affordable to all. If the Senate fails to get this done, Gov. Taft will have the ability to fleece Ohioans.

As a fellow Republican, I hope that I can count on your action in this effort.

Respectfully,
MATT

Word To The Senate: GET THIS THING DONE


The U.S. Senate has yet to schedule a vote on the Internet Tax Moratorium, which expires Saturday, although staff members predict there will be some action on the legislation by the end of the week. The U.S. House of Representatives on Sept. 17 passed a bill to make the current moratorium permanent.

Get the rest of this article from DC.Internet.com

Matt's Chat

The National Governors Association wants a "temporary" extension while industry and government works out the mess. They have had two years to do this, and failed to do so when Congress approved a two year extension the last time this came up.

It is an outrage for Republicans who run on a platform of no new taxes to promote this sort of garbage (Gov. Taft, are you listening? I see you appear to want to tax the Internet. Better rethink that position.)

Mark's Remarks

Since I am writing this after the update below, let me say: Congratulations Matt!!! I will be joining the campaign of writing to Sen. V. and also Mr. DeWine. I am hoping that we can get them to vote the right way.....

Of course, I am sure the majority of those in favor of this are the tax hungry liberals, who seek only to take more of our money, placing another restriction on our freedoms of access and expression....they have placed many such restrictions, all while claiming to be the party of freedom of expression, of free speech, etc. When all they do is tax everything we do...As for Mr. Taft, I would never have voted for him this last time if someone other than Tim" Mrs. Kate Mulgrew" Hagan had run. The man had about as much vision as Jean Kerry with his eyes closed......Terrible, so I went for the lesser of two evils...I wish Bill Cunningham would run, or even Seg Dennison...Howver, back to Taft....He is merely a Rhyno...a liberal in Rep. clothing. Look at all the great "progressive" programs he brought in that were hailed by the left, in education, in other respects...what has he done with these liberal programs, he has bankrupted the state...it was not conservatives, liberal readers, it was a liberal republican governor....now these morons want to tax the internet...great.....Stand up to them!!!! Write them today!!!!

UPDATE: Matt Sends This Note To Sen. Voinovich


Sen. Voinovich,

I am writing to express my outrage at the decision by the Senate to "hold" on the Internet Tax Moratorium. It would seem clear to me, that as a Republican of the "no new taxes" ilk, that you would support unconditionally this moratorium. It is vital that the Internet remain affordable to all.

I hope that my information is wrong, and that you aren't actually responsible for this hold. It would be most distressing to think that a man I voted for could be so far out of touch with the common Ohioan.

Respectfully,
MATT
Voices of Freedom

"In our opinion, the most significant thing about the formation of the transitional Governing Council is that it includes important personalities that are known to the masses and that represent the different political, national, democratic and progressive forces, as well as independent political organizations and religious denominations."

Iraqi newspaper Al-Manar, 7/15/03

Judicial Committee Watch: Hatch is Negotiating with "Terrorists"


The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is negotiating with Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, to add as many as two new Michigan-based federal judgeships in exchange for lifting a filibuster against all of President Bush's judicial nominees from that state.
...
Several Republicans presumed that the new appellate-court seat would go to Michigan Judge Helene White, who was nominated by President Clinton in 1997 but never given a hearing by Republicans. Judge White is married to Mr. Levin's cousin.
...
Generally speaking, Mr. Hatch said, he wants to "resolve this without poking anybody in the eye."

If both seats are added, the first year cost to taxpayers would be more than $1.8 million to pay the new judges, clerks and offices, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Once established, the combined annual cost of the two seats would be more than $1.6 million.

Such a deal would also give bragging rights to Mr. Levin, who has faced criticism at home for stalling the nominations and for the growing backlog of unheard cases resulting from the court vacancies.

Upon learning of the negotiations yesterday, several Republicans privately expressed outrage at the prospect of Mr. Levin being rewarded for the two-year blockade.

The discussions were denounced as "blackmail talks."

"Any sort of working on deals is not part of the normal process," said one Judiciary Committee staffer. "This is not something that most conservative Republicans would approve of."

Get the rest of this story from the Washington Times

Matt's Chat

That Mr. Hatch is even considering brokering a deal is ridiculous. He needs to make them filibuster if that is what they intend to do. As it stands now, it would appear that Mr. Levin is already under some pressure to get this resolved by his constituency; and as he is the main concern, why cave now? Now is the time to make him filibuster and look foolish back home.

Mark's Remarks

This is an outrage!!! Mr. Hatch is selling the soul of the party for politics. I agree with my colleague...Instead of negotiating with these hateful, racebaiting Senators from the Democrats, we should instead be making them filibuster, showing them to be nothing more than the political blackmailers they are, nothing more than vindictive people who care not for our system but about their own selves, who care nothing for advancing the cause of justice and being stewards of our system, but who care only for gaining power. Shame on Mr. Hatch for even thinking of doing such a thing.

