Please note: This is an archive page from the old Blogger version of Considerettes. Please click here to go to the new WordPress version. All old posts were imported into the new site. Thanks. |
||
|
Conservative commentary served up in bite-sized bits.
" Considerettes"? "Warning: first examination of Considerettes suggests an excess of rational thought goes into that blog." - Clayton Cramer Comments, questions, cookie recipes? E-mail me! (frodo at thepaytons dot org) Considerettes in the news: UPI Hugh Hewitt Slate << Return to "Consider This!"  Features Georgia Marriage Amendment Rally Considerettes Radio: 
Considerettes for your PDA 
Web Rings p ? Atlanta Blogs # n < GAwebloggers ? > My other blog Considerable Quotes Contributor to Stones Cry Out My diaries at  (Commenting available) I'm a reporter for BNN: The Bloggers News Network 
   Ye Olde Blogroll 
|
Monday, March 31, 2003
What a week to have been away from the blog! So much went on:
...and a bunch more, but you get the idea. It's been quite a ride. Monday, March 24, 2003
Sunday, March 23, 2003
A (former) human shield for the country of Iraq got a serious upside-the-head wake-up call while he was in Baghdad. It's definitely worth the free registration to read the London Telegraph. Best portion: It hit me on visceral and emotional levels: this was a real portrayal of Iraq life. After the first conversation, I completely rethought my view of the Iraqi situation. My understanding changed on intellectual, emotional, psychological levels. I remembered the experience of seeing Saddam's egomaniacal portraits everywhere for the past two weeks and tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who had been subjected to seeing them every day for the last 20 or so years. Reality. What a concept. My essays pages is now listed at The Liberal Dose web site. He's got lots of great links to other conservative sites, and has a section where he opines on various subjects. Thursday, March 20, 2003
Less than 24 hours after weapons inspectors left Iraq, Scud missles have been fired from Iraq into Kuwait in response to our cruise missle strike. Wait a minute...weren't Scuds supposed to be banned? Am I supposed to believe that, mere hours after folks looking for them left, banned weapons are already being used? Gosh! How could that have happened? Folks, weapons inspections, of the UN variety, were patently not working. They required cooperation by Hussein--cooperation that never materialized except when it served his purpose. They would never have worked so long as he was in power. However, weapons inspections of the Coalition variety do appear to be making progress. Wednesday, March 19, 2003
With all the comparisons I've seen anti-war protestors make between Bush and Hitler, how about we ask someone who was actually there, who had almost 90 members of his family killed in the Holocaust, and who's spent his life tracking down Nazis to bring them to justice? How 'bout we ask Simon Wiesenthal? Tuesday, March 18, 2003
John Fund has coalesced a lot of the history of Hollywood anti-war protesting over the past 20 years (and the convenient lack of it during the Clinton administration) into a single article with a great title, "Stars and Gripes". Best paragraph: I also remember when leftists and Hollywood stars of all stripes opposed American intervention in Grenada and supported the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. The people of both countries have shown their gratitude for our help and today live in freedom. I remember, too, how many countries were hesitant to join the allied coalition in the 1991 Gulf War, fearing that it would turn out horribly. History has proved them wrong. Again, it's history that points out the fallacies. Friday, March 14, 2003
Rep. James Moran (D-VA) stepped down from his position as regional whip over his remarks that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this". It was done rather quietly, so as not, I imagine, to call too much attention to antisemitism in the party, but at least it was done. Good things are coming out of the Trent Lott debacle, and this is one of them. Next step, working on Robert Byrd for using the "N" word. Which emits more smog-causing nitrogen oxides; factories, cars or trees? If you answered "trees", you're obviously not an environmentalist. And according to the journal Nature, you'd also be right. Here's another quote from the left side of the aisle expressing their real reason for not opposing terrorists or madmen: Let's be clear: Mr Chirac does not endorse Baghdad, and he finds Saddam's regime as despicable as do Bush and Blair. But he fears the American hawks will ignite Muslim fundamentalism worldwide. The fear of domestic conflagration and terrorism are also ever-present: there are 6 million French Muslims to take into account. Fear is continuing to grip the left. "Oh, that ol' Hussein guy sure is despicable, but if we stand up for what's right, or even try to enforce our own resolutions, people might get mad and not like us, and maybe even hurt us." The terrorists have won the mind of Mr. Roche. One more victory for them. For now. Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Ouch! Andrew Sullivan pointed out an opinion piece in the Washington Post that is positively brutal in its honesty about the alternative to war. If you think war kills, it doesn't hold a candle to years and years of containment. A must-read. Tuesday, March 11, 2003
