Raving Conservative


Wednesday, June 21, 2006


Multiple subjects this time.

1: We now have proof that we did, in fact, find WMD’s in Iraq. In a recently declassified DOD document we are told that we have found stores of chemical weapons including Sarin and Mustard Gas shells. We are also told that this is just a sample of what we have found. On a personal note, this report is fully in line with what my fellow soldiers were telling me while I was still in the Army. They kept saying that the line that we did not find WMD’s was bullspit and that the only reason it wasn’t in the news was because we were finding them in small amounts scattered across the country rather than in a single massive cache.

In the kind of stupidity I have been bothered by, George Bush has not bothered to use the truth to silence his critics, preferring for some inexplicable reason to let people scream lies about him, his administration, or military, and the war in Iraq without countering with the proof that would expose them all as weak kneed defeatists who are just undermining America in a desperate bid to gain personal power. If I were President I would be everywhere with this news, with the incontrovertible proof of Saddam Hussein’s dealings with Al Qaeda, and every other bit of proof that exposes the lies of the political left in this country.

2: The UN has recently voted to allow commercial whaling. Ignoring the lessons of the past that whales do not reproduce at a rate that allows a sustainable commercial harvest the UN, in its typical retarded and careless manner has voted to allow commercial whaling again. The US opposed the measure which was supported by China and Denmark. This is a sad day for conservationists, real environmentalists, and environut activists as well. The only question that remains is whether the UN will see the error of its way in this instance before the species that are now allowed to be commercially harvested are depleted beyond recovery. Judging by the UN’s record, I doubt it.

3: San Francisco. Enough said.

4: The ACLU opposes a so called “Church” protesting outside the funerals of homosexuals and AIDS victims. However, they support these same nut cases protesting outside military funerals chanting the same anti-homosexual hate. Apparently the ACLU only supports free speech as long as it directed at people the ACLU hates.

5: On the same note, the ACLU supports suppressing the free speech rights of private citizens as long as these citizens are talking about Jesus. They are fully behind a Nevada school that cut the mic when their valedictorian, a student whose right to speak about religion is protected free speech under existing law as interpreted by the courts mentioned Jesus. Their claim? A Communist argument that this independent citizen, not under government employment is actually an agent of the state. Remember, Communism calss every private citizen an agent of the state. And people say the ACLU has abandoned its Communist roots. What a laugh!

6: Frank Murkowski, despite common belief, has done exactly what I predicted. He is running for reelection as Governor of Alaska. The election just got nasty, and I cannot be in it. It is a bittersweet day for me. On the one hand I am once again proven right about the course of politics. I swear I could have a successful career as a campaign manager or political strategist. On the other hand, I am unable to put it to work the way I had hoped this election cycle. I so could have won . . .


  • Whaddya know, I just linked to a post on this . . . "[ . . . ] 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988."

    This is what we went in to protect ourselves against? Because I have to agree that this is probably a sample of what's there to be found . . . useless old caches of obsolete weapons that nobody remembered or cared about. The whole case for WMDs was built on 'we know there was something somewhere ten years ago that the government has failed to fully account for' -- they just managed to make it sound more threatening by selective emphasis and omission. This from the government that found most of a WMD program at the bottom of a lake in Maryland and couldn't explain how it got there.

    The reason the Bush administration isn't out trumpeting this story is because this is the kind of story that proxy propagandists are for. If cornered, those who started this hype-fest can claim they were just making a rhetorical point, and most bloggers who repeat the claim will never bother to print the full story, if they even see it. Everywhere one minute, gone the next, and in the meantime the poll results for 'Were we right to invade Iraq?' get another bump . . . just when They Who Started the War could use it.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 1:07 AM  

  • Good morning from England. Here is a bit of commentary ...

    1. Why haven't we heard anything abiut these alleged WMD then? Tony Blair would be telling the world if they had found anything to justify the illegal war that has seen his approval rating plummet! And can you link to some proof about Saddam and Al Quaeda? Saddam is of course a vile evil murdering dictator (whose type are to be found in charge of many countries in the world) but I still don't believe he is linked to terrorism? Genocide for sure, I'll accept that. He's still an evil bastard that deserves locking up until he's dead.