The Republicans need to grow a backbone and make these idiots filibuster, and send feeds into the home states of the morons who would be doing it, instead of catering to them. Otherwise, it is like spoiling a child....if you reward their behavior, they will continue to do it, even if you say"dont do it again." WE have to stand up to them....

NK Sold Scuds to Iraq, Iran, Syria & Yemen


In 2002, North Korea sold $60 million worth of Scud missiles and missile parts to Iraq, Iran, Syria and Yemen, Middle East Newsline reported. The report said Pyongyang also sold Pakistan, Syria and Yemen $30 million worth of missile technology in 1999. The combined figure for 2001 was $20 million in 2001.
"Since the middle of the 1980s, North Korea has exported 400-odd Scud missiles along with missile-related parts to the Middle East region," Defense Ministry spokesman Kim Ki-Beom, quoting the report, said.

Analysts said the North Korean delivery of 15 Scud B and Scud C missile systems in December 2002 was a major reason for the sharp increase in revenues for Pyongyang. The missile shipment was seized by a Spanish war vessel and after Yemeni threats was ordered released by the United States.

North Korean missile revenues for 2003, the analysts said, were expected to match or exceed those reported for last year. The analysts cited increased North Korean missile cooperation with Iran.


Get the rest of this story from the World Tribune.

Matt's Chat

I saw no outrage in this article by the author that North Korea apparently violated UN resolutions against trading missile technology to Iraq. Curious. Perhaps North Korea also believes that the UN is useless and wouldn't ever enforce their resolutions, especially in Iraq.

I am wondering if perhaps France isn't a part of the Axis of Evil afterall...they seem to have taken similar actions as those nations who are a part of it... Although, even I will admit that France would be the Diet Coke of Evil in the Axis...just one calorie...not quite evil enough...

Mark's Remarks

Wow, SCUDs and new ones were banned from Iraq and other nations by the UN.....hmm.....guess there were no weapons delivery systems there, huh? Guess we should have just let ol Saddam build up his reserves and hold Israel and other nations hostage, or worse yet, cause Israel to go nuclear? Yeah, that would be so much better than establishing a new democratic Iraq....

As to North Korea and France, they expressed some of the most outrage at us going into Iraq...I think more and more it is because they did not want to be caught with their hands in Saddam's illegal weapons cookiejar, taking money from the evil dictator. Of course, really, why should North Korea care, it is only the UN sanctioning them. Here lately, that and 25cents might get you a play at donkey kong.....

Heck, Bill Clinton helped broker selling and giving tech to North Korea and Red China...why shouldnt North Korea return the favor by selling our enemy weapons systems? Sounds fair to me...

As for France...saw an interesting article on ebay: french rifle, used, never fired, dropped on ground once.....They are the true hypocrites of this entire deal, as are their liberal supporters, like le, Jean Kerry, Nikita Dean, and Wesley Clark.

Monday, October 27, 2003

9/11 Commission and the President's Documentation


President Bush said Monday his staff is cooperating with an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, but stopped short of saying whether the White House would hand over top-level papers that may be subpoenaed.
"Those are very sensitive documents," Bush said, adding that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was working with Thomas Kean, chairman of the commission, on this issue.

"The president is correct on both counts," said Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the commission. "They are very sensitive documents. That's why we are having negotiations. These aren't things you just hand out to folks." But he added that Kean "feels we need certain things to do our job."


Get the rest of this story from ABC.

Matt's Chat

My view on this is simple, let's learn all that is learnable about the tragedy so we can ensure that something like it never happens again. Mr. President, I think it is important for you to be forthcoming with whatever documentation you may have; but I support your continued vigilance on the security front. What we knew and when we knew it is a matter of intelligence methods. That is not for the general public. If that is what these documents are, then I suggest that negotiations continue in such a way that those doing the study get what they need with the explicit instruction on what is and what is not safe to release to the general populace.

Mark's Remarks

I firmly agree with my colleague....Despite the liberal spin of non-compliance, those working with the commission and the admin say that the President is correct in what is going on. We cannot make sensitive documents available for general dissemination, especially ones that might detail methods and such. However, we do need to know what happened in and around the events of 9/11. However, in my not so objective opinion, much of the failures can be placed in the lap of Bill Clinton. He gutted our military during his tenure, that is where his "massive downsizing of the government" took place, and he handicapped our intelligence gathering with much red tape and unfeasible directives. I think we need to be asking about how we let osama slip away many times, as well.....

Hotel Attacked with French and Russian Missiles


The U.S. occupation authority abandoned the al-Rashid Hotel after it was hit early Sunday by a rocket barrage fired from a launcher disguised as a portable generator, killing one senior U.S. Army officer and wounding 17 others in a brazen strike.
...
The 40 rockets in the launcher included 20 that appeared to be French-made and designed for use with the Alouette helicopter, Army officers said. These rockets were of relatively recent vintage and might have been obtained by Iraq illegally after the imposition of a U.N. weapons embargo in 1991. The other 20 missiles appeared to be Russian-made, the officers said.


Get the rest of the story from the Star Telegram.

Matt's Chat

Well, this isn't good news, but the French resistance is looking more and more like a coverup for violating UN resolutions. But I guess the French figured they were safe because NOBODY pays any attention to UN resolutions, especially in regards to Iraq.

Let's watch this one develop a bit...

Mark's Remarks

Well, maybe it appears ol Crazy Mark wasn't so crazy after all....I believe we can see now that even as they were calling on Iraq to disarm, the French may have been illegally supplying them, or the French keep such little track of who they sell their missiles to that they didn't care to think they might end up in the hands of dictators and/or terrorists. Guess it further shows how little the UN means today.....of course, I am sure there will be liberal apologists galore....as is usually the case for the mecca of liberals, esp. since Moscow isnt quite so Commie anymore, Paris.

This may be why France doesn't want us in Iraq. Maybe they are afraid we will find out more about them and illegal arms and tech deals. Ditto for Russia. Stay tuned. I hope we jump on the French about this, but I doubt it, as the tone seems to be back to the "don't make them angry" tone, and not with the "let's get to the bottom of this crap" tone. Seems mighty suspicious to me.....

Neutrality is No Protection


Suicide bombers have struck four times in Baghdad's morning rush hour, killing 34 people and wounding 224 near the Red Cross offices and police stations, in the city's bloodiest day since Saddam Hussein's overthrow.
...
Iraq's police chief Ahmad Ibrahim, who is also deputy interior minister, told a news conference 26 of the 34 dead were civilians and eight police. Sixty-five police and 159 civilians were wounded. He did not say if foreigners were killed.

The explosions, sirens and smoke plunged Baghdad into fear and chaos at the outset of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. The onslaught "is not only criminal, it's sacrilegious", U.S. Brigadier General Mark Hertling told reporters.

Speaking later at the news conference, Hertling said all the Monday morning attacks were suicide bombings, while a fifth had been foiled by Iraqi police. A suspect was seized alive in that attack and was believed to be a Syrian national, he said.


Get the rest of the story from Reuters

Matt's Chat

In order to be objective, you report both the good and the bad. WMD is a commentary site, not a media outlet, but when a story like this comes along, we are compelled to express our opinions.

These terrorists don't care who they kill. They have attacked the media (NBC), international peace organizations (the UN), and now humanitarian aid organizations (Red Cross/Red Crescent). I deplore these actions and call them the cowardly acts that they are: Terrorism.

Those who would shriek in glee that there isn't a "good news" story to tag on to this should reflect on that attitude a bit. This is serious business, and these people who hide behind a religion that they do not follow need to be brought to justice. And I don't mean a court of law.

Now, who has a problem with that?

Mark's Remarks


Amen, Matt, to your thoughts...This article speaks volumes to me, as is some of the reaction that I find from the UN and the Red Cross folks.....Here are some examples:
"We always believed we were protected by the humanitarian work we do," ICRC spokeswoman Nada Doumani told Reuters after the powerful morning blast on the Red Cross's doorstep on Monday.

"We thought that people knew us and we were protected by the work we did. We thought we were different from the rest."(Reuters)

"We are very shocked by this terrorist attack because the target of the attack was the very symbol of humanitarian aid in Iraq," said Elisabeth Byrs, spokeswoman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

"It means that one of the interests of these people is to expel every foreigner without distinction of mandate," she told AFP.

Maybe now these people will see that it is not just Americans who these people are after....it is not just us 'overzealous dogooders,' that it is everyone who does not think the way that they do or add to their power. These terrorist hate everyone not like them, not just Americans. I hope this spurs more nations to action, but it will probably be spun into a "where was the security?" story......

This is a terrible, dangerous situation. Our troops and now aid workers are in harm's way...I guess it is the best idea just to pull them out, let the evildoers win, and get ready for 9/11 part deux? I do not think so...These animals must be brought to justice.....No flag of neutrality or anything is protection against these animals. They will not stop until they have destroyed all freedom loving institutions....and if we allow the liberals to control the day, that is what will happen...We must bring these people to justice, if Iraqis are to have a free society, and if our way of life is to continue to future generations......Losing soldiers is terrible, it is...I have military in my family, and I do not want them to die...however, the deaths of our loved ones and fellow citizens will be cheapened by the patented Clintonesque "pullout and run" policy. It will only embolden terrorists to strike. Why do you think things progressed since the first Twin Towers Bombing in the 1990s? Nothing was done but lip service and some video game style missile attacks, which did little. There was no followup.....and eventually the terrorists escalated to the point they murdered 3,000 people. Now we are at the same crossroads as in Somalia, as in the aftermath of hte first Trade Center bombing...Do we simply turn tail and run, and embolden America's and the world's enemies...or do we stay and fight and root out these evil animals and bring justice. To me, the choice is simple...if we turn tail and run, we will embarrass ourselves, let down the Iraqi people, and engender more terrorist attacks at home. We have to continue the fight....We have to realize IT IS NOT A VIDEO GAME...We have to be ready for the casualties, which are horrific, but pale in comparison to Korea, to Vietnam, to World War II. We have to quit being so damned spoiled a people that we turn tail and run.

According to Pelosi (D-CA), Enforcing the Law is "Terrorizing"


U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday police raids on dozens of U.S. Wal-Mart stores in the search for illegal immigrants this week amounted to "terrorizing" workers.

"It instills a great deal of fear in people who are only trying to earn a living and put food on the table for their family," Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters on a Congressional visit to Mexico.


Get the rest of this "story" from Yahoo News. Courtesy of the Drudge Report.

Matt's Chat

This is outrageous. More political pandering from the left. No more. No less. Congresswoman Pelosi continues to not get it. We have to know exactly who is here and why. She does make one good point, we should apply pressure on the employers to comply with the law. But for me, that is an addition to cracking down on the immigration violations. Illegals take jobs away from American citizens who are currently on welfare. And that is not acceptable.

There are two reasons to continue the crackdown against illegal immigration: (1) security threats and potential terrorism; and (2) securing American jobs for Americans.

Illegal aliens do not have rights in this country. You have to be a citizen for that. They shouldn't get driver's licenses. And we shouldn't accept foreign IDs as legal documentation. And we most definately shouldn't ignore them when we know they are here. We should, in fact, send them back home. There are many who come to this country legally that are held up in red tape while the illegals get rewarded for violating the process. It isn't fair. And it isn't right. And the Congresswoman from California should know that by now.

Mark's Remarks


Ms. Pelosi has made a career of pandering to whatever interests are en vogue. Look at her positions on Iraq...before we went in, when she and her fellow Congresspeople (please liberals, note I used the p.c. term) urged us to make sure Iraq was held accountable. She read the same intelligence as the President and agreed to go in. She agreed with her "good friend" President Clinton, and go in. Of course, now that some have changed their tune, she jumps right in and changes as well.

This pandering further illustrates the main problem with the Democrats. They have NO vision, other than socialism...They have NO ideas of their own, instead mishmashing special interests' concerns, and they have no ideological base, other than hatred for a man who sought to work with them, and who has not engaged in the vicious attacks of those who would seek to bring him down, as well as those who have supported him. I myself have been subjected to these attacks, being called "a big fat idiot" and the like by some. Well, you can call me fat, but I am no idiot. I do not pander to every special interest trying to get votes. I have some fortitude to take responsiblity for my actions and move forward, not to deny responsibility for my own decisions, like Ms. Pelosi and her D fellow Congresspeople have done.

Her stance on this latest issue is appalling. Calling our law enforcement officials terrorists for enforcing the law? Equating holding people accountable for illegal actions akin to the scum we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? How truly intelligent, how truly honorable...NOT!!! How truly disgusting, how truly morally bankrupt, Ms. Pelosi. You, and your ilk, are symptomatic of the liberals and Democrats today. No vision, no ideas, no clear path. You simply take the most expedient comments and mishmash.

Commentary: Why Judges Should Be Seen and Not Heard


It's not easy to pick the most ridiculous aspect of a generally ridiculous case about the Pledge of Allegiance now wending its way out of California (of course) toward the Supreme Court of the United States -- like a clown car approaching a railroad crossing.

Soon enough adults in suits and ties will be asserting that the mention of "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional -- right after the high court begins its deliberations with the traditional incantation, "God save this honorable court."

But here's my favorite seriocomic aspect of this case: The most lucid thinker on the Supreme Court -- yes, I know that's faint praise -- has recused himself from hearing it.


Get the rest of the commentary from the Star Telegram.

Matt's Chat

Once again, it is quite clear that the conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia did the right thing in recusing himself. It is apparent that he had a bias in this particular case (the Pledge). It is too bad that he felt so strongly about "under God" that he had to speak out and thus be later forced to recuse himself from the very decision he could have championed. Or maybe it isn't. For my money, Justice Scalia has shown us that integrity is something that isn't dead (yet) in Washington. Scalia and President Bush are the two shining beacons of doing what you believe is right regardless of political consequences.

Mark's Remarks


I could not agree more. The sad part about our justice system today is the amount of legislating from the bench, instead of focusing on seeing that justice is served. Instead of deciding on merits and arguments, many courts are out to make reputations for themselves, some rather dubious (see the California Fed. Court).
Voices of Freedom


"U.S.-U.K., Liberators of Iraq from Saddam's Terror."

A banner hanging outside the entrance to central Suleimaniyah in Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 7/05/03

Sunday, October 26, 2003

Fair and Balanced: Victory Parades and Peace Protests


Some returning troops get a parade in Oceanside (near San Diego) while a handfull of protesters in Brimingham, AL do their thing.

Matt's Chat

I think that the parade was a really good idea. Those troops that are coming home deserve every bit of our thanks and appreciation. I'm sure that the men and women of the Marine Corps who was welcomed home with such a show of support are grateful. Especially after what they are hearing on the news. It would be very easy for our troops to think that the majority of Americans have abandoned them, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Most Americans are quite proud of the job that our troops and leaders have done.

The Birmingham ralley story is one that I find most interesting. The author manages to quote an 18 year old college freshman, her 14 year old sister and their mother (who compared the "horrors in Iraq to the worst atrocities since Hitler's Germany" - I'd really like to know what rock this woman was under during Rwanda, Kosovo, and most recently Liberia) as well as four other adults who's views ranged from unoriginal ("if at first you don't succeed - lie, lie, lie") to the absurd (one woman has a son in the US Army who joined up for "health insurance [but n]ow is he is kicking down doors of Iraqi homes looking for terrorists." And you are protesting this? What the ^&*# ??? I thank God for all of our troops getting it done in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the world.) There was at least one guy in Birmingham who gets it...Mark Brooks of Birmingham, AL.

Mark's Remarks

Thank goodness for the people in San Diego. Our soldiers are being demoralized, but not by anything they are doing in Iraq. They are being demoralized by the left and their toadies in the media. All that is reported is the negative, when Matt has shown that if we go simply by a body count, as liberals seem to want to do (one even suggested showing caskets on TV), then we should pull out of most cities. Has anyone thought to ask what the Iraqi body count is? How many terrorists we have rooted out and/or killed? Of course not, because it is all about pandering to the hearts of the American people.

These protesters, remember, have the right to do what they are doing. However, one would think they could reason a bit before doing so. Of course not, they are liberal, and they are angry, and that is all that matters to them, or they have sipped the Kool-Aid of what the liberals are selling. What they are doing is providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy. That is right. Terrorists are looking at America and seeing all this divisiveness and growing more bolder. Why do you think the attacks have escalated recently? These protesters, instead of being so loud and obnoxious and tacky, they should instead be writing their representatives, and not providing such a loud and public display. The terrorists and others will think we are not united and not ready to fight them everywhere.

People, we took the fight to the terrorists and evildoers before they could come back over here. However, if these easily duped people who were protesting continue, then we will probably see more terror attacks on our soldiers, then we will pull out, and then the terror attacks will resume at home. So, in the free exercise of their rights, they are endangering America and her troops, and demoralizing them all the same. The ACLU and the like must be proud. It is liberals, not the administration who will Vietnamize this war.

M Files: It Is Time To Pull Out! We Must Evacuate Immediately


M Files


My Friends, we are at a point where we must admit that it is indeed time to pull out...of Cincinnati, OH. In comparison with Baghdad, more Americans are dying here than there from combat. At least that's what these numbers tell me. I'm tempted to compare Ohio to Iraq, but am afraid we'd have to evacuate my home state as well, and I don't think I'm too comfortable with that.

Now, don't get me wrong. The lives that have been lost in Iraq are a tragedy. What I am trying to say is that this is no reason to pull out of Iraq. Just look at what I've found...

Baghdad, Iraq

Capital city for the nation of Iraq

• 41 American combat related deaths in Baghdad from January 1 – September 30, 2003 (Military.com Casualty Listing)
• 8 American non-combat related deaths in Baghdad from January 1 – September 30, 2003 (Military.com Casualty Listing)
• 49 total American deaths in Baghdad from January 1 – September 30, 2003 (Military.com Casualty Listing)

Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Large city in Ohio (third largest?)

• 44 murders in Cincinnati, OH from January 1 – September 30, 2003 (Cincinnati Police Department statistics)
• At least 200 non-murder deaths in Cincinnati, OH in EACH MONTH from January – September 2003 (Cincinnati Enquirerobituaries)
• At least 1800 deaths in Cincinnati from January 1 – September 30, 2003 (Cincinnati Enquirer obituaries - the search engine was limited to the first 200 each month)

In Baghdad, our boys fought a war and begun a major stabilization and reconstruction effort. Additionally, they had foreign fighters (also known as terrorists) and Saddam loyalists to deal with while working hard on behalf of Iraqis.

In Cincinnati, our residents have had to deal with rhyming reverends and urban terrorists (one guy who falls under both categories now wants to be elected to city council!). Additionally, the citizens of Cincinnati have endured a meaningless boycott staged by people who aren’t interested in actually solving their problems or acknowledging the efforts of those who do.

Questions:

• How many Americans (total) deployed to Iraq? 148,000 (Center for Contemporary Conflict ) Less than 1% of American troops deployed died.
• How many citizens live in Cincinnati, OH? 314,000 (2000 Census). Less than 1% of citizens who live in Cincinnati have died.

Considerations:

• The Iraq war started in March 2003
• There has been no war in Cincinnati in 2003.
• There are over twice as many citizens of Cincinnati as there are American soldiers deployed to Iraq.

Decide for yourself what the numbers mean…

Fear not, my friends, I am not packing my bags just yet...

Friday, October 24, 2003


WMD Celebrates United Nations Day


58 years is a long time. The United Nations was formed after World War II in order to promote peace and stability while developing friendly relations amongst nations looking to solve problems with social, cultural, economic and humanitarian issues.

The UN started with just 51 member states, but has grown to 191. Any peace-loving country is free to join the United Nations that are willing to accept the responsibilities of membership as outlined in the UN Charter.

The UNs main mission is to address the global problems that affect humanity. To assist, there are over 30 affiliated organizations with a wide range of expertise and responsibility.

While most of the world is a part of the UN, the UN is not a world government and has no jurisdiction over world affairs. Rather, the UN is an organization wherein nations may attempt to resolve international conflicts through diplomacy.

Today's Features

You'll find a commentary from Mark regarding the UN's record in Peacekeeping operations, bios of the key players in the UN, a listing of web resources about the UN, and a couple of features on the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Join the celebration!

IN THE CROSSHAIRS: To Paraphrase Gephardt: THE UN IS A MISERABLE FAILURE, in peacekeeping


On this United Nations Day, let us reflect on how the UN went from being a body filled with hope to hopeless failures in peacekeeping.

A brief history of UN "Peacekeeping" and Policy Failures



1. The first UN mission was in 1948, shortly after the UN voted to APPROVE the creation of the nation of Israel. The same day Israel's independence, created under UN resolutions, took place its Arab neighbors invaded. Israel won the war.

A UN peacekeeping mission was established. On July 26, 1956, President Nasser of Egypt nationalizes the Suez Canal; five weeks after the British troops withdrew in hope of placating Nasser. Once Egypt had control of the canal, in violation of the 1951 UN agreement that the canal would be open to all nations, Egypt closed the canal to Israeli shipping, signed a tripartite military alliance with Syria and Jordan and permitted terrorist incursions into Israel from the Gaza Strip and Sinai. In late October and early November, Israel captures the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai Peninsula, including the Suez Canal.

The United Nations convinces Israel to withdraw, unilaterally, from the occupied territory and allow a United Nations Emergency force to guarantee the free navigation in the Gulf of Eliat. Israel withdraws. In 1968, in violation of the agreement, Nasser demands that the United Nations forces withdraw and they withdraw. The 1967 war immediately broke out, which Israel won.

This led to UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for "acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." The Arab nations continue to ignore UN Resolution 242. So much for the UN and its peacekeeping skills in the Middle East.

2. The UN's second major peacekeeping failure was in January 1949 when the United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan was deployed to supervise the ceasefire between the two nations behind the UN mandated âہ“Line of Controlâە¿½ in Jammu and Kashmir. Fifty years later, in 1999, it was reported that there STILL were 300 people a MONTH being killed in the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. No one even bothers to report anymore how many people are killed every year in terrorist activities.

3. Let's look at UN work in Korea. In November 1947, The UN voted to remove troops from the divided Peninsula, where Russia/China controlled the North and the other Allies of WWII controlled the South. In 1950, the North Invades the South. What does the UN do? They demand that the North Withdraw and Cease hostilities....the north of course does not comply. Astonishingly, the US and UN used that time to act rapidly and resolutely. Driven by the energetic UN Secretary-General, Norwegian Trygve Lee, unopposed in the Security Council because of the absence of a petulant USSR, and supported by the belated awareness of the Truman administration of the true Soviet intentions, the UN authorized international use of force to drive the NK back to their borders. With this authorization, in spite of the government's near-emasculation of our Army and Marine Corps, General MacArthur used the time to assemble powerful infantry and armour forces, and move them into an area around the southern port of Pusan, to form a defensive perimeter. The NK used the time to consolidate their gains and stage to continue the attack. The War, as we know, ended in a stalemate, creating two countries, one of which threatens to bring us to Nuclear Nightmare again, that being North Korea. One complaint of veterans I know who fought in Korea is that Americans knew how to win the war, but higher ups in the UN command did not want to push. This is unacceptable, especially when the Secretary General of the Time said: This is a War against the United Nations. Tragically, it was mostly American soldiers and South Koreans who paid the price of UN idiocy in Korea.