The phrase popped up in the days after September 11, 2001, and became instantly trite. "If we don't X, then the terrorists have won", where X was replaced with things like: "get back to our normal lives" "resume broadcasting 'Saturday Night Live'" "rebuild the Twin Towers" The phrase became the brunt of late night talk show monologues. Pretty soon you couldn't take it seriously, because so many silly things had been tagged to it. But then consider this: What value of X would actually make that statement the most true? In order to answer that question, you have to figure out what the terrorists are trying to do? Now, trying to get into their collective heads and determine their specific motives may be an exercise for a psychologist, not me, but I can think of a value for X that is at least generally true of terrorists in general. X = "respond, because we're afraid" Basically, if terrorists have instilled terror into us, to the point that either we do what they want us to do or we don't do what they don't want us to do, they've won the battle, if not the war. The point of terrorism is to instill so much fear that we relent to their demands, either actively or passively. And so, consider the following quotes from the left side of the aisle: Do Americans believe that taking out Saddam would really make life here safer? Will we really be able to stop living in fear? Or do enough Americans believe, as I do, that terrorists will retaliate with an attack on us--perhaps in Chicago, Dallas or Los Angeles--the minute a bomb destroys the first mosque? Iraq is going to retaliate as soon as they are attacked. And terrorists are going to hit the U.S. more and more. I believe that military targets in the U.S. are in jeopardy, so the Hampton Roads area and DC are likely targets. Leave Terrorists alone, they might strike back What do all these sentiments have in common? Fear. Don't go to war, because the terrorists or the madmen might hurt us back. Just let Saddam continue to torture his own people. Don't respond to al Qaeda attacks. Hussein will change...he just needs more time (12 years surely isn't enough), and if we push too hard he might push back. If we don't bother Osama, maybe he'll leave us alone. Listen to the protesters, the bloggers, the pundits. When they get past their caricatures of Bush as Hitler and their mantras, listen to them. Why do they insist on doing the same thing that has been done for years without success? Why do they suggest that war never solved anything, when it plainly has (ask a thankful Kuwaiti or a Frenchman born after 1945 whose native language isn't German)? Why do they safely protest against Bush, when Hussein has committed (actual) atrocities against his own people and yet they say nothing? War is an awful option. "War is hell", no doubt about it. But the only reason Saddam is feeding crumbs to weapons inspectors is because of the threat of war. The only reason he left Kuwait in his "blood for oil" war was because of the force of war. And the only way he'll "comply" with UN resolutions is if he is physically forced to. The only reason some small semblance of freedom returned to Afghanistan is because war forced out the Taliban, who never had any intention of stopping bin Laden from his murderous ways. The United States has responded to terrorists with full knowledge of the possible consequences, but was not afraid to act in its own interest. Ask that aforementioned Kuwaiti or Frenchman, or perhaps a woman in Afghanistan who can now go to school, what it means when we're not afraid of terrorists or madmen. If you're afraid of terrorists, they've beaten you. If this nation becomes terrorized because we don't have the will to act, the bin Ladens and Husseins of the world have us right where they want us. If we don't respond, because we're afraid, then the terrorists have won. Friday, March 07, 2003
Who said this? What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction." If you answered "George W. Bush" or "Colin Powell", you're wrong. OK, now who said this? He [Hussein] has maximum incentive not to use this stuff. If we go, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose. The answer to both questions is Bill Clinton (from 1998 and from 2002, respectively). The web site efreedomnews.com has these and other Clinton, Daschle and John Kerry quotes from then and now. Required reading, especially for Democrats who backed their guys 110% then and 110% now. The schizophrenia is amazing, not to mention convenient. Once again, what a difference an administration makes. Tony Schinella, who has a blog called Politizine, called me on an error I made on February 24th. I said, Did you hear a story about Iraqi-Americans petitioning the Bush administration to topple Saddam Hussein? The link points to a item in the Detroit News that reported on an event organized by the Iraqi Forum for Democracy in which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was the guest speaker. The members of this forum were urging him to topple Saddam Hussein, in response to all the anti-war protests. Tony said, in response to me, "Yeah, I did, FoxNews, MSNBC, and CSPAN were live with Wolfowitz in the town hall meeting promoting the idea." So apparently this meeting, or some other meeting with a similar tone, did get covered by some of the cable networks. But let's look at the coverage for a second.