    2.Screw the UN on the whaling issue! It's all about money and not conservation! I like animals more than people these days...

    3.What happened in San Francisco? I have no idea!

    4. Is this 'church' Phelps' one? The man is a proper **** and shouldn't be allowed to 'protest' against anything. Surely there must be a way to jail the evil **** for his hateful behaviour? I really don't understand how he can link God hating gay people to soldiers getting blown up in a war. He's always been twisted but that defies even Phelps-Logic!

    5. I don't have any prior knowledge of this ACLU as it seems very American and doesn't affect my life. That's not to say that it's not worth getting annoyed about.

    6. Elections are nasty. Politicians are mostly in it for their own egos, which is a shame.

    Good day to you!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 2:20 AM  

  • Catastrophile,

    This munitions store, which your link ASSUMES was forgotten and obsolete was actually fuly functioning and lethal. There is also no proof that it was forgotten about. Rather, the fact that it was buried rather than stored in a proper muntions bin indicates that it was deliberately hidden. Of course, oponents of the war WOULD say anything to make this news seem trivial. And by the way . . . this is not all of it according to the EOD soldiers I have spoken to.


    "Why haven't we heard anything abiut these alleged WMD then?"

    Probably because the classified military documents belonged to the US, not England. Then again, maybe the liberal press in England jusy really doesn't anybody to know about it for fearthat opinion about the war may change.

    "Screw the UN on the whaling issue!"

    Oh, screw the UN on a LOT of issues. they are pretty much worthless, and they are thoroughly corrupt.

    "What happened in San Francisco? I have no idea

    in the last year San Fransisco has 1: defied state law by issuing same sex marriage licences, which were later all annuled by the most liberal court in America. 2: Banned all handguns within city limits so that now only lawbreakers have them. Violent crime has since risen as it always does when this happens in the US. 3: Banned all military recruiters from all schools. 4: openly declared it will defy the federal government and refse to enforce federal immigration laws. And the list goes on.

    "Is this 'church' Phelps' one?"

    Yes, the hate mongering bigot. And as far as God hating homosexuals goes, God does nate hete people, He hates sin. He loves all people, otherwise He would not have come in the person of Jesus Christ so that all may be saved if they will just believe an obey.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:56 AM  

  • Daniel: Fox News, Powerline, and the Department of Defense all seem to disagree with your assessment. If this is a conspiracy to make Gee-Dub look bad, it must run pretty deep.

    "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." --Iraq Survey Group, Final Report

    If you've got a source that differs with that conclusion, I'll be happy to take a look.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 11:55 AM  

  • Even if a few old unused weapons turned up now the war would still be a total disaster! can see how people really want it to have all been good but unfortunately it's a nightmare in Iraq!

    Are you really surprised that there is a market for gay marriage in San Francisco? I mean, have you been there? :-) And about guns, well guns seem to be an American pastime!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 2:50 PM  

  • "The ACLU opposes a so called 'Church' protesting outside the funerals of homosexuals and AIDS victims. However, they support these same nut cases protesting outside military funerals chanting the same anti-homosexual hate."

    Has there been a case where the ACLU went to court to bar the Phelpsies from protesting at a funeral? Or by 'opposes' do you mean 'disagrees with'?

    Is this a case of actual double-standard, or one of "I think you're wrong, but I support your right to be wrong"?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 2:53 PM  

  • Catastrophile, catastrophile, boy oh boy. Another lefty who doesn't believe we are in a war against radical Islam. I agree with Dan on this one. Hope you are not one of the 'cut and run' crowd. The Clinton Adm believed that there were WMD's and preached war against Saddam. Of course the left is known for talking tough and doing nothing.

    By Blogger Rick's Corner, at 6:11 PM  

  • "Another lefty who doesn't believe we are in a war against radical Islam."

