Saturday, August 20, 2005

Good Reads (8/19)

"The Biteback Effect" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081905.html
"What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants" - Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/
"Canada Blames Us" - John R. Lott, Jr.
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23041/
pub_detail.asp

"The End of Treason" = Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2865
"FOIA Exposes Clinton Anti-Terror Blunders"
- Mark Tapscott
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marktapscott/
mt20050820.shtml

Friday, August 19, 2005

My Last Say on Casey Sheehan's Mother (I Hope)

I never, EVER thought I'd ever have anything to do with the Huffinton Post. But, I did. It seems Casey Sheehan's mother finally responded to all the accusations against her with a retort that was not very convincing to say the least. Saying it was not about her is very strange coming from a person who's had cameras surrounding her 24/7. Anyways, here is my comment, which I hope they'll allow to be posted:

"The issue is a disastrous war that's killing our sons and daughters and making our country less secure."

This issue is more than the war, Casey, as we have seen. We have you making statements that Israel must leave "Palestine" or even that our country "isn't worth fighting for". Also, you have done little to prevent the people in the news media from pointing the cameras at you and basically making it about you and having so many left-wing commentators like Maureen Dowd and Bill Press from making you into a celebrity.

Anyways, what really irritates me about what you have done is basically this:

Your son makes a decision based on his beliefs. They contradicted your own beliefs and you didn't want him to fight this "illegal war" in which he RE-enlisted to fight in. Then he dies, and I have my sincere condolences to you and your family. For a year after his death, you got to meet President Bush and you praised him, saying you felt happy again. Now, you claim that Bush "killed" your son, not focusing on the fact that it wasn't Bush who killed your son, but Terrorists. So, by your way of thinking, you believe that your son, a grown adult with his own values was not intelligent enough to know the risks. It seems to me that you are primarily upset merely not that your son died, even if it was something he believed in, but that he died for something you didn't.

That being said, I extend my wishes that your mother gets well.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Having Fun With MoveOn.org

(Hat-Tip goes to Right Thoughts)

It seems MoveOn.org, the most popular political failure of a PAC wants to hear our opinions. Let's do something they don't want the average common-sense American to do: GIVE IT TO THEM!

Click here to take the survey

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Cindy Sheehan Performs Seppuku with Her Image

(Hat-Tip Goes to Drudge) Hey, this guy's good, alright?

Cindy Sheehan has just shot herself in the foot, big-time:


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX AUG 14, 2005 08:02:39 ET XXXXX

BUSH PROTESTING MOM CALLS FOR 'ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE'; VOWS NOT TO PAY TAXES

Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."

The 48-year-old California mom remains tented up in a ditch along the one-lane road that leads to Bush's Texas ranch.

As her protest entered its second week, hundreds of people with conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq descended on the area.

TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."

Developing...



Sorry, Miss, but your statement that getting the US out of Iraq and Israel out of "Palestine" will not exactly solve anything. Hell, it's so stupid and ridiculous that my normally open-minded self can't help but sneer at. In fact, most Americans do. In case you didn't notice, ma'am, Israel IS pulling out of "Palestine" and the Jihadists are still determined to attack Israel. In case you haven't heard, "Palestinian" terror groups still say that they will continue their attacks. And as for the US in Iraq? Well, unless my memory is going away early, 9/11 happened before the US went to Iraq. Americans may disagree on how exactly to deal with terrorism, but her arrogant demands are believed by most to bring only defeat for the US. Watch her fame disappear better than Houdini. And her promise not to pay Taxes ought to piss off some Democrats...

Your 15 minutes are over, darling. Go back to the mental institution from which you came.

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Cindy Sheehan's family

(Yet again, hat-tip goes to Drudge)

Now it seems Cindy Sheehan's family is not exactly pleased with her actions. God knows the pain she's caused by dancing on her son's corpse and yelling "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!". Here's their statement, which is largely ignored by the mainstream media:

FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Developing...


Perhaps Bush should meet with them instead of this Michael Moore parrot in love with herself.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Cindy Sheehan, Mother of a Fallen Soldier in Iraq Who Wants to See Bush, is a Liar And an Opportunist

(Hat-tip goes to Drudge)

It seems Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq that wants to speak with Bush seems to be playing a different tune than she did one year ago:

PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.

