I See Your Blix, And Raise You A Butler

"I want to be plain about this," Butler's voice heightened. "The overthrow of Sadaam Hussein was justified whether or not there was reluctance to authorize it. ... No one could say it is wrong to overthrow a homicidal maniac. The Security Council sat on its hands for 10 years."

As for not finding these weapons allegedly in Iraq, Butler said he is sure Saddam had them. He said Saddam was addicted to the deadly weapons, and whether they are still in Iraq but hidden, moved or destroyed, they did exist.

"Don't believe those who say they aren't there just because we haven't found them. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Butler told the crowd. "Iraq certainly did have weapons of mass destruction. Trust me. I held some in my own hands."
Check out the rest of Richard Butler's comments in this story by Madeline Vitale.

Matt's Chat

Now we're talking!

Mark's Remarks

Amen.....Butler was totally independent, and the UN got rid of him for speaking out. They wanted Blix the talking bobble head. Right on, Mr. Butler!!!!

Bush To Cut Veterans Benefits (?!)

Generally, we at WMD prefer to wait to see what is going to happen before commenting on it, the story we are about to run affects the men and women who served their country and were promised benefits.

While it appears to still be in the works at the White House, I really think there is something wrong about this story by Howard Wilkinson of our hometown Cincinnati Enquirer.

I am unable to discern why the Bush administration would actually want to do this. It goes against everything he stands for...if I am missing something, by all means, drop me a line and fill me in...

MATT

The M Files: The Great Taliban Gift Mystery

Originally, I wasn't going to address this, even though it struck me as odd when I first saw this story. But, my good friend Eric brought it up on Right to be Left, so I thought I should answer the man's question.

It is a fact that back in MAY of 2001 (as in prior to 9/11/01), the Bush administration sent $43 million to the Taliban for anti-drug funding. Personally, I agree that regimes that violate human rights shouldn't get a single dollar from us. Particularly a regime as vile as the Taliban.

This is not the first time an American president has given anti-drug aid to nasty country.

Clinton certified 20 nations including China in the war on drugs for federal funding. Among other human rights abuses, China is known for the trafficking of women, spousal abuse, and discrimination against women for education and employment (even though it is against their law to do so). China's "one child per family" law means tat there continues to be violence against female children. All in all, I'd say China is worse at human rights than the Taliban.

My point is that I'll take bad foresight over bad sight any day. I'll mention, but not delve in to deeply, that Mr. Clinton also felt that in addition to anti-drug money, China should receive America's technology.

MATT

WEEKEND UPDATE

A rare weekend update of WMD...

Which Is It Mr. Clark? POTUS Doesn't Get To Change Mind...

Many of his backers expressed surprise when Clark told reporters he probably would have voted to authorize the use of force.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," The New York Times quoted Clark as saying Thursday.

He then added, the Times said, "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."

In a speech Friday to more than 1,000 people jammed into a lecture hall at the University of Iowa and in interviews, Clark underscored his opposition to the war, explaining: "There may be times when you may have to use force, but only as a last resort. "Let's make one thing real clear: I would never have voted for this war, never," Clark said in an interview with The Associated Press.

This story is from the Associated Press via the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Matt's Chat

Oh yeah, this guy is a serious contender for President...he can't make up his mind whether or not he'd vote for war with Iraq or not.

Mark's Remarks

Also, on his Clinton-backed lear jet, with reporters, someone asked him an opinion on an issue, and he had to call his press secretary to tell him what to think. Come on, I hope people are not blinded by the strategy of saying this guy is pro-military. He was in charge in Somalia, in Kosovo, where you wanna talk about brutal American slaughter and disgrace, wow! Oh...the liberals wont bring that up, it was under Clinton. Clark is merely a stalkinghorse for Bill and Hill. If she were to enter the race, she would undercut him and sell him out. The Clintons do not care about their friends, they do not care about their party....They care about America. Wes Clark should know better.
I hear people talk about how smart he is, that he has an MBA. Bush has an MBA!!! However, all I hear are the frat boy comments, etc. Now, from personal experience, having an MBA doesnt make you intelligent, or honest, or reputable. There is a guy in the county I live in who has one and he is none of the above. Clark is a drone, as evidenced by his conversation on his plane. The controlling power in the D party is concerned about Howard Dean, knowing that he is gaining momentum and that he does not stand a chance against Bush. So they throw this guy Clark out there to the wolves. And he is proving no better, even worse- he has no opinion. Bush was lambasted for his lack of experience...people say Clark's naivete is "refreshing." Give me a break.

Bush Rethinking Iraq Strategy (?)

Foreign-policy concerns and domestic politics are prompting the administration to rethink its approach to Iraq, said a number of administration foreign and domestic-policy officials, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because, as one of them put it, "the president hates seeing internal debates in the paper."
This story is by John Wolcott of Knight Ridder via the Miami Herald.

Matt's Chat

Mark and I were just discussing what we felt Bush needed to do in order to ensure re-election the other day. I believe that one of the things that the president has to do is put some focus on his domestic agenda and start talking about the successes we've experienced in the War on Terror thus far. There is a LOT of good news to tell...but, as the saying goes, good news doesn't sell newspapers. Contrary to what you may have heard, the war is going well. It is justified. And we are winning.

Marks Remarks

More women coming out and working, children getting educated...vacant rape rooms....sounds like good stuff to me....Of course, the real issue for Dems is not what we are doing right or how to progress, no the real issue is how to manipulate the thought processes going in for political gain. It does not matter that our soldiers are getting stereotyped by the medias reports of an America that does not care about Iraq. No, we have to hype up the liberal agenda....thank heavens for Fox News.

Unidentified Poll Claims Americans Don't Support Bush's Iraq Policy (?!)

Matt's Chat

I've seen several articles in cluding this one on VOA News which refers to a poll (note that there is no information about the poll like how many respondents and how the questions were phrased, etc.) in which the majority of americans supposedly don't support the president's policies for Iraq. I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans are against installing democracy in a region of the world that desperately needs it. I don't believe for a minute that the majority of Americans don't support the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq. A good pollster can get results to match whatever viewpoint someone with an agenda wants to support. A responsible journalist would put information about the poll in the article. But there aren't that many responsible journalists left...

Mark's Remarks

Respectable and journalist? I think those are extinct. I really do not care about polls. I guess that makes me aloof and angry, and arrogant, and part of the rich Republicans, even though I have never made over 40 grand in a year. See, the liberals hate people like me, because we see the greatness of America and do not complain for our slice of the pie. We try to go out and get it, rather than begging for govt. programs. We like to have extra dough through cut taxes. We hate govt. intrusion and discriminatory programs. They hate people like me because we see through the lies. So, instead of really taking a cross section, they create and cite a poll from all hte upper west side of manhattan, etc. Sad, really. They cannot take a crap without getting poll numbers to decide how long it should take.

Commentary - Representing the Left

As a "companion view point" to WMD, our good friend Eric has opened up Right to be Left. I personally support and applaud Eric for jumping in and getting his viewpoint out there. If you sensed a "but..." coming, here it is.

I don't mind the obviously doctored photo of Bush that is prominently displayed on the site. I do wish the photo had some sort of disclaimer on it or some sort of photo credit attached because it is clearly intended to make it look as if Bush were some sort of Nazi fascist, which couldn't be further from the truth. Contrary to "popular" belief, conservatives DO have a sense of humor...I don't mind a good, honest poke at somebody for fun, but there has to be some sense of taste at some point.