The only real surprise for me here is the MSNBC coverage. Good to see, but virtually inconsequential. However, conspicuous by their absence were CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. A search for any mention of "Iraqi Forum for Democracy" and "Wolfowitz" on Google News did not reveal coverage by any of those networks, at least on their web sites. There is still the possibility that Peter Jennings gave it a few seconds of air time, but the point was, and still is, that the networks give far, far more press to anti-war views than those who believe a war is necessary. (The Media Research Center has been chronicling many instances of this bias lately, especially with regards to ABC News.) Look what it took to get MSNBC to cover this unique pro-liberation angle; a personal visit by a top cabinet member. Would they have covered this event if, instead of inviting Wolfowitz, the Iraqi Forum for Democracy had just staged an anti-Saddam protest? I think a safe bet would be "No". And even with Wolfowitz's presence, the other networks didn't find it worthy of mention. In fact, with all the attacks on Fox News that they're just shills for the Republicans, it's interesting to note that almost all of the other networks that consider themselves balanced didn't bother covering this. Fox covers all angles, and they're called "biased", while the other networks ignore or minimize conservatives and they call themselves "fair". So yes, my personal experience wasn't enough when determining whether or not the networks were biased in coverage of this issue. But given more information, the picture doesn't look better. It looks worse. Thursday, March 06, 2003
Seems Mary McGrory wasn't quite convinced by Colin Powell. Well, she does believe everything he said about Hussein's poisons and all, she just had to clarify that she doesn't think it's worth going to war over. I guess we should just sit around another 12 years to let inspections "work". It's amazing how much evil the left will allow to continue under the excuse of "but war isn't the answer". "Peace" has had it's chance, but McGrory et. al. are more than happy to let Saddam continue to oppress his people and continue to murder them, just as long as any al Qaeda connection is tenuous, or he's not directly linked to a nuke in San Francisco. If it's Iraqis he's killing, there's no reason to fret. Racism? Head in the sand? Lack of common sense? Or what other malady worse than these can possibly explain letting a murderer continue his ways unabated? Larry Elder has a great "then and now" article today about how those criticizing Bush now over Iraq were singing a very different tune then when Clinton was going into Kosovo. Quotes by both men sound as though they're talking about the same set of events, but actor Mike Farrell does a 180. As Elder says, "What a difference an administration makes." Monday, March 03, 2003
Today's wake-up call for some of the anti-war folks: LONDON (AP) - Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as human shields in the event of war returned home, fearing for their safety, a spokesman said Sunday. Gosh, really? Safety concerns? Who'd'a thought! "The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war," he said. "We do not have those numbers." First of all, they're fantasizing if they think they can stop a war by simply standing there. Saddam must be disarmed, and he's chosen his own path by not doing so by now. A bunch of misguided people with their heads in the clouds wouldn't stop that. Further, they haven't even the tiniest percentage of those numbers... The Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported that nine of the 11 British human shields in the bus convoy had left Baghdad. Briggs said about a dozen Britons remained in Iraq alongside several dozens from other countries. Where are all the protestors? At home in their free countries, perhaps? Most likely being protected by weapons of mass destruction that their own heads of state would never use on them. He told Britain's Press Association news agency that Iraq limited the sites that human shields could visit. "Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy," he said. Once again, the human shields are shocked--SHOCKED--that Hussein would be using them as pawns to his own advantage. As I noted before, they find they're being placed at location suspiciously close to army bases. These folks leaving Iraq must be as disillusioned as Sean Penn was to find out his words had been twisted by Hussein. When will they learn? On Friday, the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein. Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodations and news conferences for the human shields. "To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio. Well, apparently they can be taught. Let's just hope the lesson spreads quickly. The next time a Democrat says that we're not winning the war on terror, remember this article about the recent capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of 9-11. There have been other catches in the past year and a half as well, some publicized, others not, but the Bush administration has not been idle, as much as the wishfully-thinking Democrat presidential hopefuls would like you to believe. |
|