She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"

In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

END

On her current media tour, Sheehan has not been asked to explain her twist on Bush; from praise to damnation!

Developing...


Hmm... Until I read this news flash, I believed that this woman was a poor, miguided, bereaved mother being used as a tool by the left to try to stir outrage at Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. Not anymore. I now strongly believe that Mrs. Sheehan has decided to crusade against Bush this year and float with public opinion on the ocean made of her family's tears and her son's blood. What could have changed her mind? Very likely the celebrity she recieved and the gratification of seeing the President after her seeing him last year. Now, even having had the President see her isn't enough. Now, she wants the approval of the world back, and with the lower approval for the Iraq War and President Bush, and the respect Americans have for military families, she basically made a deal with leftist groups to back up her BS quest to see Bush and basically flood him with abuse. The desire for fame has corrupted her tortured soul and now that soul is next to nonexistant. Reading what she has said, it seems she has more problems with how Bush reacted to her during the 2004 meeting with him which from her own lips then sounded like it went rather well than the war itself.

Her obvious ignorance on this whole war is obvious, blaming Bush for the death of her son, and not those who actually killed him, whom her now-despised President is dedicated to fighting. How many more opportunistic wenches like Cindy Sheehan will come out, I don't know. But I do know this: the more that come out, morale will be threatened and will most likely cause more Casey Sheehans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps people like Cindy Sheehan should think about that before spouting their ignorant filth. The Leftists of America have created a partnership with these bereaved families, parading and showing them off like an elderly millionaire celebrity shows off his young trophy wife. And like the millionaire and his wife, there is no real love between them or motivating their partnership.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Hiroshima in a More Perfect World

Scott Ott shows what the people of Hiroshima would be doing if they hadn't been so emotionally affected by the attacks:

Hiroshima Survivors Celebrate Life-Saving Atomic Bomb
by Scott Ott

(2005-08-06) -- Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima marked the 60th anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons in war by celebrating the end of the totalitarian rule of Emperor Hirohito, whose blind ambition caused 1.5 million Japanese military casualities and some 672,000 civilian casualities.


If you want to see more of the article, check out this post on Scott's site, Scrappleface. If only this were true...

Hiroshima's Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba Speaks of Matters He Obviously Knows Nothing About.

It seems the Mayor of Hiroshima can't keep his mouth shut at a somber memorial ceremony before using it as a pedestal to spout his ignorant filth:

In a "Peace Declaration," Hiroshima's outspoken Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba vowed to never allow a repeat of the tragedy and gave an impassioned plea for the abolition of nuclear weapons, saying the United States, Russia and other members of the nuclear club are "jeopardizing human survival."

"Many people around the world have succumbed to the feeling that there is nothing we can do," he said. "Within the United Nations, nuclear club members use their veto power to override the global majority and pursue their selfish objectives."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/
wireStory?id=1014484&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


Selfish objectives? It seems Mr. Akiba doesn't realize that these "selfish objectives" are actually legitimate. If we simply try to disarm all our nuclear weapons like so many pie-in-the-sky nuclear disarmament utopians desire, then there are many risks that all these "selfish" nations would have to take.

For one, they will have to perform the impossible task of making sure that all are cooperating, which would be impossible in a realistic world where nuclear powers are at each other's throats. If one nation is fully compliant and assured that their fellow nations are eliminating nuclear weapons and disarms its arsenal, it may later find out that one nation actually has nuclear weapons hidden. Thus, it wouldn't change anything and instead would lead to merely fewer nations with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, if all nations cooperate in such a plan, even then it would be redundant in terms of preventing nuclear exchanges between nations, as the MAD policy mixed with a desire to stay alive keeps most of the nuclear powered nations (with the possible exception of North Korea) from using such weapons on each other. The real nuclear threat today is in fact from terrorists and their supporting states. They have no fear of death and no country of origin. Also, nuclear weapons today are also able to be BUILT and smuggled. Dismantling conventional nuclear arsenals of non-rogue states will not help in any way, shape, or form with this issue.

