Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Monday, September 13, 2004
How this will all play out should John Kerry be elected is anyone's guess. Looking back on the Clinton years I think (though times have changed) that attacks on the CiC and demeaning his position in the face of our enemies is a win/win situation for the Democrats because they may not have to worry about the same kind of hate from the right as comes from the left. Even at the height of Kosovo and Mogadishu few would have compared Clinton to Hitler, but such is pretty mainstream among "peace activists" today.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
They destroyed a rocket at UMCADS on Wednesday. An M55 sarin gas filled rocket. It was just one rocket among 100,000 stored in the
It was only one rocket, and a few more the next day. But each and every one makes a difference. Each and every rocket destroyed is one less piece of chemical weaponry on the face of this planet.
One rocket among thousands. Not a big deal, but it’s a start. This got me to thinking about
What is known is that it existed and there is no sign that it was ever destroyed. These several dozen are the first steps. So far in
It may be decades before Saddam’s stockpiles of chemical weapons are ever accounted for, it took half a century to find the weapon and fighter stockpile under the Berlin airport, and there are likely hundreds of chemical weapons off the coast of the US that haven’t been found. It doesn’t mean none of it existed while we knew nothing about it. A young airman found that out the hard way.
We know it has been over a decade under UN authority and none of it was accounted for. Under Coalition authority we have found more than the UN ever did, and as a pleasant side-effect the Coalition has prevented the future murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whereas under UN authority hundreds of thousands were murdered.
The Coalition is doing something useful in the world, just like the chem. Demil workers at UMCADS, one piece at a time.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
The Democrats have an image problem where defense and war are concerned. They’re seen as week on defense, weak on the War on Terror, and weak on attacking
Problem is that a majority of military folk, my opinion, based on nine years AD, and bunches of vet friends and family (even the Democrats among them), believe the Democrats are weak on matters pertaining to defense, war, the military and terrorism. The most damning, however, is that Democrat strategists, Kerry’s advisors, and the mainstream media seem to agree with that view. Look at their actions not their words. They are constantly urging Kerry to run on the economy and to get away from
It seems to me that the Democrats are not only weak on the most important topics this country faces today, but readily admit it in their actions.
I want to match my contribution but I can't. The truth is I really couldn't afford the small amount I did contribute. Right now things are very hard for me and my family, we're struggling to make ends meet. I'm working away from home, and though I have the opportunity to go home once a month we don't have the money for me to visit my family except every other or every third month.
Be that as it is, as a veteran and the son of a Vietnam veteran who was spat upon by people who supported his cause, and who was villified by John Kerry, his compatriots, and supporters I cannot sit idly by while someone like that tries to become commander in chief of the very kind of people he has shown such a disparaging attitude towards.
I don't know whether the Democrats or the Republicans could foster an environment that would make me more financially secure. I do know which party has managed to bring the pride back to veterans and active duty GIs. I do know which party has never villified and demonized american servicemen and women. I do know which party has shown a greater propensity to keeping this nation able to defend itself, and to project power overseas to fight our enemies on their turf.
By the time our finances allow much besides bills and food the election will be done. Until then I will wish you well.
Most sincerest regards,
Kalroy (real name on e-mail, nickname on post)
On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald’s A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft.
Not damning, until you read the next line:
Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.
So you've got to wonder why this article doesn't seem to have any traction in the MSM (Mainstream Media). Okay, you don't actually have to wonder, we know why. This makes America's "traditional allies" not just look bad, but points out collusion with America's enemies, and puts lie to the French claim that they're our friends and shows that they're friends with America's enemies. Obviously their actions show their words to be a lie, but not according to those whose politics, agenda, or progressive beliefs require that they not acknowledge the falacy of aligning with France.
France has been shown to have great interest in stopping the war in Iraq from happening, and in Saddam Hussein winning. There are the $70 billion plus oil contracts with government owned TotalfinaElf (french oil company) and now the multi-million, if not multi-billion, dollar armaments trade that the French had with Saddam Hussein.
Now France has been opposing any action in Darfur. Turns out they again have money and oil interests that require the genocidal regime remain in power. Of course they've been acting against saving lives, yet again.
Turns out it's all about oil and money for France, more so than it could ever be with the US.
Whoops. Rantburg doesn't seem to reference the article, my bad.
