Tuesday, March 16, 2004
We've moved to Warbloggers Against Kerry. Click here to visit our new home.
posted by Geraldine |
Friday, March 05, 2004
And the North Korean vote goes to... John Kerry!
posted by Geraldine |
The Financial Times reports:
In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's communist regime.
If that doesn't convince you to vote for Bush, nothing will.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Ted "9/11 Widows" Rall -- No Longer Just An Asshole Cartoonist; Now Also a Foreign Policy Expert
posted by Geraldine |
Ted Rall --in a column entitled "In Defense of Radicalism," which sounds like something a college sophomore would come up with for a Poli Sci term paper--has some foreign policy advice for John Kerry:
The problem with the Bush Administration is that its focuses were completely wrongheaded: going after Afghanistan instead of Pakistan, Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, hunting Al Qaeda instead of the Islamic Jihad leaders who carried out the attacks, spying on Americans instead of improving airline security, blaming cave-dwelling "evildoers" rather than reexamining longstanding U.S. relationships with hated puppet regimes. Their actions created new problems while those related to 9-11 remain unaddressed. . . . Should Kerry prevail in the general election, radical solutions will be required to fix Bush's radical mistakes. To stem the bleeding of men and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, he'll need to withdraw our forces as quickly as possible. To get the federal budget back on track, he'll have to eliminate Bush's tax cuts. To restore our international reputation, he'll be forced to release the Guant?namo and other detainees, and apologize to the world for our post-9-11 excesses. Anything less--anything moderate--would be too radical to contemplate.
Okay, where to start:
(1) Pakistan: they have the Bomb, Ted. "Going after" a country with a nuclear arsenal isn't "radical" so much as "radically stupid."
(2) Saudi Arabia: they are our main source of energy and the guardians of the two holiest sites in Islam. So, "going after" them militarily (a) would flush our economy down the toilet, and (b) arouse the righteous anger of virtually every pious Muslim in the world as infidel troops defiled the birthplace of Mohammed. There's no doubt that Saudi Arabia needs a lot of reformation, but fostering democracy next door seems like a much smarter idea than riling up a billion Muslims while simultaneously reliving the glory days of the 1970s energy crises.
(3) "hunting Al Qaeda instead of the Islamic Jihad leaders who carried out the attacks" Two problems: One, WTF are you talking about? Two, the people who carried out the attacks are DEAD. Remember those fiery plane crashes on 9/11/01, Ted?
(4) "reexamining longstanding U.S. relationships with hated puppet regimes" I'd say that Gulf War II was a pretty strong reexamination of our longstanding relationships with several hated puppet regimes and a pretty strong message to boot.
(5) Retreat. Well, I guess that qualifies as "radical." It's also cowardly and would result in two outlaw nations, largely overrun by Al Qaeda and their ilk. So it's also grossly irresponsible, too.
(6) Eliminating tax cuts. Left wingers want to take more of my money and "invest" it in socialized medicine: this is a radical idea? Seems par for the course to me.
(7) Releasing the Gitmo detainees and "apologizing" to the world. Dear World, we're sorry that we rounded up these murderous scumbags. As a symbol of our regret, please allow us to fly these fine young gentlemen back to Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Marseilles, and Sheffield.
You know, it's funny, but the more the radical left talks, the more they sound like Pat Buchanan.
posted by Geraldine |
Okay, first things first, there's no new blog. I, and maybe we, am sticking with WMI. As you might have heard, Warmongering Illustrated accomplished its primary goal of unseating the nasty Mr. Hussein. Yet, we know that the war on terror--or, more properly, the war on thugocracies that breed terror--is far from over. Our next objective, among others, is to ensure the reelection of President Bush, the only candidate who seems to understand that America is the only nation strong enough, and well-intentioned enough, to change this world for the better. Take heart, left-wing friends, for the sooner President Bush accomplishes his goal of promoting peace and freedom around the world, the sooner you can get back to electing crooked-dicked weasels from Arkansas and making a fortune off of technological breakthroughs that would've never been possible had we taken your standard advice and "invested" in even more wealth transfers to old farts, trial lawyers, and the teachers' unions.
Second, check out the opening line from The Independent's (a left wing British newspaper whose subscriber base consists of 37 college professors) lead story on John Kerry:
If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, [sic] [Is that near Bogota? - Ed.] could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide.