It seems to me that Mr. Akiba is using emotionalism to push forth a very ignorant policy idea that is ineffective at best, and suicidal at worst. Unfortunately, what makes him dangerous is how easily people fall for it due to the emotional connection between his location's having been attacked by an atomic weapon and his stance on such similar weaponry. However, that does not make him an expert on how to deal with such issues. He is the mayor of a city, nothing more.

Mr. Akiba, you are better off keeping your mouth shut on such matters during somber ceremonies such as these instead of mouthing off to gain political points with your people. You obviously are a political cretin of the worst kind, preying on people's emotions to advance your political agenda. Be quiet and try to respectfully honor those who died and stick to the issues and the functions of your elected office. Those whose families and friends died on that fateful day deserve no less.

Perhaps my post about Hiroshima was a bit early...

Today marks the anniversary of the Atomic Bomb attacks on Hiroshima. I guess I should have waited for today to have done this post. Impatience has claimed another victim, it seems. Anyways, click the link to see the post, or perhaps you can scroll down. That helps, too.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

R.I.P. Stephen Vincent

(Thanks to LGF for bringing this to my attention)

I would like to extend my condolences to the friend and family of writer Stephen Vincent after his unfortunate demise. I must confess that I had not found out about his work until now, and I greatly regret it. His most recent column, published just hours before his death really caught my interest. He truly was a symbol of an ideal journalist, putting one's life on the line to get the story to those far away and wouldn't dare take such a risk. Not to mention, he was also had a blog, as well. I am definitely adding his book, In the Red Zone, to my wish list.

I hope the people that did this are found and brought to justice. And once again, my prayers to his friends and family. They should be proud of him.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Annoying Lie #2: It Wasn't Necessary to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan, and the U.S. Knew It

(Hat-Tip Goes to Spoons and Austin Bay)

A recent article by Richard B. Frank, a World War II historian in The Weekly Standard refutes the simplistic claims that the US bombed Japan while knowing that Japan was already planning peace. The truth is far more complex, according to Mr. Frank:

The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government.

An inner cabinet in Tokyo authorized Japan's only officially sanctioned diplomatic initiative. The Japanese dubbed this inner cabinet the Big Six because it comprised just six men: Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army (General Yoshijiro Umezu) and Imperial Navy (Admiral Soemu Toyoda). In complete secrecy, the Big Six agreed on an approach to the Soviet Union in June 1945. This was not to ask the Soviets to deliver a "We surrender" note; rather, it aimed to enlist the Soviets as mediators to negotiate an end to the war satisfactory to the Big Six--in other words, a peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists. Their minimal goal was not confined to guaranteed retention of the Imperial Institution; they also insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled.


Also, Mr. Frank makes note that the proposal of a US invasion of Japan was not an action that was gauranteed to even be done. In fact, he argues that Truman had to choose between extending the war indefinitely if an invasion didn't take place, invading Japan and suffering horrific losses that may have caused a serious morale problem in war-weary America, and the choice he made, to use the Atomic Bomb on Japan in the hopes of never needing to invade Japan and still delivering damage to the country in which the Japanese could realize that perhaps unconditional surrender would be preferable to fighting a war with a power with such a devastating weapon.

This issue is perhaps very personal for me, due to the fact that I may very well would not have been born if such an action had not occurred. My grandfather had actually been drafted to the military late in the war, first as a cook for a POW camp for captured Nazi soldiers, then he was sent to fight in the proposed invasion of Japan. Even if we did not invade Japan and not use the Atomic Bomb, he, as well as many soldiers may very well have died fighting the Japanese who still did not see the situation as hopeless as it is not remembered to be. This does not mean I don't have sympathy for those who have suffered from Atomic Bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that doesn't mean that I should condemn my country for being warlike in a time of war. Unfortunately, too many academics and ill-informed individuals have taken the other side of this argument.

I highly recommend people read this article. It has extremely good arguments that may very well help you in the next argument with bleeding-heart hand-wringers who blindly accept the flawed lie that the US simply nuked Japan just for the hell of it. Also, it has some great info for the World War II history buff.