Nope didn't work. Oddly what ended up working was shutting down my IMs. Could be coincidental. Either way, pretty much peeved me off.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
If not for the Iraqi blogs and the Milblogs, we'd never know what the hell was happening in Iraq beyond the death toll. Mind you, that's more than we get to find out about the happenings in Afghanistan, and try finding about the death toll in Kosovo (I found one article from Jan 2004). The death toll in all three are horrible in that any death is horrible, and American deaths more so (for me). But the successes show hope, they scream that so long as we keep our resolve we can win this dang thing. But God forbid the US should win, at least that seems to be the attitude I get from some.
Update: I chopped and re-wrote the start of the article. One day I'll go ahead and actually write drafts, re-write, proof-read, blah, blah, blah...
Saturday, September 04, 2004
I am curious as to why former policy aid and Democratic speechwriter Jesse Moss was chosen. After doing a google search I don't find any other political work by him than Right Wing Hollywood and I don't know what that movie is like.
Should I expect the show to be biased and predjudicial in a leftward direction? Would a Republican be biased and predjudicial in the other direction? Maybe they should've had a libertarian do it, they can't stand either party.
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt.
I find it irritating that someone like Kerry would commandeer an insult that he probably learned from one of his cronies, and had never heard himself, and probably doesn't really understand.
Friday, September 03, 2004
I watched the GOP convention fairly closely, and I don't recall hearing Kerry's patriotism attacked. In fact, I heard several speakers explicitly praise Kerry for his service to his country. On the other hand, blasting those who received student deferments as "refusing to serve when they could have" does strike me as an attack on their patriotism.
I agree. I also watched Kerry's speech right after the convention and I got kinda pissed that he would attack President Bush's service when all Bush has done is praise Kerry's service. It's Kerry's peers from Vietnam who question Kerry's record. I don't remember anyone questioning Kerry's patriotism. Granted perhaps the Bush Girls (still not tired of that phrase) attacked his patriotism, I wouldn't know, I couldn't stand to watch them anymore than a I could a tv commercial; BORING. So if they did I would have missed it.
Perhaps Kerry used a Lapham machine and reviewed the text of the speeches that way, rather than studying them himself. Perhaps Michael Moore wrote the speech for him. I'm thinking that what is likeliest is the kind of projection I've been seeing from the left for a while now. It's the kind of thing Kerry and the Democrat Coalition would say, so they assume that's what Bush would say. Perhaps that explains Boston Democrat strategist Mary Anne Marsh's attack. I have friends who, unlike Bush, Kerry, Edwards or Cheney, volunteered for the active duty army, and during Vietnam, who ended up serving his whole stint in Germany. She thinks he betrayed his country.
The purple heart band-aid thing at the Republican National Convention was in poor taste, it was stopped very quickly by the RNC chairman. I noticed most news outlets utterly failed (or chose not) to mention that part. Myself, I'm not as classy as Bush, or the RNC Chairman. I thought the band aid was pretty funny. Especially since I removed a metal splinter, a jagged bit of steel, from my hand just the other day, whose dimensions matched the one Kerry got a purple heart for. Certainly it's nothing compared to the shrapnel that ripped my father's kidney out in Vietnam.
Kerry attacking Bush's military service brings up another point. You'd never know without the blogosphere, that Kerry wanted to have more in common with Bush and Cheney regarding military service, but his luck in those days didn't seem very good. He wanted to get yet another education deferment, like Cheney did, after getting a couple others so he could leave the US to study. When that didn't come through he joined the Reserves, kinda like Bush. When he got stationed in Vietnam he volunteered for the least dangerous service he could find there, but once again his bad luck kicked him in the butt, and after he volunteered the swiftboat mission changed and became a dangerous line. I guess that was the point he decided to stop trusting on his luck and trusting more in his subterfuge and lack of honor.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
ZELL MILLER: It's funny that the purest voice of Jacksonian America at this Republican convention -- in fact, at either convention -- comes from a Democrat. There was a time when it wouldn't have been surprising at all.
meshes nicely with what I thought of Zell Miller. Steve den Beste writes about Mead's Jacksonianism in America. A must read.
Update: Some idiot came to my site looking for Zell Miller Hate Monger. Idgit.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
From the Democrats I get a party platform which, like the Republicans, is not talked about much during the convention. Unlike the Republicans, however, the Democrat platform is the antithesis to what the movers and shakers believe, support and endorse. The Democrats don't have room for a pro-life key speaker at their convention. They don't have room for Democrats who argainst racial quotas.
What I see from the Republicans is their "big tent" in action. What I see from the Democrats is their "big tent" in words only. Actions speak louder than words, and watching the Democrats claim tolerance but practice bigotry does not go unnoticed by me. It has been this attitude by them that pushed me out of the party.