I don't mind the lists of "facts" if in fact they were indeed facts. We on WMD clearly label our commentary as such and don't try to misrepresent our comments as anything else. Do we have a slant on things? You betcha...but we're not going to slander (or falsely portray) anybody just because we "don't like him." For being on the side of victims everywhere, the liberal viewpoint seems to be filled with as much venom and hate as they accuse the conservatives of harboring.

I encourage dialogue and the exchange of ideas. I can even support calling to task a politician on their record using facts and quotations from reputable sources. Responsible debate on the issues is a healthy and patriotic thing to be engaged in. For the liberals, it appears to be quite personal and they appear to have lost focus on the issues. And that is really too bad...because I do believe that their hearts are in the right place, they just can't find an expression of their intent in the current political climate. Bush bashing is every bit as popular amongst the liberals as Clinton bashing is amongst conservatives...the difference in the bashing that I have seen is that the conservatives hold up Clinton's record and find it lacking; liberals seem not to be able to apply the same courtesy. I can admit that Bush isn't perfect; he's made mistakes and definately isn't the greatest president our nation has ever had. I don't recall a liberal making a statement about Clinton other than the equivelent of him being the best thing since sliced bread.

By all means, it is his blog, and I support his right to post whatever he wants there. And I know that if I am truly offended, that I don't have to go to the site. But I really do think it is important to have the liberal viewpoint out there. A difference of opinion and viewpoint isn't a bad thing. My greatest hope is that there can be an exchange of ideas and that the best of both worlds can be brought to reality. My greatest fear is that the dialogue between us will continue to crumble and that progress will come to a screeching halt.

I encourage all visitors to WMD to check it out and decide for yourself.

Matt

Mark weighs in: I agree with my friend Matt, and I encourage Eric to vent his frustrations on Mr. Bush. I am seeing no logical argument or alternative to Bush in his thoughts, am seeing no ideas. All I see is "I hate Bush". This proves what we have been saying all along, so I have no problem with the blog, other than the photo, and the fuzzy facts. So, I agree with Matt, but seeing the content, I hold out little hope for the logical dialogue.....

Mark

Two For Friday? Bonus coverage...

Eco-Terrorists Strike in San Diego

A fire that destroyed three homes under construction was the work of the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front (search), officials said. The fire broke out about 2 a.m. and was confined to the homes that were already on fire, said Susan Smith, a dispatcher with the city fire department. It took firefighters about an hour to knock down the flames, she said. From Fox News.

Matt's Chat

I wonder if these fools have calculated how much damage THEY are doing to the planet with these fires?

Mark's Remarks

No, of course not. It is ok if they damage the planet to save it. It is not ok to build housing for people, it is not ok to drive suvs, but it is ok to burn them and send their toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. These people cut off their nose to spite their face. They are ignorant, deluded, sad individuals.

Ashcroft Defends the Patriot Act

Attorney General John Ashcroft (search) fired back at critics Thursday, after having taken the rare action of releasing to the public once-classified information that tells the exact number of library records that FBI agents have viewed under rules outlined in the USA Patriot Act. The total: zero.

Matt's Chat

I fully understand and support the need for the Patriot Act, but if this particular section is so important that it has never been used in the last two years, why not cut it? It would save some hassle and fearmongering by the Act's opponents. Just a thought...

Mark's Remarks

Well, I think what Ashcroft is trying to do is say that this act is not going to target everyone, even liberals, and is trying to prove that the Justice Department is using caution and such before meandering in usually private records. I support the Patriot Act, as I believe and hope that it will find security risks, as it already has done, and will get them out of a place where they can do damage. Ashcroft was using this to show that it is not the days of J.Edgar Hoover, with constant spying, although the Hoover analogy is really a myth. Hoover for the most part spied on potential security risks, though he was prone to political spying to keep his own job. However, I believe Ashcroft released this data to show we are not the KGB, and he is right, we are not. No matter what the liberals say.

Kennedy's 'Texas' remark stirs GOP reaction

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," the Massachusetts Democrat told the AP. The story was posted on CNN.com.

Matt's Chat:

While I will personally agree that there was no immediate threat to the citizens of the United States, the accusation that a plan to liberate Iraq was fabricated in Texas prior to 9/11 is irresponsible, ridiculous, and slanderous. If a Republican had made a similar statement about Bill Clinton back in the day, there would be hell to pay in the media. Where is the accountability? Where is the professional respect for the presidency? Kennedy should know better and he should be ashamed of his comments and issue an apology immediately.

Mark's Remarks::

If Teddy Boy said this, then I pose the question: what about the missile strikes into Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan in 96 and 98? Those were wag the dog issues as well, Mr. Senator, as Mr. Clinton was embroiled in shifting focus away from his nefarious lies under oath, and his dishonesty as President. Also, I find the charges from Mr. Kennedy funny, as he has several shady episodes in his past with political manuevering. I would not believe a homicidal drunk driver (remember Chapaquitick, Teddy Boy?) who has molested more teens than the entire Boston Diocese. It is a shame that people still give this lush respect. He brings disgrace to the Kennedy name. He brings disgrace to the title of Senator. He should be censured. He is a liar, drunk, and womanizer. NO wonder Bill and Hill love him.

Treasury Leaves Rules in Place Allowing Banks to Accept Mexican IDs

The card is issued by Mexico's consulates in the United States and shows the date of birth, a current photograph and the address of the card holder. Many of the cards have been issued to Mexicans living in the United States, including those in the country illegally. Read all about it on Fox News. The article is from the Associated Press.

Matt's Chat:

Does anybody think this is really a good idea? Sounds like more political pandering to me...

Mark's Remarks:

Indeed. Political pandering to a key minority voting bloc. For shame, but the master of such tactics is Mr. Clinton. Selling out your country to Chinese interests makes you a liberal darling, but ruins our security.

Freak of the Week:

Wesley Clark. He nearly started World War III with Russia when he was in Kosovo. He illegally lent military equipment to the Clinton adminsitration for Waco. Does he really think he has a chance?

Quote of the Week

"Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is a little like expecting the bull not to attack you because you are a vegetarian." - Dennis Wholey

The M Files: Liberals Say There are No WMDs in Iraq Now, But...

Back in 1998, then President Bill Clinton launched a missle attack on Iraq "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Check out the full transcript on CNN.com. "Their (attacks) purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world." George Bush? No, that was Bill Clinton in 1998. "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." Bush again, right? Nope, that is still Clinton in 1998.

And then there's Hans Blix: "After March, April, May, etc., and over the summer, everybody would have lost patience.” we too, he said, referring to the U.N. weapons inspectors. That from this article on MSNBC. Now I ask you all, if Mr. Blix thought Saddam had destroyed his WMDs shortly after the First Gulf War, then why wouldn't he have said so when he was faced with the detractors who charged that he was too soft on Iraq. Why was he not morally opposed to the use of force against Baghdad when he told the U.N. Security Council his agency "did not want to continue inspections forever. Monitoring, yes, but not inspections."?

How about John Kerry and Tom Daschle? Here is Kerry in '98: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." And here is Tom Daschale: "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." So what happened since 1998? What happened to Daschale's resolve? Back in '98, "This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters." Get it all here.

Here is Mr. Clinton again (from the same source): "Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it." Where does Mr. Clinton believe these weapons went?

How about anti-war platform presidential candidate Howard Dean? On Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." This tidbit from the National Review's Jim Geraghty.