    Not only does this have nothing to do with anything on this thread, it's also quite funny. If we're at war against radical Islam, why exactly did we pull troops out of Afghanistan -- and give Pakistan and Saudi Arabia 'valued ally' status -- and instead attack what was arguably the most secular regime in the Arab world?

    Now Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic terrorism. Now people are attacked for wearing jeans or shorts in public, women for showing their faces. Because the policymakers were more interested in privatizing the government-run industries and rewriting the tax and foreign investment laws (so the big multinationals could move in and take over) than in turning the government over to the Iraqis. We played our hand early on, when Jay Garner was fired for wanting to hold elections within 90 days. This all happened. Look it up.

    This war was not about radical Islam. We bailed out on that war when we went into Iraq. This war was about neocolonialism, pure and simple. Set up a government which is so dependent on our presence that we can never leave without creating void which will cause the country to implode.

    "Hope you are not one of the 'cut and run' crowd."

    If by 'cut and run' you mean 'stop trying to pacify a hostile population with automatic weapons' I suppose you could label me as such. But that doesn't mean leaving Iraq to fall apart completely. To assume that the only two options are continuing down this failed path or abandoning Iraq completely is fallacious. That's just what the Reeps want people to believe.

    The Clinton Adm believed that there were WMD's and preached war against Saddam.

    And the Reeps thought Monica was more important.

    Incidentally, I love how you guys now hold up "Clinton said it" as proof of the veracity of a statement. Some of the most notorious falsehoods in modern political history came out of his mouth, and now you hold him up as the standard of truth. Madeline Albright argued that all the Iraqi children starving to death under UN sanctions were 'worth it' -- are you going to defend that premise next?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 8:44 PM  

  • Catastrophile mentions that Iraq is now Islamist teroor Central and said "why exactly did we pull troops out of Afghanistan -- and give Pakistan and Saudi Arabia 'valued ally' status -- and instead attack what was arguably the most secular regime in the Arab world?" ...

    ... and that is a valid point. It's all about who are the west's friends because of what business they can do with us. Pretty much all of these folks who get caught up in Islamist terrorism seem to have been trained or recruited in Pakistan. And Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record. Absolutely disgusting! But then they don't have the oil in Pakistan and the west does a lot of business with the rich Arabs... Hmmm...

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 4:42 AM  

  • Regarding who we consider allies and enemies in the middle east.

    It is my opinion that America's list of true allies is very short. It includes Israel, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Austrailia. most of the rest seem to fall into one of 3 other categories: reluctant allies, false friends, and outright enemies. This is, of course, based upon the actions and opinions of the population as well as the governments of the various nations. While it is safe to say that Isreael is America's staunchest ally, possibly out of need, the United Kingdom is Amrica's longest ally, a distiction formerly held by France before they went anti-American.

    Why do I say all of this? Note that there are no Arab countries at all on this list. Also, note the inference that they are a primary cause of Israel standing with America so staunchly. Arab countries are loyal first and foremost to Arab countries of the same Muslim sect, second to all other Muslim nations. I have yet to see sufficient evidence that any arab nation is inclined to adopt American ideals of freedom. Indeed, American ideals are a HUGE reason so many Muslims are seeking our destruction. I do not trust Saudi Arabia, and I detest it's human rights record. I do not trust UAE, and I do not trust any other Muslim nation. After all, it is okay for a Muslim to lie to an infidel, so we non-Muslims must never turn our back on our Muslim "allies" or we shall find a dagger planted squarely between our shoulderblades.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:32 AM  

  • You can bet that if that student in story 4 or 5 or whatever had been praising Allah instead of God it would have been considered a great speech, regardless of the content. Instead however they cut her off for even mentioning God.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 3:02 PM  

  • ... and that is a valid point. It's all about who are the west's friends because of what business they can do with us. Pretty much all of these folks who get caught up in Islamist terrorism seem to have been trained or recruited in Pakistan. And Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record. Absolutely disgusting! But then they don't have the oil in Pakistan and the west does a lot of business with the rich Arabs... Hmmm...