4. Next, Let's look at Somalia in 1992. Not surprisingly, the UN wasted millions of dollars, and precious time and credibility, courting recalcitrant warlords to attend peace conferences which invariably failed. Those they had invited had no interest in an end to the conflict. A truly "realist" assessment would have concluded that peacebuilding requires working cooperatively with a peace constituency and in Somalia, that could be found not among the militia leaders but at the grass-roots level, amongs the thousands of average Somalis weary of war and wanting only a return to a normal life for themselves and their families. But over time they were increasingly ignored by the UN, and never found their collective voice to demand that their leaders reach a real and durable reconciliation.

The United Nations asked us to assist, but refused to give us the mandate to do what needed to be done, for fear of...what? warlords? That is who we were fighting. As a result of the UN's irresponsiblity and idiocy in Somalia, good US troops were killed, and their bodies dragged through the streets. The UN did nothing but make declarations, and our subservient President at the time immediately pulled out of Somalia with no reprisals to the criminals who desecrated our soldiers bodies. The US soldiers were there mostly for food drops and support, and they were allowed to be targeted by the UN and by our own President without fear or reprisal. The food program the UN started? Overrun by warlords who kept hte food to sell at inflated prices. Well, at least the UN taught the warlords the wonder of supply and demand. Somalia remains a powderkeg today.



5. How about those great successes in Bosnia? In Bosnia, the UN failed to prevent ethnic cleansing on both sides, and frequently played word games with Slovidan Milosevic, and frequently changed strategies and sides. Many good men were lost here under the UN banner, sent there by a President with ambitions of heading the UN, and wanting to be a UN toady. We went into the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia, with little understanding of the whole history of the conflict. The UN arbitrarily jumped in and declared who good guys and bad guys were. If you look at the history of the conflict, it is much sharper than that. Also, we thought the UN said we were there to prevent massacres and mass killings...Then why did this happen? The Dutch were patsies for the UN's unclear policies. The UN sends soldiers in with very unclear mandates, then allows govts. to blame their own men for not understanding the nature of the mandate. If you notice, a common theme is that the UN is very unclear and contradicts itself. The former Yugoslavia is kind of dormant right now, but no thanks to the UN, it was mostly through the US saying we have had enough that the UN had to do something, and it was dumb luck it has worked the way it has. The UN is responsible for thousands of Serbs, Bosnians, and UN soldiers who died needlessly because of unclear guidelines. Because the UN likes to play word games, people die. For an organization that is dedicated to peace, they like to play with others' soldiers, don't they?

6. Maybe Rwanda can show UN successes in peacekeeping and policy? Uh, no.
And it shows how ineffective a UN toady as President can be. President Clinton, of the so called Loving Left, allowed almost a million Tutsis in Rwanda to be slaughtered as UN peacekeepers, some Americans among them....basically watched. Koffi Annan, now head of the UN, then head of UN peacekeeping (don't laugh) did nothing until most of the slaughter was over. It was an egregious error that continues to haunt Kofi to this day. Read about the report here. It does not say alot for the legacy of the UN, Kofi, or Mr. Clinton as it relates to stopping genocide. And this guy has visions for running the UN, and the UN running the show? Boy, wouldn't want to be a minority group persecuted with these guys in charge. Remember, Libya, Syria, among others, are heads of the Human Rights Groups, even while they have some of the worst records of civil rights abuses on record. Hypocrisy, anyone? Well, maybe we can find a glimmer of hope somewhere, especially on UN Day.
7. Maybe Sierra Leone? Not a chance. UN soldiers were hunted and killed, taken hostage and tortured. What did Kofi do? Nothing, but beg others to intercede. Even while troops he had ordered sent in to keep a ambiguous peace accord were being slaughtered, the rules of engagement were so strict, many divisions were taken before they could muster a defense. Wow, great care for the soldiers you BORROW from other countries and send to die, so you can pretend you are making peace!!!!! To show you the height of UN Hubris, here is an excerpt from this report I found: Bernard Miyet (Me-yay), who recently returned
from Sierra Leone, says the position of U-N
peacekeepers is improving and that the situation there
was never as bad as some news reports indicated.

His comments follow the release of more than 150 U-N
peacekeepers who taken hostage by rebels in Sierra
Leone. More than 200 others are still being held.

Ok, let me get this straight...It is Ok and not severe if 200 peacekeepers are hostages? What?!? These soldiers are loaned to the UN and this is how they are treated? Well, they were probably mostly American anyway, so it does not matter to the UN. Read the rest of this report for more unholy spin from the UN. Maybe the mission in East Timor can give us a reason to celebrate UN day.

8. Surely in East Timor....Nope. In East Timor, more uncertainty about the clarity and vision of the UN was raised, as human rights abuses abounded. Terror activities and others abounded in East Timor.....Even amnesty international had to write about the UN's failures. Hundreds have been killed there, and it is still not a certain area, with still peacekeepers there, no independence.
Even the Greens don't like hte UN Read it here about East Timor
Another lambasting....


Surely the UN can do better elsewhere...
9. NOPE!!! Links to further UN failures
U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran.
The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola.
Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them.


10. Maybe they did something right in Iraq....NOT A CHANCE....12 YEARS, 17 Resolutions, THOUSANDS DEAD, RAPED, TORTURED.....What's more, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan opposed regime change in Iraq. Were he put in charge of the reconstruction effort, what guarantee is there that he would not call for "reconciliation"-- a "broad coalition government"? that would include both the dictators and the dictatees? Those who love Americans for helping them, and those who love to kill Americans? Wow, that would be effective, wouldn't it Kofi? It has worked so well before. I would hate to see this insanity happen to the already tortured people of Iraq.

American and British troops are finding new mass graves just about every day. In them are the remains of tens of thousands of Iraqi dissidents, bullet holes through their skulls. 200 thousand Muslims who disagreed with him, from one sect. Add in almost a quarter of a million Kurds, and you are talking genocide on a massive scale. Where was the UN during this time? Why did they turn a blind eye to these atrocities? Where were the French, those lovers of everything, especially Iraqi oil money garnered from brokering illegal arms and tech agreements? Where was the outrage? Could they be the ones more concerned with oil money, and actually taking oil money as bribes from Saddam? Hmmmm.......
The UN did nothing to prevent these atrocities, hardly ever spoke out about them, and doesn't speak about them now. But what can be expected of an organization with a Commission on Human Rights now chaired by Libya, the regime responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland?

The Europeans have made attempts to build nations from their former colonies in Africa without success. France probably tried hardest, especially in the Ivory Coast in West Africa. After granting independence to Ivory Coast in the 1960s, they quietly helped manage both government ministries and private industries, built electric power plants and other infrastructure, established a sound monetary system and provided direct aid. But they failed to build the institutional framework of a democratic society an independent judiciary and press, political parties, the rule of law and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. And so today there are French troops keeping a fragile peace in Ivory Coast, just as there are British troops trying to put the lid back on in battered Sierra Leone.

Let the UN, and especially FRANCE, and Kofi Annan solve those crises, or even just admit they messed up in the past, or even just prove they can get one mission right- before they demand for full authority in Iraq. I do not think the Iraqis would like to end up like the Somalis, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Timors, the Angolans, the Rwandans, or the other host of people who have had to suffer under the idiocy of the UN's incompetence in peacekeeping.

The UN peacekeeping way is: come in, confuse your soldiers, many die, then eke out a way to claim a narrow victory or accord, and allow other countries to clean up the mess you made. Do we really want repeats of the above in Iraq?

Let's contrast this with the rebuilding efforts and peacekeeping of the United States. Germany and Japan chief among them. Germany was decimated after WWII. It eventually became split into two nations, West and East. The US played a key role in rebuilding West Germany, and took the forefront. The Soviets took East Germany. Under our guidance, Germany has become again an industrial powerhouse, and its tech has grown substantially. Yet, how do the Germans, who experienced the skill of US peacekeeping and reconstruction repay us, by denying the opportunity they had to Iraq!!! By castigating us for daring to help another country the way we carried them.

Look to Japan. We had a provisional govt. in Japan for a few years after the War, under the Direction of Gen. MacArthur. A very well written constitution was created, as was a parliament called the Diet, which continues to be a model today. Their economy soared with US instruction and guidance, and now they are a world leader in their own right. Not a bad record, especially when compared to the UN.

However, who is portrayed as the unskilled? The US! Why is that? I think we have proven we know how to rebuild, with the successes in Germany and Japan, and the successes of rebuilding most of Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. The UN has had history of failure after failure, yet they still consider themselves the experts in peacekeeping. The North Korean situation is still dangerous, as is most of the other areas they have touched. Their food programs are corrupt, with much of intended aid going to warlords. They continue to delegitimatize themselves by placing dictatorial countries like Cuba, Libya, and Syria atop Human rights commissions, when these nations are some of the most notorious violators. Yet, they have the gall to castigate us? They have the gall to do this as we pay for over 1/4 of the UN, and have forgiven their massive debt to keep it solvent. I say it is time we call for payment of their back rent, and we call to boot em. They have done little but become a rubber stamp of inefficiency, callousness, and uncertainty. That is the legacy of the UN....It had great potential, but it is now little more than an I Hate America club that wants to redistribute everything, to take take take, but has no clear plan on how to bring peace and justice, other than borrowing troops and sending them into the line of fire without clear mandates, which lead to confusion and more death and destruction.

So, who would you rather have rebuilding your nation? To me, it seems obvious who should be leading, and who should get the heck out of the way.