How about we stop the political theatrics? Anybody got a problem with that???

MATT

Blix Continues To Use Up ALL Of His Fifteen Minutes

"Advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms they do not quite believe in but you expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility," Blix said. This gem is from an article by Mike Wendling, CNSNews.com London Bureau Chief.

Matt's Chat:

For a professional in the arms inspection industry, this guy acts like he's never done government work before. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mr. Blix had a perfect opportunity to tell the world that he thought Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and chose NOT to do so. 17 UN resolutions tell it differently though, not that that means anything to Mr. Blix.

Mark's Remarks:

Why are we still talking about this idiot? He is bascially admitting that he misled and misinformed the UN, now, 17 resolutions later and 12 years later. Ridiculous. Go home to Belgium and have some friggin waffles. The man has basically told us with this whole line of "they destroyed weapons in 91 that he has no credibility, because there are his statements on record during the time of those resolutions saying that he believed and had intelligence that there were such weapons. The man is a hack and is a disgrace.....

Bush: No Saddam-9/11 Tie-In

President Bush said today that he had seen no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as the White House tried to correct an assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney left extremely murky on Sunday. Mr. Cheney, on "Meet the Press" on NBC-TV, was asked about polls that showed that a majority of Americans believed that Mr. Hussein had been involved in the attacks. This from a story posted by the New York Times by David E. Sanger.

Matt's Chat:

I think further clarification of the administration's motivations for launching Operation: Iraqi Freedom is a good thing. I do think the American people have come to the conclusion (right or wrong) that Saddam had some role in 9/11. It is about time that the administration comes forward with a statement that clears this up. This makes a stronger case for Iraqi Freedom as a fulfillment of the Bush Doctrine as opposed to 9/11 retribution. Terrorists, and those who support them, are to be brought down so that another 9/11-type event is less likely to occur again. That is the Bush Doctrine, the American people support it, and there is a coalition of nations that support it.

Mark's Remarks:

I do not like the thinking of the Bush Administration. Instead of patently denying it, they should say they have no info, but find it curious. Instead, they are saving themselves the short term militant press reaction that this is just another tact in trying to justify the war in Iraq. I, however, due to reading several books by investigative journalists, believe Iraq did play a role in September 11th. There is enough circumstantial evidence, with Iraq providing a training ground with a 707 jetliner to be used to train terrorists (Losing Bin Laden, Miniter) which tells me they had a role. Not to mention Saddam's offers to pay the families of these terrorists if they died killing Americans. Also, people fall prey to the religious argument, that saddam being a non-shia and secular ruler would cause al-Queda to not work with him. Please do not be fooled, these people are not religious devotees. They selectively follow certain passages to their own evil ends. They talk about women wearing burkas, but most terrorists from 9/11, from the 1993 attacks, from the USS Cole, and others, frequented strip clubs and drank considerable sums of alcohol, both of which are outlawed by strict muslim law. Therefore, in order to get Saddam's money, wouldn't al-Queda be willing to work with someone who shared their megalomaniacal hatred of America and Israel? I think so. Also, people think Usama is funding this whole thing with his own wealth. Most of his wealth has been seized or tapped out. He needed financial backers. Why not go to one of the wealthiest dictators in the world? I believe there is a connection, and I hope Bush finds it before election time, or I fear the venomous hate spouted by the supposed liberal caring people will turn America. I believe it was Josef Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, who said: " If you tell a lie loud and long enough, the people will eventually believe it." Well, I fear the Howard Deans and Clarks and the other 8 with their hate filled message but no ideals will do the same thing.

Illegal Aliens Get Driver's Licenses in California

Your driver's license, which is the closest thing the United States has to a national identification card, just became less valuable as a means of identifying who you are and as a tool for law enforcement. This is the opening statement in an article posted on Fox News written by Matt Hayes.

Matt's Chat:

Gray Davis strikes again! Political pandering to people who aren't supposed to be here shouldn't be allowed. Never mind that driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right. Furthermore, the license to drive is legal documentation of residency...illegal immigrants don't have legal residency. This is further proof of Gov. Davis' agenda to drive California further in to trouble.

Mark's Remarks:

ARGH!!! Someone get this nutjob out of office. Why is it that people who knowingly violated the law of this land they say they want to come to and work for are given such special treatment. If they want to come here, let it be legally. We need to quit rewarding illegal behavior. I am all for LEGAL immigration, whether by visa, green card, or seeking political asylum. Those folks can go through the process to get citizenship and get the amenities that come with it. It is ridiculous to reward people who drag on the social service budget and who are breaking the law with the amenities of citizenship. All it is really is a ploy to appeal to a specific voting bloc. Leave it to the Dems to worry about election over national security....Hmm...sounds like Davis really is following in his mentor Bubba's footsteps, eh ?

New Look For WMD

The first of several "upgrades" is the new template. We have a new logo, that we'll be incorporating shortly.

Also, check out the WMD Store for a sneak preview of the logo on a t-shirt.

MATT

M Files: PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

It has been suggested that the United States is the only nation capable of bringing peace to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Quite frankly, I can’t agree. While we are the last remaining superpower, our power is limited to those actions that we alone can undertake. However, we must take a stand if there is to be peace in our time. We cannot sit idly by and wait it out. The region is too important to the world… We must choose sides and ACT.

The acts of terrorism committed by Palestinian forces must be stopped. Those who believe that terrorism is the only way to get what they want must be silenced. Those who fail to call acts such as the targeting and murder of innocents as anything less than terrorism must be held accountable for their role.

Recently, it was proposed by an advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister that assassination of PLO leader Yassir Arafat was something that could and should be considered by the state of Israel. It should be considered, and the threat should be made, but I also believe that such an act would enrage Arab Muslims in the region. Arafat must be made to realize that he is responsible for stopping the terrorism of Hamas and all the other organizations that stand in the way of a real, lasting peace with Israel. It is his responsibility. As the leader of the Palestinians, and he has shown absolutely no interest in stepping down, he must stop the terrorism. The first step is his to take and only he can take it. He has interfered with the legitimate attempts by former Prime Minister Abbas to crack down on the terrorists. He maneuvered Abbas into a corner where he felt he wasn’t being effective and resigned his position rather than be held up as a puppet for Arafat’s agenda of terror.

If there is to be peace in our time, it will be without Arafat. The man and the organization that he leads will lose power if they ever actually get a Palestinian state. He maintains his power by destroying the peace process whenever and however possible. He plays both sides of the issue of terrorism. He is detrimental to the peace process with Israel and should be removed from power.

Finally, I criticize the Bush administration for not following the Bush Doctrine when it comes to Arafat, the PLO, and Hamas. These people ARE terrorists and should be dealt with in the same manner as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The road to peace is through the dismantling of terror networks all over the world. It is time that the administration realizes their policy and act on it accordingly.

MATT

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

Former NATO commander to kick off campaign today

Clark, 58, becomes the 10th Democrat seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004. He is a West Point graduate, Rhodes scholar and former CNN military analyst who led U.S. and allied forces in NATO's 1999 air war in Kosovo. This story is from CNN.com

Matt's Chat: #10 in the Dem race. This guy nearly caused a war with Russia when he was NATO boy in Kosovo. Dems will love him...