    Even assuming that what you're saying is true then look at it another way. Would you really want to endanger our oil income, which we use to run our tanks an planes? Look of COURSE we don't go to war with our trading partners. It's not sinister or evil, it's basic stratagy. Countries you can't beat with force you beat with economics. That's what we did with the USSR. And why is it that liberals always want to pull out of Iraq yet boo us for NOT going into other Mid-East countries. It's because you will criticize anything and everything we choose to do, even if it makes your arguement contridictory.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 3:07 PM  

  • "Look of COURSE we don't go to war with our trading partners. It's not sinister or evil, it's basic stratagy."

    Ex. Act. Ly.


    The war was not about fighting radical Islam or liberation or self-defense or Saddam's crimes, it was about strategy. It was about strategic advantage. It was about trading partners and economic circumstance. Money.

    Similarly, when the same people now in the White House made the decision to turn a blind eye to Saddam's use of chemical in the 1980s, that wasn't because we had anything against the Iraqi Kurds, it was a strategic decision.

    So pardon us if we question this administration when it starts making anybody and everybody it doesn't like sound like a mortal threat and singling out this regime or that as a target because they're evil, when it's just been stated as plain as day that the standard for regime change is nothing to do with morality or security or anything like it. It's all about economic strategy.

    So, darksaturos, do you think our strategists will let democracy flourish in Iraq if that translates into 'kick out the Americans and nationalize the oil'? Would our strategy be better-served by an Arab democracy, or by an authoritarian government that keeps the markets open to our investors?

    And don't try to tell me that now that they have a parliament everything's gonna be democratic . . . Saddam held elections. Iran holds elections. I'm pretty sure Pakistan does too.

    ". . . you will criticize anything and everything we choose to do, even if it makes your arguement contridictory."

    Everything "we" choose to do? No. But I grant you, every assertion made by the "strategic" minds who make policy these days is automatically suspect, for the very reason you gave -- because they never tell us the real reasons why they're doing what they do, they leave us to sort that out for ourselves. So if some people simplistically decide "it's all about oil" you'll have to forgive them, they're just spotting one obvious common thread and taking it for the whole story, the same way the people who argue "it's all about radical Islam" are doing. Or those who claim "the whole world's just jealous because we're so rich and free here."

    People all see the one little part they want to see, because the one thing everybody seems to understand is that the administration's not giving us the whole story, and our prejudices are left to fill in the blanks. You obviously think the rest of the story is something about bringing freedom to the world. I think we're being ruled by some greedy motherfathers who think the power of our military entitles them to tell the whole world what to do, and who use that power to make themselves richer and more powerful. I think that in their minds, a dictator will do as well as a democracy, and in some cases will do much better.

    Does that mean I hate America? No. I hate hijackers, same as you. We just differ on which ones are the most dangerous.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 5:55 PM  

  • The fact that the leftists commenting here do not recognize that the new threat to Western Civilization is Radical Islam is nothing new. Actually I find the long winded supposedly smirk intellectual style retorts quite common from that corner. Neo seems to be the fav prefix. I like NEO too. Nova,Eggs and Onions, but that is another story.

    Communism, Facism and Nazism were not considered threats by the left until it was past the time of crisis, and we were lucky to prevail. Let's hope with the political left's sabotaging of the War on Terror with their willing accomplices in the media, that we are not all saying Allah Akbar in the near future.

    By Blogger Rick's Corner, at 11:12 AM  

  • Rick, you don't seem to have much of a clue what you're talking about. Foreign interventionism used to be a wholly liberal doctrine -- conservatives were largely isolationist.

    "Neoconservative" was a name adopted by people who wanted to couple liberal interventionism with laissez-faire domestic policy. This has been a big political hit, for precisely the same reason that it's been extremely destructive to our economy and culture -- fundamentally, it's allowed for a simultaneous growth of government and decline in social investment, the worst of both worlds.