And the funny thing is, I don't think that The Independent realizes that, from any objective viewpoint, this statement is an indictment of John Kerry's candidacy. After all, the vast majority of the human race has made, as the Brits would say, "a dog's breakfast" out of their countries. Thus, even if you (naively) assumed that the rest of the human race would make a good faith effort to vote for the best presidential candidate, would polling your average Third Worlder (who would, statistically speaking, represent the average member of the "human race") actually prove persuasive as to the proper policies for the United States and, indeed, the world?
Second, and more importantly, much of the "human race" either (a) hates us--e.g., the Middle East; or (b) merely envies us and would like to take us down a peg or two--e.g., France. In either case, the fact that John Kerry seems to be much more palatable to the "human race" than George Bush strikes me as a HUGE reason NOT to vote for Kerry.
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Worst Editorialist Ever
posted by Josh |
No, it's not us, even though we've ditched you for a week and a half. Its MoDo, Maureen Dowd. Fisking her is like kicking a puppy, taking candy from a baby, (pick your cliche), etc, but it must be done. So here it is:
Buried in the rubble of Riyadh are some of the Bush administration's basic assumptions: that Al Qaeda was finished, that invading Iraq would bring regional stability and that a show of American superpower against Saddam would cow terrorists.
(1) So you were expecting that it would all happen in a month? Have some faith. Even Rome wasn't built in a day, and Rome sucks. This is the biggest flaw of the naysayers: they assume that the fact that good things don't happen immediately means that they will never happen. The fact that terrorists are operating in Saudi Arabia is not surprising, considering the fact that the whole 'country' is run by terrorists. We'll beat the Saudis at their own game sooner or later. The war in Iraq never had the promise of total stability in the Mid-East (and was never promised to be such). However, when you look at how Syria has bent over to us lately, you can see that the region is much more stabile for our efforts. The Iraq War was not a cure-all, but it sure was a huge band-aid.
(2) As far as 'cowing' terrorists: How many Al Qaeda attacks have taken place on American soil since 9/11? By my count, none. If they get some people in Riyadh, that is more an example of their weakness than their strength. They'd get us in New York or LA if they could. For the time being, they can't.
Bob Graham, the Florida senator running for president, said at the Capitol yesterday that Iraq had been a diversion: "We essentially ended the war on terror about a year ago. And since that time, Al Qaeda has been allowed to regenerate."
Right...So did the regeneration of those terrorist bastards include the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a half a dozen other guys I can't name, and the busting up of a bunch of Al Qeada in Iraq? Cuz that's what has happened in the last year, after the war on terror has 'ended'. Look, Bob (MoDo), I realize that the only tenable political ground is to the right of Bush on the national security issue, but at least try to make sense when you charge that he hasn't handled the terror war correctly. If you have a point, I'll listen to it. If you're playing the Hate Bush Game at the expense of national security (which is what you are doing), I'll turn a deaf ear, along with the rest of the electorate.
Doing a buddy routine with Rummy yesterday in Washington, as the defense secretary accepted an award, Vice President Dick Cheney was as implacable as ever. "The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it," he said. So destroy it.
Fine, except every time the Bush clan tries to stop terrorism, MoDo writes a column about how they're doing it the wrong way (too hard, too soft, not enough right). When it comes down to it, I'm not sure that she wouldn't like to see terrorism go on, just so she could sell more papers. She typifies limousine liberalism - all she really cares about is who is in office, not what is getting done. Whenever she wants to advocate what is actually best for the country, let me know. I'll be interested to know when Hell froze over.
Britain Stands Alone, Yet Again
posted by Josh |
God has smiled upon the fair islanders yet again and has decided that they shall not replace the Pound with the Euro.
I'm no economist, so I shan't (British, get it?) comment on the economic ramifications of British decision to not adopt the Euro (although my gut feeling is that the Euro has about the same staying power as the American dot-coms of the late-90s). No, my comment is more to praise the independence of the United Kingdom, and the courage she displays by keeping her distance from The Continent.
If you haven't noticed, things could be better in Greater Paris. There's a good bit of infighting, and as far as I can tell, no one on the Continent has the slightest clue how to run the Continent. And, suffice to say, they surely do not know how to run the world, having picked the wrong side in the latest fight. Moreover, they've all chosen the worst path that any freedom-loving person could choose - joining the EU. Knowing their history, the fact that the Continentals have thrown away their freedom to choose isn't surprising (especially the half-fascist French), but joining the EU goes above and beyong. The EU is no NAFTA. NAFTA - for all its faults - basically just opened borders. The EU, on the other hand, is a legally binding organization which can unilaterally rule on such minutiae as the height of British swing sets. Indeed, EU laws can even supplant those drawn up by duly-elected MPs in the House of Commons.
Britain made a huge mistake when they gave up their rights to the meddling bureaucrats of the EU. They should be glad that the haven't sullied their island yet further by taking on the currency of an undemocratic organization.
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Take Our Readers, Please: Referrer Log Follies, Pt. III
posted by Geraldine |
Another day, another perv visits WMI. Check it out:
Look, if you want "pics" of Iraqi prostitutes, that's your business. But why on earth would one think that Warmongering Illustrated would be a likely place to find them?
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
posted by Josh |
WSJ's Best of the Web has a good synopsis of why radical anti-war views get no political play - and the real reasons behind them - all while taking Howard Dean down a peg. Looks like they're three for three.
Dean made a lot more sense [a the debate] on Saturday than he had in the past--but this is actually a drawback for his campaign. Dean's appeal is to the demented wing of the Democratic Party--the folks whose entire worldview centers on the delusion that President Bush "stole" the election. These people sympathized with Dean's pro-Saddam stance not because they care one way or the other about Iraq, but because in their minds the freedom of the Iraqi people and the security of the world were worth sacrificing in order to deny Bush a political victory. By bowing to reality, Dean can't help but alienate his base, and it's unlikely he picked up many sentient Democrats' votes either. He may be destined to join Kucinich, Moseley Braun and Sharpton in the novelty category.
At Berkeley, everyone is accepted for who they are...unless you are from a country that has SARS
posted by Tucker |
This is not really a war-related rant, but it does show the hypocrisy of one of the largest antiwar voices. The University of California at Berkeley will turn away new students from SARS infected countries like China, Taiwan, and Singapore. Now, I'm not necessarily against the University's decisions. I think it may be the prudent thing to do for the time being, but I am not sure why the students at Berkeley (i.e. the recent antiwar crowd) support the decision (besides the fact that they are stupid hippies). I can venture a guess, though. They seem to be worried about a virus that kills 2% of the population (granted, that's 2% too much), but are vehemently against containing fascist regimes’ bio-weapons and viruses that are close to 100% fatal. My guess is that the antiwar hippies at Berkeley are not worried about a chemical or biological attack because people like Saddam consider them allies. Did the Nazis kill the Vichy collaborators? No, they used them to solidify their hold over France in WWII. Now, I'm sure the hippies will claim, "It's not our policy - it's the school's decision, and we are powerless to stop them." And yet given the fact that the antiwar crowd is full of professional protesters, I have not seen or heard any news of them protesting the University's decision. Because they are not on the frontline (NYC, DC, etc.) they could care less about the 9-11 type risks a lot of us have to deal with. They are not worried about those kinds of attacks. But when it comes down to saving their own hides, they're all in favor of containment.
Monday, May 05, 2003
The Color of War
posted by Josh |
Dennis Miller has a great response in the Wall Street Journal (login required) to Norman Mailer and everyone else on the Left who divide people based on the color of their skin:
You know something, the only "race" that really occurred to me during the war was our Army's sprint to Baghdad. Conversely, Mr. Mailer appears to see just race in our armed forces, right down to the "Super-Marines," as he calls them. It seems that Mr. Mailer notices color in people even when they're wearing camouflage. He then goes on to speak about racial subsets in the world of sports. Now, when I watch baseball, football and basketball, I see uniforms and skills. Mr. Mailer evidently sees races and nationalities. He's like a Casey Stengel/William Shockley hybrid. "Why'd you send the rook' back to Triple A, Skip?" "Well, he was gettin' around on the fast ball but he still couldn't hit the bell curve."
Ironically, Mr. Mailer seems to see everything in the world in terms of black and white, except of course, good and evil.