Mark's Remarks: Gen. Clark, the man who encouraged more US involvement in a small conflict in Kosovo, who encouraged a possible war with Russia, and who has been wrong about every military development he has spoken on since Afghanistan....great, I cannot wait to see this guy eaten alive. I have friends who served in Kosovo, and they said Clark engendered as much respect from the military as Bill Clinton himself. That speaks volumes. This guy is merely a Bubba with a small shred of patriotism. Too bad he encourages quagmire, but does not see victory when it appears.

US Issues License to Murder Arafat (?)

Since very beginning there has been no doubt that the Bush Administration won't object to deportation of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. In their verbal statements the While House and the Department of State certainly condemned the decision of the Israeli government. This is quite understandable that Americans are particularly anxious about the fact that deportation of the aged Palestinian leader automatically puts an end to his isolation and will give him a wider space for activity, even though this activity will be carried out abroad. This is not the most optimal way out of the situation. This story is from Pravda (!)

Matt's Chat: Glad to see that Russia's sense of exaggeration is still healthy. Expulsion doesn't mean execution. I support throwing Arafat out of his seat of power. Killing him would serve no useful purpose. Of course, if he slipped, fell, and broke his neck while in the shower...

Mark's Remarks: Wow, who said only the National Enquirere is sensationalist? I agree with my colleague on this one, and think Arafat needs eliminated in a manner that leaves him alive. Perhaps a sting operation to catch him doing something illegal or against Palestinian tradition? Now that could be something.....or if he fell in the shower or cut himself shaving that bulbous face of his.

Blix Says Iraq Probably Destroyed WMDs

Matt's Chat: Thanks Hans...your timing still sucks. If you thought that was the case, why didn't you SAY SO when you WERE SOMEBODY?

Mark's Remarks: Of course, Hans is going to say they were destroyed after he spent 12 years saying they were there. He doesn't want to appear wrong, or to have culpability in supposedly faulty intelligence. Someone tell this guy his 15 minutes were up a long time ago, and tell him to go home and eat some strudel.

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

Palestinians Offer New Cease-Fire to Revive Peace Talks

A senior Palestinian official proposes that Israel and the Palestinian Authority reach a mutual cease-fire agreement to pave the way for getting back to peace negotiations. There has been no official response yet from Israel, but an official is quoted as saying the government rejects the idea. This story is from VOA News

Matt's Chat: Palestine is losing again. How can I tell? There is an offer of "peace" put on the table by Arafat's team...

Mark's Remarks:Ah yes, I seem to remember this same tact a few years ago, and look at all the good it did us. Israel needs to tell the PLO to clean its own house or do it for them...Nuff said.

Court Puts Calif. Recall On Hold

California's recall rollercoaster jumped the tracks Monday as the election was ordered delayed by a three-judge federal panel that said punch-card voting machines are unreliable. This story is from CBS News.

Matt's Chat: This is an outrage! More interference from the judicial branch in what is clearly a legislative matter.

Mark's Remarks:Hmm....liberal democrat judges appointed by Democrat presidents supporting a failed liberal governor's grasping of power. For people who claim that the right seeks to subjugate the people's will, this should be exhibit to evidence of the contrary. Yet another bit of evidence that the left seeks to control the process, not only of our government, but of the will of the people. California wants the recall, they want Davis gone....yet the liberals are doing everything to overcome the process of democracy in California. Shame on the court for trying to legislate from the bench.

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

Israel Says It Has No Plan Kill Arafat

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom Monday dismissed comments by a cabinet minister that Israel could kill Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, but the remarks served to increase international pressure for caution. Vice premier and Industry and Trade Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday "killing (Arafat) is definitely one of the options" also including exile or isolating him in his compound. The words, following an Israeli decision in principle to expel Arafat from the West Bank, drew anger in the Arab world and blank incredulity in Europe. This story is by Mark Heinrich of Reuters.

Matt's Chat: Arafat is part of the problem. He is definately not the solution. Contrary to his statements, Arafat has been responsible for terrorism against Israel, if not directly certainly by attrition. Assassination isn't the solution to the Arafat problem, but the threat must certainly is a serious indicator of Israel's commitment to getting peace done by any measure.

Mark's Remarks: Of course Europe would express incredulity at DOING SOMETHING, they have done nothing for years, and look where it has gotten us. Terrorist cells in France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. Wow, doing nothing and sweeping problems under the rug really helps, eh? Well, back to issue at hand. Arafat is the main impediment to peace. Israel needs to get that message out loud and clear, not only to the world, but also to those Palestinians. I think most of them would be shocked by what Arafat has done, and how he simply is looking out for himself by justifying his continued control over the area. That was the problem with Abbas. He wanted to run the show and do it right. Arafat did not want to be upstaged, so he removed him. The time is coming where Israel may have to make that choice to kill Arafat, which I disagree with in many instances, but it might have to be done....We need to talk more to Israel, and quit being soe wishywashy on the Bush Doctrine on Terrorism. Arafat and his organization give haven to terrorists, we need to turn on them, per the Bush Doctrine. Nuff said.

Iran: Committed to Nuclear Treaty

Iranian vice president and energy chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said Monday Tehran will go ahead with negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency about allowing unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities. This story is by the VOA

Matt's Chat: Sounds to me like Iran is trying to buy more time, but this is a step in the right direction.

Mark's Remarks: Send in the Israeli fighter/bombers to do what they did to Saddam back in the 80s. I am not buying this for a minute. Iran is playing the delay card, and we cannot stand for it. We must petition for unconditional immediate inspections or we risk further development of a weapons program in the hands of a rogue state. Not good.

Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship

CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship." This story is by Peter Johnson of USA Today

Matt's Chat: WHAT?! CNN, nor any other "news" organization was censored by the Bush Administration or Fox News (how could Fox do that anyway?) here's the most ridiculous statement of the whole thing, "On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war." Since WHEN is AL FRANKEN a part of the media??? And since when is it the responsibility of the Bush Administration (or any administration for that matter) to ASK questions to themselves? The media asked (or failed to ask) whatever questions they wanted. I'm sorry, there is just no way to orchestrate a "do over" for the failure of and by the media to ask whatever questions they wanted to ask.

Mark's Remarks: I think CNN was intimidated by a little some thing called RATINGS!!! Instead of taking on the FoxNews model of being more toward the center than left, CNN cries foul and accuses the network of being 'in bed' with the Bush Admin. And Ms. Armanpour, I question her. She has always been on the sympathetic side to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in her reporting. I guess we should have been asking for more troop movement questions, so we could get more soldiers killed during the war? The media asked the questions about really needing to go, especially on CNN...the issue was that Americans wanted to go to Iraq, and as far as Kool-Aid drinking goes, I think Ms. Armanpour has drunk the Kool-Aid of the left apologists and also the more dastardly of the terrorist apologists. I am disgusted by this lack of ability to simply say, we didnt ask questions. Of course the media will blame it on Bush, because he was president. What about the de-humanization of Paula Jones? What about lack of questions about Clinton's Terrorism policy? Where were those? HMM??? This whole article proves the inherent bent toward the liberal side by the media at large. And, I agree wholeheartedly with the Fox Spokeswoman who said better to be a Bush footsoldier than a spokeswoman for terrorism.

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

U.S. warns Israel against expelling Arafat

The United States has notified Israel it is opposed to the expulsion of Yasser Arafat even though "he is part of the problem and not part of the solution" in the tense standoff with the Palestinians. This story is from the Associated Press.

Matt's Chat: It's about time Arafat gets serious about peace or get out of the way. Otherwise Israel may make the decision for him regardless of consequences. And that would be bad for both sides of the issue. Arafat can't demand Israel to comply with the roadmap if he isn't willing to comply and stop the terrorist actions.

Mark's Remarks: Liberals should line up...I am about to disagree with the President. I guess I am not the sheep that some people out there think I am. I think the President should get behind the Israelis and we should quit kowtowing to a man who has been perpetrating his own Holocaust on Israelis for decades, but yet is hailed as a man of peace. Arafat must go. I am sure this is the state department wonks wanting to cover our butts with the Palestinians. The Palestinians should realize the detriment Arafat is and kick them out themselves. He is the biggest obstacle to the peace process, because he plays both ends. I am afraid I must stand against the President and say, let Israel do their thing.

Allies Line Up with U.S. to Set Iran Nuke Deadline

The United States has gathered more than two dozen allies to force the U.N. nuclear watchdog to set an October 31 deadline for Iran to demonstrate it is not secretly developing nuclear weapons, diplomats said. Iranian ambassador: "You can't impose deadlines on a sovereign country," This story is by Louis Charbonneau from Reuters.

Matt's Chat: Maybe we do need more troops in Iraq afterall... Unlike the North Korea situation, I don't see diplomacy working well at all with Iran.

Mark's Remarks: Wow, the synchopants of the world are just lining up for a smackdown, eh? Well, I think we need to shore up Iraq, finish Afghanistan, as they appear semi-ready to run their own affairs, and get to work on Iran. The best way to work Iran is to foment popular dissent. In recent months, the student movement has become more pro-Democracy than Pro-theocracy. We need to send people in to exploit that. Of course, if Gore or Clinton were in office we could not do that since they would not let us get intelligence and such unless the sources were "reputable" people. We need to encourage the young in Iran to cry out for more democracy, but then do not go away when they need protection or assistance (read Tianamen Sq.).

What Bush should tell United Nations

Since President Bush's TV address on Sunday night, polls show most people across the USA accepted most of what he said. If he addresses the United Nations as scheduled the week after next, he'll have to change both his message and his demeanor drastically to win approval there. This editorial is from USA Today.

Matt's Chat: I agree in principal, but not with all the details, to the points contained in the editorial. The president has no need to be tough with the UN at this time and I see no reason why he would do so. (So why mention it?) The meat of it is to say we were right about this (Saddam had to go) and wrong about that (intelligence regarding the immediate threat of WMDs)...that's all fine and good. I don't think the adminsitration is wrong about having the situation in Iraq being a magnet for foreign terrorists. I think that is brilliant. Instead of chasing them, let's bring them out where we can deal with them. And I do think the US can and will bring democracy to Iraq with or without the UN. The UN isn't interested in bringing democracy anywhere. I agree that UN assistance would be useful in Iraq, but then again, UN assistance would have been useful from the very beginning. And finally, the UN will be the last, best hope for peace in the world when they stop placating terrorists and start taking action.

Mark's Remarks: Of course, you talk to SOME people, and they will charge that our President and the US is at fault for the UN not standing with us in a unified manner; even though we begged the UN and drew up resolution after resolution to get them on board. However, because we actually saw the threat of Saddam's machinations and were tired of 12 years of backpedalling, we are naturally the badguy, of course. Always blame America, because we accept the blame. We like to be guilty of our strength. I say no more! I agree with my distinguished collegue that Bush should sell the good points of the Iraq conflict, that a maniacal dictator who defied every article in the UN charter of human rights is gone, and that maybe we should say, hey, we were not sure about the WMDs, but what we were sure about is that if he had them, Saddam would use them, and that is why we went in. I also think the magnet statement is pure genius.
On the democracy front, I agree. If the UN really wanted democracy, why is Cuba and Libya on the Human Rights council? These two are terrible violators of human rights. UN assistance would have been great in Iraq, but they refused, despite our pleas. And, the UN will only be useful when it wises up that allowing terrorist states and supporting states to roam free and be so controlling of the UN is a bad thing, and then, only then, will we start to see the UN become the last, best hope for peace. Right now, it is as useless and superfluous as the League of Nations. I hope we can help get the UN back to its mission of ensuring peace, instead of being a forum for how bad the US is.

Freak of the Week: Osama bin Ladin.

Quote of the Week: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you." Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

THOUGHTS ON SEPT. 11

I can still remember where I was on that day two years ago. I was in my first year of full-time teaching. It was second block, and I had a crew of Govt. Seniors who had just gotten back from their summer trip. Their trip was to New York and the Twin Towers.

At first, I thought it was a joke when a student came running into the trailer where I was teaching and said to turn on the TV. I thought it was a setup from the office assistants to help their senior friends. However, I turned on the TV, and my world and the world of my students was laid waste before our eyes. It was after both planes had hit the Towers, but before the Pentagon attack.

We watched in horror as they replayed the two impacts over and over. I could feel the anger of my students and my own rising. However, being conditioned to be 'fair minded' I told students to reserve judgement. However, when the Pentagon was hit, and the more we studied the video from the Towers together, it was clear: America was in a war. We quickly found out about Osama bin Laden. These seniors who I were teaching cried openly, and I did my best to comfort them.

Over the next few weeks, they resumed their routines. But all of them, and myself included, would never forget. We had seen the most dastardly attack in history and were waiting to do something about it.

Since then, I have lost my job for being, among other things; too patriotic, too pro-Bush, and for being too concerned for my students (some crime, eh?). That senior class is now in its second year of post high school life. America has had the two greatest victories in warfare in its history, outflanking even the Gulf War of 1991. We have gone farther, faster, than any military in history, with fewer casualties in history. We have liberated two countries under the heel of brutal rulers. We have eliminated many terrorist threats and thwarted hundreds. However, more and more, I feel America is forgetting today's significance.

How are we forgetting? For one, I see fewer and fewere symbols of patriotism, and more efforts at silencing voices of patriotism. I see America falling back into isolation, falling back into self-interest, and falling back into apathy. Today, several people did not even mark the significance, and I actually had to remind them what today was. What a shame!

Sept. 11, 2001 is a date that should be marked. It should be emblazoned on the heart of every American. Are we so stunned we would rather forget than remember and let the battle cry of "Let's Roll!" from Flight 93 go unheeded? I fear that is what is happening, as more people of influence come out against efforts at fighting the war on terror.

Why did we go to Afghanistan? We went because Osama was there, but also to free the Afghans, many of whom fought against Soviet oppression, from the Fundamentalist oppression of the Taliban. We fought to remove that threat from hurting us. And we succeeded. The Taliban was toppled and Osama is on the run. If we had more assistance from France and Germany and the world, perhaps bin Laden would be dead by now. However, we have had to pretty much go it alone in the search, with help from some of our allies.

Why did we go to Iraq? We went to Iraq because with 9/11, the time for idle threats was over. We could no longer simply tell the evil ones that if they did not comply we would threaten to use force. We needed to show the world our resolve in the fight for freedom and democracy. We needed to root out another great ally of terror, the Hussein family. And you know what? Despite the doomsayers who said it would be Vietnam (they said the same about Afghanistan), we have lost so few soldiers, and we have destroyed Iraq's ability to hurt us as a nation. Today, Iraqis have the same freedom of speech that we do, as evidence by over 100 free newspapers being started in Iraq. We have set free millions from the brutal rule of tyrants.

Why mention these things on 9/11? The reason is that we fought these battles in the War on Terrorism to avenge and honor those lost to the attacks. This war on terrorism is the vindication of those deaths, and I can think of few better memorials than a free Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it is more than that. 9/11 changed the rules of the world. It is no longer a battle of nation vs. nation or capitalism vs. communism, or even liberalism vs. conservatism; it is now a battle of civilization vs. evil and chaos. It is no less than a battle for our way of life and the cause of freedom around the world we are talking about. If we turn tail and run now, we are practically spitting on the graves of the victims of 9/11 and also the men and women who have died already in helping to secure the blessings of liberty not only to ourselves and our posterity, but also to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot turn tail and run from terror.

We have been attacked. The sleeping giant has been awakened. We cannot allow ourselves to fall asleep again. Civilization hangs in the balance. Hearing the children of the victims reading their names brought this home: if we want them to grow up more secure and free, then we have to keep on fighting. We have to keep on flying our flags and showing the evil ones that we do not run away under adversity. We do not cower. We strike back, and for those people oppressed we bring food, mercy, and freedom.

Our nation was tested on Sept. 11, 2001. We passed that test. We passed with flying colors as people who had no reason to work together did so. We flew our flags and we said our prayers and we pledged allegiance. Now, two years later, we face a test no less great. We face the test of remembering our duty and pledges to honor the victims and bring justice to the evildoers. We face a test of falling back into taking America for granted, of flaunting our freedoms rather than protecting them, of rolling back instead of "Let's Roll." We must pass this test. Civilization and our duty and honor hang in the balance. We owe no less to the victims and the brave men and women who fought to rescue them. We owe no less to the brave souls killed in fighting for freedom already. We must make sure the final chapter is written with vindication, freedom, and glory; we do not want it written with more terrorism and backing down.

God bless each and everyone out there, God bless our soldiers, defending us here and abroad. God bless the firefighters and police officers and their families, both living and sacrificed. God bless our leaders, and may God always bless the United States of America.

Mark

September 11th Tribute

Dear Readers,

Today we mark the second anniversary of a national tragedy. Today we remember our fallen heroes who died in a battle they didn’t know they were fighting. Today we assert that we have not forgotten.

Let’s recall again why we are fighting terrorism all over the globe. On the morning on September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked by radical Islamic terrorists. Two of those jets were rammed into the twin towers of the world Trade Center. A third was slammed into the Pentagon in Washington DC. The fourth plane was aborted in Pennsylvania when passengers resisted the terrorists. The original target for the fourth plane was believed to be either the White House or the Capitol building.

America did not declare war on terrorism. The war was already set forth by radical Muslims who choose cowardice to a straight fight. The war was brought to us by Osama bin Laden and his network of terrorists known as al Qaeda.

Why are we fighting terrorism? We are fighting to preserve freedom and democracy; to protect liberty and justice; and to defend our nation from tyranny and oppression the likes of which the civilized world has never seen throughout history. We are fighting for our survival. We are fighting for our beliefs. We are fighting for our children, so that they may come to cherish our way of life. We are fighting evil.

And we are winning. But we must continue to be vigilant and brave. We must support each other, our families, and our troops defending our great nation. We must continue to reach for excellence and strive for lasting peace for all humankind. We must never grow weary for the good fight must continue until the foe is brought to justice.

What is at stake? If we lose faith and get distracted, we risk the slaughter of innocents and the death of all that we currently take for granted. Our great nation is a country founded in respect for the rights of the individual while maintaining the security of the common good of the populace. We are governed by those whom we have selected and are protected by the rule of law. Within every American, lies the potential for innovation and creativity that can propel us to new heights. Visitors from every nation in the world flock to our shores in hopes of joining us in prosperity and independence.

But we must not fear the forces arrayed against us. Instead, we must continue on and take strength in all that we are, in all the we have been, and in all that we will be. The lesson we must all have learned from the tragedy is that we must all be in this together. And we dare not lower our guard nor naively rely on isolationist policy.

We have a responsibility to protect, defend, and nurture democracy and freedom wherever and whenever a challenge to such is presented. We will overcome any adversity, any obstacle and any source of evil. We have been attacked. All that we hold hope for hangs in the balance.

God bless those who protect us, both at home and abroad. God bless our leaders and those who advise them. God bless our heroes no longer with us, but never forgotten. And God bless America.

MATT

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

More Bombs in Israel Courtesy of Hamas

Matt's Chat: At the risk of being accused of "spewing hate," is the media ready to declare Hamas a terrorist organization?

Mark's Remarks: I am never one to listen to those who spew the hate of those who refuse to listen to us.....I think the media needs to quit treating Arafat as some kind of hero and lambast him for what he is: the biggest obstacle to the peace process in the region. Hamas is not freedom fighters. They are evil. They kill innocent women and children of both Israelis and Palestinians. The media needs to quit being so overly sympathetic to them and paint them as what they are: evil despots who want to continue a war to justify their own homicidal and genocidal tendencies.

Lawmakers Slam NASA Chief for Lack of Space Goal

At his third Capitol Hill appearance since the Aug. 26 release of a highly critical investigators' report on NASA's role in the fatal Columbia accident, O'Keefe told the House of Representatives Science Committee there had been no clear vision for human space flight since the Apollo moon missions of the 1960s and 1970s. "But we have no goals," said Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican. "We're not going to the Moon, we're not going to Mars. ... We have no goals, isn't that true?" This story is by Deborah Zabarenko of Reuters.

Matt's Chat: Methinks that the Congressman has a valid point...

Mark's Remarks: I could not agree more, however, I do not think the NASA chief of present should take all the blame. The space program has been in decline since even before Challenger blew up. The space shuttle, while a most interesting concept, retarded our journeys to other places. We quit going to the moon, we concerned ourselves with fixing satellites and other endeavors. NASA lost its focus on exploration and instead became a cable repair service. We need a rededication to the ideas of exploration and adventure that fueled the space race of the 1960s. While my colleague has made a valid point to me that the shuttle is meant to be used to get us to the space station, etc., I think we need to find something better. We need to get back into the constant improvement of NASA, and not sticking with the status quo.

Turkey Willing to Send Troops to Iraq

This story is by Amberin Zaman of the VOA

Matt's Chat: This is another one of those situations where politics and fear will get in the way of real progress in the region. This will not happen.

Mark's Remarks: I totally agree. But, I hold out hope that it will happen.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: September 11th Anniversary Tribute

Editor's Note: WOW! Go away for a few days and you miss a LOT!!! Abbas resigned; Bush speaks out on Iraq; and Dean is STILL the front-runner for the Dems...what an exciting few days.

Mark and I are back and should get back to normal (although we're more than likely going to be posting later in the day than usual) here in the next few days.

MATT

UPDATE: Depp Backpeddles

Depp said the magazine's piece was an "insanely twisted deformation of my words and intent," in a statement. Stern stands by the story.

The actor said what he meant was that America is a very young country when compared with Europe -- and it's still growing. He said he loves his country and has "great hopes for it."

"It is for this reason that I speak candidly and sometimes critically about it. I have benefited greatly from the freedom that exists in my country and for this I am eternally grateful," he said.

Read the FULL STORY here...

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

NOTE: There will be no commentary today as Mark and Matt are headed to Cleveland for the weekend with some friends.

Palestinian Rift Simmers as Council Meets:

Check out this story about the struggle between Abbas and Arafat.

All the Iraq News You Need

Check out this article about the Pentagon's internal review of their work in Iraq thus far.

Here's an opinion piece about al Qaueda's Iraq agenda.

Bush to explain Iraq.

And finally, Secy. of Defense Rumsfeld inspected some troops in Tikrit. Read all about it here.

Freaks of the Week: Those crazy Texas Democrats from the state legislature "exiled" to New Mexico. Check this story out. Here is another article about the one who came home.

Quote of the Week: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. Kennedy (Democrat, President of the United States)

UPDATE: France says "NO"

Matt says: No surprise here... The UN will not negotiate with the US on this issue. The US will not negotiate with the UN on this issue. Same crapola, different day with UN/US relations. I really don't have a problem with that...
Mark says: Of course it is not a surprise....Didn't France already surrender to Iraq?

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

Russia Considers Iraq Deployment

Russia's defense minister said that he is concerned about the situation in Iraq and that his country would not rule out sending a peacekeeping force to help restore order under U.N. auspices, Russia's Interfax news agency reported Thursday. This story is by Dana Bash, Rym Brahimi, David Ensor, Elise Labott, Barbara Starr and Ben Wedeman of CNN.

Matt's Chat: While other "allies" also consider supporting the Iraq effort, I am not surprised to see Russia among the first to jump on the bandwagon. I still don't think the UN will agree to US terms for a mandate, so I'm pretty sure that this will not come to pass. I agree with those who say that we need more troops - Iraqi troops - in Iraq.

Mark's Remarks: I am not totally confident in Russia either. I hear they are only wanting to participate if they get paid, i.e., more aid to them economically. To me, I would think Russia would want a stable southern border to their vast country, and getting Iraq secure would facilitate that. It looks like the raiders are lining up for a piece of the pie. Shame on Prez Putin for seeking $$$ over the right thing to do. We took most, if not all of the risk in overthrowing Saddam, now Russia wants paid. Give me a break. The Polish are better allies.

Dean's Anti-War Stance Not So Bad After All (?)

Would you have voted to spend $260 billion to bring a better life to a country where American soldiers are being killed standing guard at hospitals and traveling in convoys, killed simply because they are American soldiers? Is this what you get from "foreign policy experience"? Is this why a Democrat — in particular a Democrat who opposed the war — can't beat George Bush? This commentary is by Susan Estrich posted at the Nashville City Paper.com.

Matt's Chat: American soldiers know very well what the risks are. They are the most professional military force on the planet. They are doing their job VERY WELL and this kind of politicization demeans their hard work and dedication for our country. The money isn't important, we'll make more. The important thing is that we did what was neccesary to protect our country and help the people of Iraq throw off the bonds of tyranny and oppression. The "foreign policy experience" of the last administration has caused this nation a LOT of foreign policy DISASTERS, Iraq is one of them. There are plenty more. It is VITAL to our national interests that the power of the United States is understood by our enemies. I believe a first hand "understanding" is what well be most effective. And yes, this is why a Democrat who is opposed to war (I assume this Dean isn't opposed to "all" war, just "this" one.) won't beat the President.

Mark's Remarks: Ms. Estrich is a liberal parrot. All she does is ramble off the same talking points I have heard the radical left bemoaning. My colleague is correct above with his statements. We went farther, faster, and with less casualties than ever in a war, and the liberals were wrong about all the inhumanities and casualties and bogging down. They were wrong, so now they need to denigrate the great work our men and women have done overseas by politicizing this event. You know, we would not even be fighting on two fronts if the previous administration would have minded the foreign policy and not the intern policy. If Clinton would have taken Sudan's 3 or more offers to hand deliver Osama and evidence of his deeds, then 3,000 innocents would have been saved. Of course, Ms. Estrich would rather we take 260 billion and funnel it into the drug of welfare so we can addict more people. You know, Dean is Neville Chamberlain. He is an appeaser. He would have negotiated, and threatened with terrorists, but never would have acted. His domestic and foreign policies scare me more than Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. This man is a socialist extremist, who wants to radically alter America, and the media are trying to portray him as an outsider, like they did Clinton. One thing they have in common: the ability to raise money and take deals from shady characters. Wonder who Dean is promising nuclear secrets to?

Bowling For Truth: Celebrity Tidbits

Britney Spears: "I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."

Jonny Depp: Depp said he wanted his two children, ages 1 and 4, to experience the United States "like it's a kind a toy — a broken toy maybe. Investigate a little bit, check it out, get this feeling and then get out."

Mark Chimes in- Johnny Depp has done too much hash with the Phoenix boys and the Corey Feldmans. He fits in well with the French. Duplicit, snivelling, and drug headed. Great way to teach your kids about the country that made you, Mr. Depp. Go to hell. Can't wait to see you blown to hell in "Once Upon a Time in Mexico." As for Britney Spears, say what you like about her sexuality, but for once she is right on in her views on foreign policy. You go, girl!!!

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

Bush Administration Considers UN Role in Iraq

Two stories today: one by Mike Allen and Vernon Loeb
of the Washington Post and another by Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press.

Matt's Chat: I do not see the UN agreeing to US control of UN forces. Therefore, I see this going nowhere. I hope I am wrong.

Mark's Remarks: I agree with my colleague, but wish to go further. The UN wants control after the hard work is done, of liberating, so they can claim all the credit. Then they will shut us out of profits. The UN needs revamping, the US needs out of the UN, and the UN needs out of America until it can get its act together. It has become an impotent institution controlled by civil rights abusers who chide us for violating rights.

Iraqi Cabinet Takes Oath of Office

Ain't democracy grand? This story is by Reuters

Matt's Chat: This is the exciting news of the day! We are finally seeing a visible Iraqi government. This is such an important, historic step for the people of Iraq.

Mark's Remarks: Hopefully, the Iraqi cabinet can do their part and take a more active role in growing the seeds of democracy and freedom in Iraq, and then we won't have to listen to the pundits cry about us as occupiers instead of what we really are, liberators!!!

Palestinians Rule Out a Vote of No Confidence in Abbas

This story is by the Associated Press.

Matt's Chat: I can't make up my mind whether this dude is a good guy or not. He is certainly better than Arafat, but I'm not so sure that the old "enemy of my enemy" adage quite works here. I can't put my finger on it just yet, but I don't think Abbas is completely trustworthy yet.

Mark's Remarks: I am willing to give anyone a fair shake, as long as it is not Arafat, and it looks like Abbas hates Arafat, which is a step in the right direction. I do not think we should trust him blindly, but we should support him while being vigilant. He might be the person to wake the Palestinians up to the damage Hamas and Arafat have done to their lives.

Coming Attractions: Texas Democrats Boycott of State Legislature

The M Files: The Great American “ism” Debate by Matt Hurley

Reports frequently indicate that other nations are perceiving American action as an indicator of “imperialism.” Rarely does the American media report the facts about American military activity for what it is: benevolent altruism or defense. Of course, portraying Americans as the proverbial good guys, is not fashionable in media circles so the American media chooses not to defend their nation hiding behind what they call objectivity.

The United States has not acted as an imperialist power since its formation from thirteen colonies of a European power. Europeans have been imperialistic throughout history yet you don’t hear the media being too concerned when they deploy. Rather, the media would have us believe that Europe is the savior of the world. France and Germany especially have this high opinion of themselves. Lest we remind them of Napoleon and Hitler, two of the most famous imperialists the world has ever witnessed. Asia isn’t in the clear either. We have to remind them of Emperor Hirohito and Chairman Mao Tse-tung.

Throughout our history, the United States has done what we felt was right, secured the future of democracy, and then turned over control to the rightful owners. I don’t see a star on our flag for Grenada or Haiti (or France for that matter). We fight to protect our interests and way of life and struggle so that all the nations of the world can prosper and be free.

There are those who will point to our annexation of the Philippines as an indicator of our imperialistic intentions. At the turn of the century, Americans were divided over the issue of claiming the Philippines. In 1900, presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made anti-imperialism a major campaign topic. Once defeated by President William McKinley, some concluded that Americans were satisfied with the concept of expansion abroad. The debate raged on well after the election. McKinley felt that turning the Philippines back over to Spain (with whom we were fighting a war) was unwise; would have been bad business to allow France or Germany to take over; feared anarchy would ravage the Philippines if left on their own; thus, he chose to “uplift” them. The point is that the United States did not annex the Philippines for imperialist reasons, but rather (misguided or otherwise) to protect the Philippines from self destruction. This reasoning is quite the height of hubris, but it seemed the wisest course, at the time, to the administration. Especially since there was no United Nations or other multi-national humanitarian organization to govern the Philippines.

Modern American history has proven our desire to protect and defend democracy anywhere and everywhere. Those who seek to tarnish our reputation as altruistic and benevolent champions of freedom and peace, will always try to befuddle our record by constant thrashing, muckraking, and pretense. They do so out of fear and ignorance. Fear of losing what power they hold and ignorance of the American spirit. They confuse confidence for conceit; patriotism with nationalism; and determination for malevolence. We as a people, must espouse our virtue and character at every opportunity; must diligently repel danger and provide sanctuary; and engage in the good fight against tyranny and oppression. As the last superpower, we must exceed the highest standards of morality and conduct. It is a noble obligation that every American must undertake and conquer, whether on the battlefield or in life, in order to achieve true victory and honor. Scandals and villains will appear; we must be vigilant in order to vanquish them. We should expect the questioning of our motive, but we should always respond to that challenge.

Finally, I leave you with this thought: If the United States really were imperialist, Europe would have been conquered by now. After World War II, we would have taken over Europe if that were the case. Instead, we rebuilt Europe and encouraged the formation of the United Nations.

UPDATE: Lieberman Health Plan Would Cost Us the Bush Tax Cut

He acknowledged that his plan is less far-reaching than some of his competitors. "You can't solve all the problems," he said. He would pay for his plan by repealing some of President Bush's tax cuts and making unspecified spending savings. This from the story by Susan Page of USA Today.

Weapons of Mass Discussion is a forum that challenges the liberal media and defends the honor and integrity of America.

Choose your weapon...

N. Korea Softens Stance on Nukes

North Korea said Tuesday that it is willing to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program "through dialogue," in an apparent softening of its stance following last week's six-nation talks in Beijing. This story is by the Associated Press

Matt's Chat: While my collegue will encourage a military pressure (and I do think that is important), I advocate a diplomatic solution. So long as there is REAL PROGRESS being made, I believe strongly that talks should continue. The reality is that we are already engaged in two theatres of operation already (Iraq and Afghanistan) in addition to protecting the homeland. I don't believe that is a good idea to stretch our forces too thinly as action in North Korea would do (in my opinion). The stakes are too high now for direct military action and North Korea knows that.

Mark's Remarks: I think we need to duplicate the Reagan model here of peace through strength. We need to continue to be hardline on North Korea. The Reagan model works! We used it to defeat the Soviets, and we can use it here as well. We need to be willing to take the hard stance, because it has caused already North Korea to waffle on the need for more talks. However, we must not let this become merely a stalling tactic for them to develop more nukes. We need to be strong and determined, plain and simple. REPLY TO MATT'S CHAT: My colleague is correct, and I did not mean to intimate we should simply walk from the bargaining table. I agree that our forces are stretched thin at this point, but at the same time we can show peace through strength not just militarily. We can also bring diplomatic and economic sanctions to bear. This has softened N. Korea in the past. I advocate peace through strength, but not blind charging into war. We have to get them to realize diplomacy is the best option.

Iraq Chaos (?) May Cloud Bush's (?) Sept. 11th Legacy

Two years and two wars after the Sept. 11 attacks, George W. Bush's aura of invincibility has faded and his challenge may be to keep his presidency from being more associated with Americans dying in Iraq than with his dramatic pledge at Ground Zero to battle terrorism. This story is by Adam Entous of Reuters.

Matt's Chat: Unlike Bill Clinton, President Bush isn't worried about his legacy. Bush has lead the country through our darkest of days and has shown himself to be a man of outstanding character and conviction. The fight against terrorism is the single greatest thing a modern-era president has endeavored to accomplish. This task is imperative and just. Failure is not an option because of what is at stake: freedom and liberty, not just of America but for the world. It is a bold statement about the way people address their issues. Terrorism is a cancer for humanity and it must be cured. The losses are tragic, but neccessary, and history will remember President Bush as a dynamic leader who had the strength and courage to fight back.

Mark's Remarks: Mr. Bush cares deeply about our troops. If you have read or heard his thoughts on this matter you must know that. Friends, whether you want to believe it or not, we are in a war for no less than civilization. Terrorists and their ilk seek to turn us back to the 12th century. We cannot let that happen. Unfortunately, war is hell. People die. That is not to lessen their loss. It is tragic, however, look what they have done. They have liberated people from a terrible regime that was akin to Hitler in its evil. Have you seen the mass graves found in Iraq that dwarf those found in the Balkans? Have you not heard about the rape rooms, etc? This guy was pure evil. So was the Taliban. We need to realize that even though he is not the greatest speaker, or the greatest looking chap; that we have the right man in place for the war we are fighting. Mr. Bush, I am sure, would rather focus on other things, but 9/11 changed all that. For better or worse, we are in war: but this war is different. It is not against municipalities or nations, but against hatred and ideas that are flawed, against people scattered and hard to find. It will take time and unfortunately, lives. However, this is a battle that needs to be fought. The fact that folks are continuing to die in Iraq tells me we need to keep fighting to live up to his pledge, rather than turn tail and pull a Somalia-like withdrawal.

Lieberman Proposes Health Care Plan

Lieberman said 31 million of the nation's uninsured will get coverage under his plan. He says his plan will cost less per person than the plans proposed by his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. This story is by the Associated Press

Matt's Chat: This isn't a plan. I saw no plan outlined in this article. This is a campaign promise. And there was no indication in the article on how Mr. Lieberman planned to pay for it. I am against socialized medicine...I'll be curious to see more details on this plan as we learn more.

Mark's Remarks: I must agree with my distinguished colleague, Mr. Lieberman does not put forth a plan. He has not researched it. It is merely another campaign promise. Socialized medicine is not a good thing. If you want a big danger to life and liberty, it is socialized medicine. Read the Clinton health plan. Talk about endangering choice and liberties. Also, look at our friends to the North, and the French in Europe. Both are facing huge healthcare crises. Both engage in socialized medicine. If socialized medicine works, why are so many Canadians coming here for treatment? I have many Canadian friends through my hockey fandom, and they hate their medical system. It is inefficient, and uncaring bureaucracy. People have been turned down for treatment because the government does not want to spend any more money on them. Do we want that to be the case here in America? I do not think so. What we really need is to reform the insurance industry, and to put a stop to the frivolous lawsuits that cause prices to rise with their filings and costs. That would be the greatest boon to healthcare reform.