    I realize it's easier to walk around crying about how everybody hates America because we're so great than to actually look past the political propaganda and find underlying causes, but you might give it a try sometime.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 12:45 PM  

  • "it's been extremely destructive to our economy"

    What economy areyou living in? Stocks are recovered, the GDP is up. Wages are up. Unemployment is waaaay down. Small business is booming. Property values continue to climb. Total economic growth is one of the highest in teh world. Tax revenues are up while tax rates are down. Every indicator that exists says the economy is excellent. Our economy is doing very well.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:23 PM  

  • Well, I'm talking about the last thirty-forty years, which is the timeframe in which neoconservatism has come to power, which has seen increasing poverty, an expanding gap between rich and poor, and an acceleration of unsustainable consumption.

    In any event, looking at the economy in terms of stock values misses the whole point. The point of an economy is the flow of goods and services, not the accumulation of wealth. These days we like to focus on how big the winners are and ignore the fact that increasing numbers of people are left out of the game completely. Unemployment numbers, for example, don't include those who have given up even looking for a job, or those who simply aren't making enough to live on.

    This is part of the problem: the indicators we focus on all tend to measure things which tell us very little about what's going on. The total volume of money changing hands every year doesn't really reflect how "well" the economy is doing.

    Similarly, noting that "tax revenues are up while tax rates are down" tells us very little. Presumably, you're implying that this reflects prosperity, but is that the only explanation?

    More and more Americans are stuck paying the AMT every year, so while "tax rates" are ostensibly down, many find themselves paying more taxes -- err, creating more revenue.

    Similarly, since the tax system is still fairly progressive, increased revenues also point to the upward redistribution of wealth under this administration by means of government contract, and the increasing wage disparity as workers are laid off, jobs moved to cheaper shores, and executives award themselves ever-larger bonuses and retirement packages . . . this also leads to increased tax revenue, since the CEO will pay more taxes on his $50 million annual salary than the thousand workers who could have lived on that for a year would have.

    And, first and foremost, you have an administration running a staggering deficit, with most of that money going to defense contractors. Just the most notorious name, Halliburton, is up something like 600% based on its government contracts. Is it any wonder that stock values are high? Where Slick Willy had the Internet bubble, Gee-Dub has the Deficit bubble.

    What's more, I keep hearing about how projections of future budgets show steadily increasing revenues, another factoid constantly pushed by the Reeps, who conveniently ignore the fact that the budget projections are under current law, which includes the tax cuts expiring.

    I'm reminded of the classic problem with the SAT and other standardized tests -- once you've created an index which is intended to measure some less-quantifiable value, such as scholastic aptitude or the economy, people will immediately start focusing on that index instead of the big picture, and in the process render the index basically useless for its original purpose. In the same way that taking an SAT prep course does not make you any smarter, boosting stock prices does not make the economy any better. It just makes it look that way.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 2:24 PM  

  • Extending that thought, I'm reminded of your comment in one of your evolution pieces about how computer simulations are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. Same thing goes for yardsticks like the GDP. Toxic waste dumps and divorce lawyers all increase the GDP, but that doesn't really make them good for the economy, does it?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 2:31 PM  

  • Can I just say hello again and hurrah that I got married to my husband at the weekend?

    It was very 'family values' if anybody who thinks it will destroy marriage is reading this. Encouraging longterm stable loving legal partnerships and bringing families and friends together to celebrate their collective happiness can't really be an evil wicked thing, now can it?

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 12:33 PM  

  • I guess the liberals speak without spin and propaganda...heh, heh, heh.

    Foreign intervention. 9/11 changed alot of minds. GOP never was against intervention to protect itself from foreign threats. It was discussed by W and others that they did not like the idea of Nation Building. Times change.

    Personally, I don't care that people in the world don't like America. I care that folks here, mostly the liberal media and intellegencia, blame America first when it comes to foreign policy making.

    By Blogger Rick's Corner, at 6:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares