Tell me again who lied? Who died? Explain it to me.


Interesting, isn't it? After the "CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), I happen to hear loud, loud screams that, somehow, the investigation concluded that "Bush Lied, Kids Died," which is an odd conclusion, given that only a man named "Scooter" Libby was indicted on a NON-RELATED charge. Unfortunately, perjury is a common tactic of presecutors who want to prove that they haven't totally wasted taxpayer money on a two year investigation, and it's an easy charge to come up with. If you are questioned one day, recalled a year later, and say something even slightly different to the same question, then that's "perjury," even if that means you just can't remember every exact detail.

As far as "Scooter" is concerned, my major worry is what kind of name is Scooter for a White House Staffer?

And of course, the man hasn't been convicted of anything. Not a thing. It's just that a prosecutor said that it's possible they could get a conviction on Mr. Libby.

However, I've noticed that real Libs [Liberals], seem to take an INDICTMENT for perjury into a CONVICTION about some mass, Right-Wing-Haliburton conspiracy theory. Could it be that the Liberals are thinking about pandering to their base for next year's midterm elections?

Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached....a suggestion that's about as original as "I did not have sex with that woman." They've said it since he was elected in 2000, by winning the electoral votes of Florida by 243 votes. Funny, that, ain't it?

"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy. Your proof sir? We sent into Iraq for mulitple reasons-- about 30 of them. WMDs? Reason number 4.

"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid. Discredit those who challenge it? You mean Joe Wilson? It's not hard to discredit a man who's desk-bound CIA wife got him a job. I wonder why anyone would want to discredit a man who's intelligence findings was discredited by the bi-partisan Intelligence committee looking at Iraq. And how does one discredit such a man by outing a CIA wife who's CIA status was an open secret throughout the news media?

"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot. And if you want the truth? You can't handle the truth, but let's try this: The Clintonian CIA, who's budget had been slashed, its agents belttled, mishandled, mismanaged, for years, collected the same exact intelligence as the Brits, the Poles, the Czechs and the Russians.

Let's play a game. Who said "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program"?

Sounds like the President of the United states, right?

Come on, take a guess....

Bill Clinton.

Let's see, who else?

What secretary of state said, "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Clinton's. Madeline Albright.

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all." Who's being deceived and discredited again?

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." Who's misusing intelligence reports, exactly?

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." And this man was on the House Intelligence comittee, so I can't exactly see how the President could lie to him, he saw firsthand intelligence reports.

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." And he was right... even Joe Wilson said that Saddam TRIED to get nuclear materials from Nigeria, he just said he never got it.... and misteriously, we've been moving tons of uranium from incountry for months. Hmm....

Oh, I love this quote. This is so rabidly right-wing, it could be me.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

And I agree wholeheartedly, Nancy Pelosi.

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions...to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom [why we can't just call it a war, I'll never know]: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc.

Hmm, now, let me see. Saddam had a centrifuge necessary for making nukes. He had about five to six months of warning to get out of town before we invaded. We KNOW he had been moving large amounts of money out of the country a few hours before the invasion. We found 11 mobile labs for making Chemical and Bioweapons. There were labs freshly sterilized before our troops got there. So could we take a guess that there had been other WMDs that could have been smuggled out too?

So, Ted, Dick and Harry, any other ideas?

I hear phrases like "War for Oil." We could have a better war if we invaded Mexico for THEIR oil. And we know Mexico's a security risk, we find Syrians and Iranians coming across the border daily. But we invaded Iraq, a harder task, why?

Now, on Veterans Day, President Bush noted: "Today our nation pays tribute to our veterans -- 25 million vets.... At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of this century. This war came to our shores on the morning of September 11, 2001. ... We know that they want to strike again and our nation has made a clear choice. We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the War on Terror is won. ... [I]t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? That's it? Really?

I know democrats over in the Gulf right now. They'll disagree with me on social security, welfare, medicare, abortion, but you know what they agree on? We need to be there.

Interesting concept, no?

Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis!

The Truth About WMDs in Iraq!! Proof!

WMDs Found in Iraq!
· 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
· 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
· 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
· Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
· Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

Gotcha, didn't I? :)

The NYTIMES is sorry, but not apologetic, more like pathetic.

Emmylyn Anonical is the girlfriend of the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, who you remember left a letter to his girlfriend that had been edited by the Times. Read what she has to say about the NYTimes' selective editing of Cpl. Starr's letter to her in the NYPost (kudos to Post reporter Lukas Alpert for keeping on the story): "It was sad that we had to go through this some more. I was upset about what they took out of that letter."

Anonical told The Post that going public with the private letter was one of the hardest decisions of her life, but seeing The Times use it and her boyfriend to slander the war and Bush could not go unanswered.

"The reason I chose to share that letter was the paragraph about why he was doing this, not the part about him expecting to die. It hurt, it really hurt"

Still not a peep from NYTimes' ombudsman Byron Calame about the factual errors and obscene omission in the Times' coverage of Cpl. Starr's death.

To nail and pressure these buggers further:
E-mail: public@nytimes.com• Phone: (212) 556-7652•

Address: Public Editor
The New York Time
s229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959

Mudville Gazette is keeping track of the Lying Times as well, and doing a better job than I
***Previous:
An obscene omission
"Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark."
Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr: What the NYTimes left out

There are some things I just won't stand for. There are not that many, because I'm usually just inclined to let people go on their own self destructive path, even if I am ever so briefly caught up in it for only a little while. Even calling me names will only result in my laughing at the fool in question. That said, there are a few things I don't tolerate.

Hurting my friends in any manner will earn dire repercussions, proportionate to the injury given.

Calling my Pope a Nazi, my faith fascism and misogynistic, will earn you a verbal, ideological, and public disemboweling.

Calling me a misogynist will just get me annoyed. Calling me a racist because I'm a Republican will earn you something more.

Now I'm not certain where the racism charge first came from. Lincoln was a republican, and freed the slaves; he didn't care about the matter one way or another, he just did it. Brown vs. Board of education was during Eisenhower's administration, and called out the army to support the desegregation process. The civil rights laws of the 1960s were passed by a Republican Congress. Nixon, the Republican, went to China. This is racism?

And really, I wouldn't even say that Democrats are particularly racist. When Strom Thurmond ran as a segregationist when he was a Southern Democrat, for him, it was a matter of state's being allowed to pass laws in their own state without interference from the Federal Government. Democrats were the party of slavery in the South., but I'm not going to hold a 140 year old vendetta. In fact, until the last 30 years, the entire South was a string of nothing but blue states. Does that mean I'm going to call each and every democrat a racist because the South is the home of the Klan and Bull Connor? No.

I wouldn't even begin to start figuring out on what grounds racist charges could be filed against Republicans. Even J. Edgar Hoover, who's party I am unfamiliar with [though if he was a transvestite, he might have been a Liberal] only monitored black civil rights leaders because a lot of them were getting second-hand support from Moscow during the Cold War, and a lot of these leaders were literal card carrying Communists. In all likelihood, support from Moscow held up the civil rights movement more than anything else.

So, how exactly can someone call Republicans racist? Nothing historical about it, and if you call republicans racist because the South has now turned red, are you going to hold the entire South accountable for what there father's did? Considering that the last Klan rally I heard of had about 25 people show up, versus the triple-digit counter-protestors who nearly torn the Klan apart, I think it's time to move on. Racists are around, they are evil, but they're also not as big a problem as they were. [There is nothing funnier than watching a bunch of racists be protected from rampaging hoards by black and Hispanic officers of the NYPD]. In short, Bull Connor is dead, get over it.

As for me, personally, I've never actually noticed. Sure, I've dated a Puerto Rican and someone half-Native Indian, I'm friends with Jews, Turks, Blacks, Asians, Pakistanis [although they prefer 'desi'], Indian-Trinidad hybrids [this is NY, we're all mutts], but when I'm specificly asked, I need to think about it for five minutes if I know anyone other than WICs [White Irish Catholics] because I don't think about people in those terms. I'm just sort of clueless.

But recently, I'm starting to wonder just who the racists are nowadays, and even what criteria they're using. John McWhorter is a black linguist out of Berkeley, and I can only assume he has tenor for him to sound so relatively conservative in a town run by rampaging Communists [although for the People's Republic of Berkeley, I feel that a stronger term is required than "Communist"]. He pointed out that when his mother was growing up, she was a nerd. Now that his children are also nerds, her classmates say she's "Acting White." As McWhorter pointed out in his Book-TV lecture, how is it that being intelligent and enjoying education is considered acting white, and do his daughter's classmates even realize that they implied that black meant the opposite?

Now, McWhorter doesn't like Bush much, because Bush isn't eloquent, and McWhorter's a linguist. Nor does he like the NAACP or Jesse Jackson. McWhorter points out in the same Book-TV lecture "What has Jesse Jackson ever done? He's tall. He's a good speaker.. he's tall."

However, to my knowledge, no one has ever said that McWhorter is an "oreo", a derogatory term for being black on the outside and white on the inside.

Basically, they never did to him what they just did to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. Lt. Gov. Steele is black, and a Catholic, and he's a Republican running for the United States Senate. He's running as a conservative Republican. For this, he's being attacked.

This is not just your typical mud slinging either. These attacks include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. This below being the picture in question, posted by left-wing blogger Steve Gilliard, who only removed the photo because conservatives called him on it.


According to the Washington Times, "Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican." "Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted. But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." '

So let me get this straight. The Filipino Michelle Malkin can be called a banana and a coconut and a whore and worse, they can call Michael Steele an Uncle Tom and a Sambo, and somehow Republicans are racist?

So, defacing Steele's photo and assaulting him with Oreo cookies are peaceful exercises of free speech. Demonizing Condi is a harmless prank. Calling her a "House Nigga" is acceptable humor.

May I ask when was the last time a minority who embraces liberal ideas was attacked for being a "race traitor" or a "sellout"? These attacks seem to be leveled only by the Left, and only against minority conservatives.

But I'M the racist because I'm a republican.

Ain't tolerance grand?

***
Previous on Michael Steele, from Michelle Malkin:

Michael Steele and the Sambo smear

Whitewashing Chuckaquiddick

Chuckaquiddick: Look who's paying the tab

NY Times "looks into" Chuckaquiddick

Chuckaquiddick: Where's the MSM?The NYTimes ombudsman is totally worthless

Democrat dumpster diving

A despicable Democrat dirty trick
Sen. Charles Schumer still owes Lt. Gov. Steele an apology.

Newbusters notes how the Washington Post buried the Sambo smear story.Robert George, who blew the whistle on the smear, continues to follow the story.

***
Previous minority conservative smears:The buck-naked bigotry of Ted RallJeff Danziger: Do you draw with your hood on or off?
Danziger's lost cartoon
Liberal racism and Condi Rice
Maglalangadingdong thisMinority conservatives and the sellout smear
***
Ed Morrissey: One of the excuses used by these Democrats is that Steele refused to object when Governor Mike Ehrlich met with supporters at a club that has no black members in its history. The Elkridge Club held a fundraiser attended by Ehrlich and widely decried by the Democrats as an indication of GOP pandering to racist whites in the south. They failed to mention, however, that several Democrats have made their own use of the Elkridge Club, including the brother and chief political advisor to their gubernatorial candidate to replace Ehrlich.
That shows the leadership of the Democrats as they truly are -- a hate-based faith system that takes any means necessary to win elections. Cheating, violence, smears, and now racism are all acceptable as long as Republicans are the targets. If the Republicans happen to be members of minority communities, so much the better.

After all, it's not discrimination when you hate someone more because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background, is it?

The Makin Dinner...

The Island of Makin was the first island in the South Pacific that was taken during World War II, though it’s usually been underplayed in the history books because it was taken in three days with minimal bloodshed, while another island taken at about the same time put up six days of bloody resistance.

The isle of Makin was taken by the 69th New York Regiment, the Fighting 69th, the “Irish Brigade” of the Civil War, even though they had all had some Irish in them.

Every year, the 69th have a dinner for veterans to get together, no matter what war they had fought in.

What I discovered was a world I had known of, intellectually, but it’s different once you see it up close. To see flags carried from the civil war by the 69th. To see five Congressional Medals of Honor side by side. To see a row of medals won by one man, from the Purple Heart to silver crosses, and easily half a dozen others I couldn’t even identify. To know that their were only 5 surviving Civil War recruiting posters left in existence, and that I was looking at one of them.

There was a painting of the Fighting 69th fighting at Fredericksburg against the 2nd Louisiana regiment. It was a battle that was literally hand to hand, where it got so bad that one of the sergeants from the 69th had grabbed the standard bearer from the 2nd Louisiana and dragged him into the ranks. The 69th had ignored their bayonets and used their guns as shillelaghs, clubbing the enemy with their weapons so often that the next day a General examined the ranks, and noted that men were unarmed. This was outrageous! An act of cowards! Then he was shown the pile of broken weapons that had been broken over the heads of men from the 2nd Louisiana.

Members from that same regiment went overseas with the 69th to Iraq. [Apparently, this wasn’t uncommon—members from the 11th Alabama had also faced the 69th during the civil war, and some had been transferred into the ranks of the 69th during WWI… there were a few brawls in that instance].

I met the army chaplain, Fr. Caine. He is actually known as “Killer Caine,” and by more than just the members of the regiment, but by even my father. You see, Fr. Caine had been in the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam, and during a particularly bad firefight, he promised that if he lived, he would become a priest. He is a man of his word.

When I was originally invited to the Makin dinner, I was told that I should keep away from any vegetarian inclinations for the evening, because there was only a few olives and some celery for decoration, and that was the only green I’d see that was edible. When I got there, I was also asked “Do you need to worry about your cholesterol?” With appetizers of Swedish meatballs, REAL sausages, pork chops and roast beef on toast for an entrée, crisp Patriot fries as a side dish [yes, they were called Patriot fries], followed by apple pie with a slice of cheese. Given the general impression I’ve gotten of army cooking, this might have been HEALTH FOOD at Makin. One vet of Operation Iraqi Freedom told me that they lose one Makin vet per year, and that yes, it probably was because of the dinner, but at least they die happy.

They had even had a bagpiper come in during the ceremony, during which point my knowledge of Irish rebel songs came in handy, earning me a whole new level of respect from those around me. Apparently, there were some for whom “Come out ye Black and Tans” is a popular ditty. They even had a raffle of an Enfield 1914 .30-caliber rifle, the model of WWI soldiers.

And there was their traditions. Captain James Mohr, the original commander, had a drink of Scotch and Vichy water. One day his men were sent out for the Vichy water, and came back with Champaign, because it was French and it bubbled. He tried it, he liked it, and it has remained the drink of the unit, even though it tastes something like gasoline. Tradition has it that the man who pours the mix gives a coin and the Champaign cork to someone, and they are friends for life—and he guaranteed that the recipient would never give it away because he was using Iraqi money. Tradition had it that the regiment drink was used for the toast.

At the end of the evening, there was a speech, and I will not attribute the quote without the man’s permission. He said that is was amazing to be in combat, and not amazing in a totally positive way. How it wasn’t like the westerns or movies where someone gets shot and falls down. Odds are more likely you are shown a body bag with 8 body parts, none of which match up, and you are supposed to ID the body from the pieces. But there is a camaraderie which comes from that. And he could not imagine how men could be in that for three and four years like the vets from WW2, and how he had had a whole new appreciation of these men. He praised one of his guys for figuring out where a mortar team was, and blowing them to Hell before getting off a second barrage.

You want to know what I didn’t hear? I didn’t hear that they didn’t have enough supplies. I never heard that this was an unjust war.

I heard duty, honor, country, thank God Gore was never president, that sort of thing.

I don’t know how to relay what went on properly. I'm not sure I can make most of you understand the sense one gets around these great men. They've fought, they've come damn close to death, and they are proud of serving this country. It’s…

Ah well, most of you are probably wondering what the point of this blog is, and I’m not sure how to give it to you. And to tell the truth, I didn’t start it with a point in mind.

These are good men. They are honorable men.

No honor is given them by throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers.

Or by trying to set fire to buildings.

Or by "fighting capitalism." (Via Conservative League)

Or by equating Hurricane Katrina with "genocide." (Via the Scriptorium)

Or by shrieking about the "Bush Regime" and trotting out that "9-11 was an inside job" banner

Or by rewriting what our soldiers say.

You support them by honoring them. By shaking their hands and thanking them.

You honor them by honoring THEM, not saying "we support the troops" when in fact you're serving your own personal agenda.

You honor THEM.

At first I was reluctant to speculate on the trials and tribulations of Syria, mainly because I didn't think they'd have any of either coming their way, and why should they? They only killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Lord knows that the Sudanese have killed over 2 million people, and Saddam killed over twice that [that we know of], without any harm coming to them.

The UN security council, as Paul Volcker's comission has already noted, is filled with corrupt ambassadors from even more corrupt governments-- France, Germany, Russia. The French don't want to be bothered with the Sudan, refusing to allow the word "genocide" to even be uttered in their ambassador's presence in relation to this topic. Germany is going through a power shift from the anti-American Gerhart Schroder to a new "coalition government." And Tsar Putin is having far too much fun cracking down on his own country and selling weapons. And then there are about over a hundred countries in the UN run by dictatorships and other brutal men.

Human rights giants like Sudan and Lebanon are on the UN Human Rights Commission, and Syria, I believe, is on the weapons proliferation board [which makes me wonder if it's supposed to be for or against proliferation].

And of course, even if they were NOT corrupt, would they be relevant? During the Cold War, everyone was bugged. Everyone. The CIA and KGB had wire taps on everyone in the UN, if they didn't have wire taps on everyone in the countries with ambassadors to the UN. The KGB and the CIA at one point compared notes on what they thought was an anomaly. And discovered that, in transmissions sent from the UN ambassadors to their home countries, there was NOTHING. That's right, during the Cold War, outside of the US and USSR, no one cared about what happened at the UN.

So, my initial thought was, it's irrelevant and corrupt, the UN doesn't care about large issues with genocide in the millions, why should it care about anything else? When the UN issues a report saying that high government officials in the Syrian government are responsible for the death of Hariri.

Then I remembered something different about all those other times. What the UN didn't have during Rwanda, Sudan, or Iraq?

John Bolton.

Yes, Darth John Bolton, Dark Lord of the Sith. The one which makes internists and employees tremble. The man who's image as portrayed by the democrats was one of a man who cracked heads open for fun and profit, but mostly for fun.

From what I've noticed, Darth Bolton remained largely quiet on the issue of Syria while the UN was making bold proclamations about the justice they'd seek in the assassination, and all of the usual bull the UN spouts while trying to keep up the front of being relevant.

Then Johnny Bolton stepped up to the microphone and threatened stiff economic sanctions Syria continues stonewalling the investigation. At an ADL meeting Grand Hyatt hotel in Midtown Manhattan, he said that "They need to appreciate, especially with the unanimous resolution of the Security Council, that they can run, but they cannot hide." Suspects face immediate freezing of their assets to ensure they don't flee the country or countries they are hiding in.
"It's not simply their governments that will pay the price, they will pay the price as well," said Bolton.

This guy just move in this past August, and already he's busy.

Makes you wonder what'll happen when Volcker's commission gets through with the UN, exactly what Bolton will do with it.

I believe that I mentioned Boston Legal's misportrayal of the Iraq war, and how it was something out of a Michael Moore movie. There's a reply to the show from a Marine posted at the ABC forum, link here. http://forums.go.com/abc/primetime/bostonlegal/thread?threadID=646982&forumStart=0

But for those who don't want to be bothered following the link, here's what the man said.

A Soldier's View

Posted: Nov 02 @ 08:32 PM
I am a soldier in the US Army and a member of the JAG Corps. My brothers are enlisted Marines. All three of us are Canadian citizens and have chosen to stand for a country that is not our own. My brothers have just returned from Iraq and I am to be sent shortly.

Last night I felt unappreciated and disrespected. These feelings are not a result of dissenting opinions or political views. I am dismayed as to the complete misrepresntation of basic facts.
1) My brothers and I have NEVER been deployed without body armor. In fact our respective units invested in brand new equipment for our use.

2) We volunteered and are aware that we may lose our lives.

3) No soldier or Marine would attempt or be ordered to defuse a IED without being qualified to do so. Also, standard operating procedure is simply to detonate the device safely and NOT to defuse it.

4) EVERY soldier and EVERY Marine are trained to fight and are qualified to guard a truck.

5) No contract is extended 26 years. In fact, I am aware of many soldiers and Marines who were NOT sent because their contracts would expire during deployment. If others are sent, they are given the CHOICE of resigning and are compensated generously. However, if they choose otherwise they will be required to satisfy their units deployment before release.

6) The client's brother could not have been 18. Despite the possibility that the soldier may have completed initial training by the time he was 18, he is not able to be deployed before his 18th birthday. Army deployment times are 1 year boots on ground time. In the fact pattern given in the show, he was held there beyond his deployment time, therefore he could not have been 18.

It is basic, fraudulent facts that give me the impression that ABC is simply attempting to attack the military and subsequently its service men and women.

I have decided to no longer watch this program.

Enough is enough. It's time to take down the New York Times.

Recently, the Times lied about a letter written by a Corporal Jeffery Starr, trying to twist his death, and even his life, into a Vietnam-cry of "QUAQMIRE." It's the 2000 number they've been praying for! Who cares if they've been killed in action, or car crashes, helicopter accidents, they're dead, yee-haw! Now the blood-sucking leaches at the Times gets to crow about it.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, Michelle Malkin has already written on this, but I don't know how many follow the links, so I'll give my own examination on the issue.

Last Wednesday, the Times published a 4,624-word opus on American casualties of war in Iraq. "2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark," read the headline. The macabre, Vietnam-evoking piece appeared prominently on page A2. Among those profiled were Marines from the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment, including Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Here's the relevant passage:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Cpl. Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Cpl. Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the Marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Cpl. Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

END OF THE NYT PASSAGE

Now, this makes it look like this young Marine was resigned to a senseless death. Right? This is just a war for oil! Haliburton! Bush lied, kids died! W. and the Neo-Con Zionist conspiracy, and of course, the JOOOOOOOSSSSS [well, if you go by Cindy Sheehan].

HOWEVER, Ms. Malkin received a letter from Cpl. Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness [the first Leftist who only takes away any humorous variations on the name "Lickness" will find himself signed up for large amounts of child pornography, and the FBI knocking on his door, capisce?].

Uncle Tim provided for the rest of the story — and the parts of Cpl. Starr's letter that the Times failed to include. IN THE LETTER'S ENTIRETY, Corporal Starr wrote,

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark." [Emphasis is mine]

What was that, you say, Cpl Starr? The NYT can't seem to hear you. You're not in Iraq because of corporations, Neo-Cons, W., oiiiiiillllllll, Haliburton, Karl Rove, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

"It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

That's right, as far as he's concerned, he died for freedom. Now, I don't know about anyone else, like Maureen Dowd, but I think there's something that supercede's the "moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan and celebrity martyrs. It's the moral authority of the dead. Those people who have died and say "make our lives have meaning. I died for something, don't take that away from me."

Should anyone out there read this and say "Well, the kid was too stupid to know about the NeoCon cabal working with the corporations," now you're just being petty. If you honor the troops, you can't honestly turn around and say that they don't know what they're fighting for. Those of you who are against this war, well, you may not actually be against the soldiers, like the idiot who called for a million Mogadishus, but the soldiers are against you on this topic.

Now, when the the Times' reporter who wrote this schlock, James Dao, was queried about his bias, he replied, "There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr," and then, then....

I'm getting pissed now. I'll merely quote his reply: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"

Hey, Mr. Dao, can you answer any of those questions in the affirmative? Any? At all? You been to Iraq or anywhere else on a battlefield? The only time state-side reporters and reporters had any anxietys about their own sorry hides was when they saw Daniel Pearl nearly get his head cut off by these butchers.

As for the fear and trembling of our soldiers over seas, ummm.... when did they take a poll? Just WHEN did they have the telemarketing folks dial up satellite phones all over Iraq asking soldiers what they feel, or fear, want or dream? I've not seen more than a dozen or two soldiers appear on television in front of the news cameras whining about how they miss home, and NONE of them have said a thing about Haliburton. Does the Times consider this a statistically significant sample? Most sociologists and statisticians want AT LEAST 2,000 people giving opinions before it's even close to a representative sample.

Gee, 2,000, that number sounds familiar.

And this fatalism from Cpl. Starr? Well, as his father said, "Jeff had an awareness of death, but was very positive about coming home."

Does an "in case of my death" letter have anything to do with fatalism? Not really, EVEN I HAVE ONE OF THESE IN MY OWN FRIGGING SOCK DRAWER. An acknowledgement of ones mortality just means you're realistic.

The Times has no right to portray fear and anxiety that THEY feel, or that they THINK that everyone else should be feeling. I see more blogs from marines and soldiers IN Iraq than I see on television, and you know what they say?

"Oo-rah!"

"Semper fi, do or die, kill, kill, kill."

Let's see the Times report that.







"He has died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free
His truth is marching on." ~ the Battle Hymn of the Republic

************UPDATE*****************

Let's see the Times report a soldier's quick response back to James Dao's whine about no one being able to criticize him unless they have been to war:

"James, yes, I've been to war. Twice now, already in OIF, and I'm heading back to war within the month. Since you do not even have the courage to acknowledge that you used selected quotes from a dead soldier's last letter home to further your (and your paper's) agenda, you are not worthy of even writing about a Marine like Corporal Starr, never mind trying to psychoanalyze what he was feeling about being back in the war. You are a coward when only your reputation is on the line. Corporal Starr was courageous, when even his life was on the line.

Should I die in Iraq, on this, my third tour, my wife will have in her possesion, a letter from me to be released to the press, should some slimy dirtbag like you try to make it look like I served in anything other than an honorable manner. I'm proud of what I do, I do it knowingly and with full knowledge of what the background on this war is. And likely better knowledge of what the outcome can be. I'm not some poor schlep who needs a NYT reporter to "interpret" my thoughts. I've live in the Middle East longer than Juan Cole, I've met more common Iraqis than has George Galloway, and I know more about the military soldiers I serve with than you will ever know in a lifetime of mis-reporting on soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines."

Would Michael Moore like to call this man an idiot? A warmonger? Bloodthirsty savage? The Times will ignore him, and hopefully avoid using his name should he ever actually be KIA, God forfend.

On a recent episode of the Award Winning "Boston Legal," an argument was made that we're not witnessing enough of the blood in the streets of Baghdad. We're not seeing live footage of firefights. Why is that I wonder?

Because you'd see that in the battles, we're winning.

Because you'd see the Islamic hatemongers, and that would not be PC

Because you'd see that, gee, Iraq isn't in the middle of a civil war, because THE IRAQIS ARE FIGHTING WITH OUR FORCES, NOT AGAINST THEM.

Because you'd hear from the soldiers what they think, and the Times needs to tell you what "the soldiers really think."

Because that would require embedded reporters, and a lot of them have been recalled.

Because the embedded reporters still over there are on the side of the soldiers, and you can't let them stray off the reservation.

Because some reporters in Baghdad that still ARE on the reservation won't leave their hotel rooms.

Because should you witness the horrors of war, and see the horrors the insurgents bring down ON OTHER IRAQIS, you may actually think Bush was right. Can't let that happen, no.

And because David Kelly, the creator of Boston Legal, obviously watches network news, not Fox.

Terrorists are stupid.

Let's be honest. How many people expect a weapon of mass destruction to be used by some half assed terrorist? Honestly? Sure, would they like to, certainly. Would they do it if they could, yup. But can they? Ah....

Answer: they're too stupid.

Think about it. I can figure out a better terrorist attack than any of these bozos. You want terror? Screw the twin towers, go after Grand Central Station with a biological weapon, a little smallpox, for example, maybe plague, and you can infect half the east coast within hours. Suicide bombers in the terminal during rush hour would also be effective.

Look at Grant Central for a moment, okay? No security checks. No metal detectors, x-rays, nothing. Even I could make an anti-personnel bomb and bring it inside.

Think about it: bioweapons and suicide bombers would both leave the station virtually intact, and the building would eventually be reopened. But in the meantime, traffic would be shot to hell, and once it's reopened... well, would YOU want to go back there? The damage would be done. The terminal would be seen by millions of people as a plague-infected site by the ignorant, or it would be seen as a monument of death. It would be a lingering, lasting monument to a victory that would cost hundreds [suicide bomber] if not thousands, or millions of lives [bioweapon].

Traffic would be crippled, either by a lack of people coming in, or by the level of security now required to fully scan everyone coming on or off a train, into or out of the station. It would be a NIGHTMARE, worse than blowing up the 59th street bridge.

But why haven't they? I can make mustard gas, or a bomb. My MOTHER is a medical technologist, and she can make a bioweapon in our kitchen. Is it so impossible for al-Qaeda to find five guys to get an associates degree in London for medical technology, or chemistry, for them to get the same level of education? Anyone can come in through the Canadian or Mexican-US border, so why hasn't something like that happened?

Because they're STUPID.

It's not even their fault really. Most terrorists are idiots. The IRA for example. They've blow up the wrong targets, caught more people in the crossfire than some Palestinian terrorists, and the Palestinians are AIMING for the civillians. Then there was the Japanese Red Army unit brought in to Israel to aid the Palestinians-- they got cut down in the airport because they didn't know the Israelis had security! Idiots.

Thomas Aquinas once suggested that sin makes you stupid, and I think he's right.

When I can be more creative than Al-Qaeda, something is definitely wrong here.

And one day, I suspect, we will see an attempted nuclear strike on America. They may even make it happen. Why do I say that would be stupid?

Because they'd be dead.

Mecca, Medina, gone. Saudi Arabia, gone. Oil fields? Saudi's population is mostly on the shoreline, away from the oil. Syria? Israel can have them, if they want them. Iran will either disarm, or be destroyed. And God help anyone who gave them a nuke in the first place [PRC? PRNK? Russia?]. The party will be over. War on terror would be finished. And would the world protest? No, because they know that a nuke is crossing the line.

The UN would complain, as would all the usual suspects, but would they really do anything to try to harm us? Nope, why would they? Environmental disasters? Not really, the Middle east is a large sandlot, and the populations that aren't nuked can be transplanted [although the winds won't be able to carry the radiation that far east, and remember that OUR nukes come with very little fallout].

Aren't I being callous about this? A nuclear strike would be on either NY or DC [and the Secretary of agriculture would be the head of the country]. Well, if DC, we've got elections, and the bureaucracy is really hard to destroy, not to mention the amount of bunkers floating around. The Pakistani bomb requires a warhead the size of a volleyball, and MAY destroy midtown Manhattan [US warheads are the size of a bottle of Pepsi and can vaporize the 5 boroughs], and I live in Queens, so I should be relatively safe, because I intend to run like hell after the initial explosion, or at least head East, away from the fallout.

Or I'll be dead, and I won't have to worry much about it, now would I?

But truthfully, I don't think it'll ever come to that, because, as I've noted, they're STUPID. If they were serious about attacking us, they'd do it. They'd be sending people across the border daily for the sole purpose of sending them directly to a target. Any target. My father, a professor in Philosophy, came up with the idea of blowing up the New Orleans dam as a terrorist attack FIVE YEARS AGO. What is their problem that a family of academics dickering around with this as a mental exercise can come up with a better plan than bin Laden himself?

They're stupid. The only reason they could even get away with 9/11 is that the hostage playbook said be calm, you'll be ransomed for later, just play nice with the hostages. After 9/11, we knew better. Even Flight 93 knew better. Sneaker-Bomber Boy was nearly torn apart by the passengers around him, so we know the rules have changed. I want to see some terrorist pull a box cutter on board a plane coming out of La Guardia and see how long he lasts.

The terrorist threat to this country remains, but there are days I think it's just a threat. Looking at the kill ratios in Iraq, and the genius exhibited thus far by the Al-Qaeda crew over there [who have admitted in private memos that they are getting their ass kicked], all I can see is that they're being beaten senseless. We keep fighting them, and they remain a potential threat to the homeland proper, and certainly to our guys in country.

But, fine, they kill 2,000 of US army troops. Between, 30 and 60,000 prisoners are held in Iraq right now, and those are only the survivors [considering how many people get brought in from out of town, that's not that many prisoners]. Considering that the US army is not a police force, 60,000 prisoners may be a tenth of the insurgents encountered [the US army doesn't do body counts anymore]. This of course, doesn't count the suicide bombers who blow themselves up, adding to the body count on their side.

And according to my friend Jason at IR, in any individual sweep we net 150-1,000 people, and that's not counting prolonged engagements

During WW2, the US lost 3,000 people on Ohmaha beach by NOON of D-day. We've lost 2,000 in four years, in two wars, where for every one person they kill, we get at least thirty, and that's just a guess from someone who doesn't even look at a body count. It's more likely 50-1 odds, and the 50 number isn't OUR body count.

If this was a fair fight, I'd be worried, but you know what....?

They're stupid.

Unfortunately, as I write this, I know some Lefitst Liberal Looney somewhere will use this and twist it to say "WMDs are unimportant."

No, they are important, and you know why?

Because sometimes idiots can get lucky.

The Game is a Foot, an arm, a leg, and whatever else we find in the woodchipper when it's done.

I've mentioned before that the UN's food for oil program was a corrupt, glorified money laundering scheme for Saddam Insane. The Iraq Daily, Al-Mada, had noted 270 recipients of Saddam's oil vouchers for bribes, men such as George Galloway, the British version of Michael Moore, and Tony Blair's opposition. Galloway was allocated to received 18 million barrels of discount crude in return for his anti-war stance. Apparently, twas only the beginning. We've found a few more companies.

About 2,122 more of them.

That's right, 2,392 companies turned the oil-for-food program into a cesspool of mass corruption. Paul Volcker's comission has found 2,392 of the 4,500 companies from 66 countries that did business in the giant program allowed Saddam to rip off $1.8 billion in kickbacks and surcharges and another $10.9 billion through oil smuggling. Oh, yeah, we also have old friends involved.

Billionaire commodities trader Marc Rich, for one, pardoned by Clinton in his last wave of pardons as he was smuggled out the white house door. He was apparently the middle man in the deal, providing the financing, lifting the oil and overpaying by 30 to 40 cents a barrel so that a kickback could be paid to Saddam's regime. The deal took place just weeks after Rich received his midnight pardon from President Bill Clinton .

Taurus Petroleum is also listed as a major player in Saddam's sleazy oil dealing. Taurus financed the purchase of 256 million barrels of oil, even though it never had a single U.N. contract.

Between March 2001 and December 2002 — just months before the war — $52 million in surcharge payments were routed through the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.

And should we talk about the French? Their bank handled the account for the U.N. oil-for-food program and provided letters of credit needed for the deals to go through. Contracts were being given to shell companies but "did not recognize a particular responsibility to adequately inform the U.N" [the Volcker report].

NOW can we use RICO to shut down the UN?

A Eulogy for a good man, Pope John Paul II

The first words of John Paul II’s Papacy were “Be not afraid.”

Be not afraid seems an odd saying for someone who survived the Nazis, being forced to work around the chemicals that gave him Parkinsons, and later went into an underground seminary to become a priest in Poland under the Evil Empire of the USSR; at a time where thousands of nuclear missiles were spread over the globe, people must have thought he was crazy.

This must sound even stranger in a post-9/11 world of security checks and color-coded alerts. After all, three thousand people died on 9-11 alone, and there’s an average death a day in Iraq. Be not afraid? In October 2002 alone, someone filed a lawsuit for being born; the World Health Organization decided that 50% of the world’s violent deaths are a result of suicide. We've seen snipers, terrorist attacks, two wars, Iraq wanting nuclear weapons, North Korea having nuclear weapons (provided by Pres. Carter and Clinton), a deficit, a recession.

What’s not to be afraid of? North Korea, Iran, nuclear bombs, sniper serial killers, terrorists…

We live in a world racked by fear, solipsism and despair, but we still have this Polish priest in a white dress saying, “Be not afraid.” Is he nuts?

Now looks back on the over the past two years. Remember 9-11 not for airplanes, but for the lines of blood donors that wound around the block; not for those who died on impact, but those uncounted civilians who died because they when into the fire; not for three planes, but the one lone plane in a Pennsylvania field and the passengers who knowingly died so that others may live.

Iraq and Afghanistan fell in a matter of two and a half months with minimum casualties [losing and retaking the Philippeans in WW2 cost us 60K dead, keep it in perspective]; estimates say that the fall of Saddam saved almost a million Iraqis who would’ve died from starvation under his regime, and the Middle East seems to think that democracy is fashionable, and should be implemented before the Iraqis can do it first. And at the moment, over 65% of the al-Qaeda command structure resides in Cuba...that we know of.

The serial sniper was caught and captured in about a month. We still haven’t fired a shot at North Korea . Does it even matter that the economy is on the rise and that more people have more spending money?

For those of you who watch too much CNN, let me point out something that the news doesn’t: we live in a world of abundant goodness and light. The attacks of September 11 made me numb, but I was moved to tears by the lines of blood donors, the massive amounts of volunteers to dig through the rubble, the sudden fashionablity of patriotism, and the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of Flight 93.

What is there to be afraid of? Death? If you believe in religion, there’s nothing to be afraid of in Heaven or reincarnation. Those who don’t believe in an afterlife see death is a long, dreamless sleep.

What is there to fear? Life? In a world where such creatures as firefighters exist, and new wonders await each day, where is the curse in living?

At an Irish fair in Coney Island, I once saw a mug. It said:

"There are only two outcomes; either you’re employed, or you’re unemployed. If you have a job, there’s nothing to worry about; if you don’t have a job, you’ve either got your health, or you don’t.

If you have your health, you can always find a job later and you have nothing to worry about; if you don’t have your health, you can either get better or not.

If you get better, there’s nothing to worry about; if you don’t, you either go to Heaven or not.

If you go to Heaven, there’s nothing to worry about, and if not, you’ll be so busy shaking hands with all of your old friends that you won’t have time to worry about anything else."

Be not afraid.

Why? Because. Life is not suffering. Annoying and frustrating, certainly, but not suffering. There are events that have driven us up one wall, down another, crazy, frustrated, drained, and darned tiring. But are we truly suffering?
The man who taught me this died in April this year.
Pope John Paul II.

We all knew he was dying of Parkinson's, and between an infection and ending up as a drooling idiot, he went the better way.

My problem was that I've researched the man. I KNEW him.

How he his nickname growing up, he was Lolek (Charlie) to the Jewish kids in his Ghetto with whom he played soccer; how he grew up on the block just over from the Jewish Ghetto.

How he worked with Cardinal Sapheia of Poland to smuggle Jews out of the country, hiding them in his underground seminary.

How he would entertain people in secret play performances.

How his plays were focused on the spoken word because they didn't have sets when he grew up... and even when he was grown up.

How he played the piano to entertain through WW2 and the Cold War before heading into the seminary as a young man.

How, as a Bishop, he accidentally skied across the Polish border by accident.

And who could forget how he stepped out onto the balcony and spoke in broken Italian that "I am not familiar with your.... with OUR language. But if I misspeak, you will correct me." And when he returned home, how his opening message was "Be not afraid." It was the message of his papacy and his life, and God knows he lived it. The Soviets tried to kill him, and with three bullets to the chest, one missing his aorta by a millimeter, one can understand why he thought that Mary herself redirected the projectiles. With ballistics like that, I too would say that "One hand fired the bullets, and another hand guided them." And I will miss him. He was a man whose character I could never created in fiction, but someone who I will ever strive to be. Someone who would not go quietly into that good night, because life is a good, not an evil. Despite the risk of turning into Terri Schiavo [remember her, world? Remember how we watched her starve and die of thirst on national television?] the Pope made sure to take his feeding tube.

Someone said of Graham Greene upon his death that "He is in our Father's house, but he is not happy." I KNOW that Karol, Lolek, the Holy Father, the man Fr. Andrew Greeley called "The Pope who smiles"... he's not only in our Father's house, he's probably cheering up Graham Greene.

And we will not be afraid to live, because he was not. He taught us how to live: to the fullest of our minds and our hearts and ours souls. He taught us how to die: fighting, kicking and screaming every step of the way.

And we will not be afraid.

Because he wasn't.

On being Catholic.... Sometimes, even paranoids have real enemies.

When they were first building the Washington Monument, the Vatican sent marble from Italy to help in the construction. However, good solid Americans wouldn’t take anything from some damn Papists, and tossed it in the Potomac river.
When FDR was approached by Catholic and Jewish advisors who asked that he at least have the train tracks to Auschwitz bombed, he replied that “This is a Protestant country, and you two are only here under sufferance.”
Recently, I wrote about how Pope Pius XII saved 860,000 Jewish lives during the Holocaust, since then, the French have devoted yet another movie to slandering Pius, as well as another “Historical” book on going after Catholics in general for “supporting” the Holocaust by shear timidity, despite the fact that Catholic convents and monasteries hid refugees all throughout World War II.
The KKK hated Jews, Blacks and Catholics; it’s still okay to hate the Catholics. Everyone in Washington foamed at the mouth when Trent Lott supported Strom Thurmond for President, 1948 (when 30% of Black America voted for Thurmond), but no one found problems when he merely hated Catholics.
Three years ago, a man shot a priest in the middle of the street in Baltimore; he confessed. This man was found not guilty by reason of mental defect—he had, after all, been molested in the past, so of course he had to be let free (read the sarcasm, please).
An enthymeme is a term in logic referring to an argument where either supporting evidence for an argument, or the conclusion of the argument is left out. Looking at the above, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions—hint: it has something to do with prejudice, anti-Catholicism, and “even paranoids have real enemies.”
Before I let you get back to your nice, neat, comfortable lives, let me give you a little side note, and a hint of a prediction. Given the murder case above, imagine a Muslim making a derogatory comment about the USA—any comment, from taxes to Clinton to the FBI—and receiving a bullet over it; when that murder case goes to trial, the defendant pleads “not-guilty on the grounds of mental defect stemming from 9-11 rage.” After letting a priest killer go on the “mental defect” of having been molested in the past, the grounds are there to let a murderer go because his victim resembled “a hijacker.”
Welcome to my nightmare: if you’re a victim, or if you hate the right people you can get away with murder; if you slander the correct group, have fun. We’re living in a world where someone is valued more highly because s/he’s a victim of society instead of a victim of homicide or slander; and it’s perfectly legal, and it’s quite alright, as long as you’re not the one on the slab.

******************************

Anyone who has a television set knows about the recent pedophile problems within the US Catholic Church. However, the number is a dark secret, something I managed to get only after a scouring a few hundred NY Times articles: one hundred priests, nationwide, over the course of FORTY YEARS. One hundred bad eggs in forty years—the police don’t have a record that good. In the diocese of Brooklyn alone, there are 200- 250 parishes, which gives you an idea about how small the problem is.
Maybe you’ve heard about all the possible solutions for pedophilia proposed by the vultures who leapt all over the “pedophile scandal rocking the Catholic Church,” in the hopes of pushing their own agenda, be it woman priests, a married clergy, a democratized process of electing Bishops. There was a man who proposed all of these exact same things back in the 1960s; in addition to that, he was also an advocate of the homosexual Man-Boy Love Association, whose motto is “Eight is too late.”
He was Father Gahagan of Boston; the golden boy of the Left in the twentieth century turned into one of the first and worst pedophiles caught in the twenty-first.
To take a serious look at the idea of “democratizing” the Church by parishioners electing Bishops, let’s update the idea of the Italian mob picking Pope Ambrosious in the 4th century, and instead, turn it into an election. Let’s get all of the butterfly ballots together, and make sure that they’re picked by a Democratic election board so they’re properly confusing, assemble the Democratic and Republican nominees for Bishop, and elect the person who’ll control the multimillion dollar properties scattered over hospitals, Churches, publishing houses, and colleges. And, of course, as in any election, they’ll be the million dollar donations from, say, Mr and Mrs. Gallo, and suddenly, Gallo wines become the wine at Catholic masses all over the state. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?
When one of FDR’s Catholic and one of his Jewish advisors asked him that he at least have the train tracks to Auschwitz bombed, he replied that “This is a Protestant country, and you two are only here under sufferance.”
And now, in the 21st century, a man can shoot a Baltimore priest and get off, I suppose that Catholics are still here under sufferance. Maybe we should pack up and leave, starting with our hundreds of hospitals and AIDS clinics.
Maybe someone should acknowledge that Catholics are hated for not allowing abortion or contraception in an age where the birthrate is below 2.0; some hate Catholics for meaning “till death do you part,” for not being like everybody else. Maybe someone should acknowledge that Catholics have been like this for 2000 years before we were even born, and will be when we are long gone, and should get used to it.
Oh, and PS: most of the pedophiles were ordained in the 1970s, the age of “liberalism” and “sexual revolution,” and now the proposed “solutions” are more “liberalism” and “sexual revolution.”
So, should you be an Orthodox Catholic, give the Pope the benefit of the doubt, and suspect that the American media are out to get you, just remember that sometimes even paranoids have real enemies.

I'm fairly certain that these next two articles will get me lynched, which may explain why no one would ever publish them in my school newspaper when I first wrote them in 2002.
With any luck, someone will look at these and think, and maybe not get killed, or make another terrible mistake.
Some people will look at these and think I’m making judgments about them… I’m more making judgments on the people who lied to you, because you have been lied to. Repeatedly, with no regard for your health, your life, or your happiness.
For those people who read these articles and take them as a judgment, you don’t have my judgment, you have my sympathy. Because, know it or not, you’ve been screwed in more ways than one.

Sex, Lies and Sex.

How well your brainwashing has held up?
Let us assume for the moment that you are not a good, highly religious person who believes in waiting for sex, but are instead a "normal" and "sexually liberated" person. You bring in a condom to the equation, the pill, and all modern safety equipment. You are now perfectly safe from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, right?
No. You're DEAD.
The dirty little secret about sex education is what you're NOT told. You're not told about the condom failure rates resulting in pregnancies each and every year. Now, since a virus like HIV is many thousands of times smaller than a sperm cell, how many viruses must a condom NOT prevent from getting away? So, the logical conclusion is that Planned Parenthood doesn't want to keep you safe; they'd like you to simple DIE.
Let me tell you how bad premarital sex has gotten. One in five teenagers has an STD, a total of eight thousand teenagers and 46% of girls get an STD on their very first time. Welcome to our very own politically incorrect epidemic (the Centers for
Disease Control considers the STD epidemic a "multiple" epidemic of at least 25 separate diseases -- nearly 50 if you count the various strains of virus groups). Instead of the world of sexual expression that we're constantly told is good and pure and harmless is not only wrong, but deadly wrong (see: "Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids" by Dr. Meg Meeker).
Other dirty little secrets: Our modern day, "Liberal" Catholic laity whine about the "senseless and arbitrary" condemnation of contraceptives between married couples who don't want to have too many children but still enjoy sex. First of all, if you've never heard of something called natural family planning, I recommend you learn about it quickly. Not only does it NOT mess around with your biochemistry like the pill (which makes your body overproduce blood clots and other fun stuff), but it's more effective than ether the pill or condoms for controlling family size (Ralph McInery, "The Defamation of Pius XII"). It's a little extra work, but at least it DOES work.
Would you like some more horror stories? How about 33% of 8-to-11 year olds and 49% of 12-to-15 year olds think that pressure to have sex is a big problem for them; nowadays sex isn't considered sex unless it's direct intercourse, so oral sex is "safe"-thank you Mr. Clinton ("Epidemic").
What about the mentally healthy sexual expressiveness pushed by Freud? It's a good way to put you into depression and other forms of mental problems (a college public health study referenced in Patrick Glynn's "God: The Evidence").
Some people look at me strangely when I say I'm a virgin, as though I'm an aberration. When I tell some atheists that I'm an Orthodox Catholic-I give the Pope the benefit of the doubt-they call me a Puritan, a member of the Religious Right, and other unpleasant names. Any and or all of it may be true, but at least I'll still be alive.



A Modest Proposal.

Ever since Theodore Dreiser wrote An American Tragedy 100 years ago, rich men have been paying poor women to get themselves “fixed”. In January, 1973, as far away from elections as possible, 7 Supreme Court Justices made it possible to now put it on the credit card for a lunch-hour ‘procedure.’
Abortion has removed more than 45million people from this country alone in only 30 years. That’s the population of ten western US states. One out of every four babies die by “choice.” Current birth rates have the population increasing by 1.2 kids per couple—you need 2.2 to replace the population (US Public Health Statisticians). With the population density of NJ, you can fit the world’s people into Texas (PJ O’Rourke).
“But it’s my body!” It’s not about you! There is another entity involved here: an unborn child—“fetus,” if you prefer the Latin, but who ever says “I can feel the fetus move / kick”?
In the 19th Century, the American Medical Association, citing discoveries in fertilization and embryology, persuaded democratic legislators to make the abortion of what had been discovered to be new life a felony for fellow medical practitioners. Now, genetics and DNA show us that the unique genotype of a baby is NOT identical with the mother or the father. I hate to break it to you, but child is an individual person.
For those who refuse to be convinced by science, theology or philosophy that a fetus is a living thing with a right to live, let’s try something else.
What about children from rape! They’re harmful to mental health! No. Statistics show that victims of rape who raise children that resulted from the rape actually recover better from the rape itself (1970’s Minnesota, when abortion was still illegal, could not find a single conception resulting from violent rape). By the way, have you ever heard about adoption? Besides, not even one in every thousand rapes results in pregnancy by the most generous definition of “rape,” so the “mental health” argument for pro-death doesn’t have much statistical support.
Utilitarian wanting the greatest good for the greatest number must do the moral math: abortion results in an increased probability of breast cancer (National symposium on abortion, at SJU 11-2-03); so giving birth increases the future workforce, lets you live longer, and—if you go for adoption—gives joy to two other people who can’t give birth.
Let’s not discuss partial birth abortion, which involves cutting the baby apart as it comes out of the womb, and, finally, while the head is still inside the mother, the brains are sucked out through a needle.
Thanks to the women have exercised their choice for death: you’ve left room for Mexican Catholics, Chinese Baptists, Korean Evangelicals, and pious Muslims from everywhere to come and take the opportunities you were too weak and tired to give to your child. The theistic hopefulness of these groups will give us the stronger culture the US had when my great grandparents came here.
Thank you for exercising your female choice to abort—it’s a great comfort to the spineless males who refuse take responsibility for you and the child you both helped to bring into existence. Do not hold him responsible—it is, of course, your choice, right?
PS: as for the Liberals I’ve offended—does it bother you that we are the only western democracy that did not get abortion by democratic means?

Recently, I came to President Bush's defense on hurricane Katrina. However, It has come to my attention that if you're going to defend Bush on one subject, you might just have to defend him on other topics. This also gives me a good excuse to show you exactly how I think.

The following articles are lessons in "historiography"-- basically, seeing the history of history being written, examining the text as well as the subtext. Basically, welcome to my mind... be sure to bring a flashlight.

The following articles were written two years ago before the Iraq war. Keep in mind, I have not changed my mind on most of these subjects, and Weapons of Mass Destruction are a topic for another day [however, I'm fairly certain they're in Syria, and they've been used in Iraq on our troops over the course of this "insurgency"]


Never Start a Fight, but Always Finish It.
(or simply: Always Finish it)

War is never necessary, inevitable, or anything of the sort. Attacking Iraq would be a preventative measure; it worked for Elizabeth I in 1578 against the Spanish Armada, in 1758 for Prussia, and Israel’s Six Day War of 1967 and in 1981 (when they took out the French supplied nuclear facility in Iraq).
When it comes to Saddam Hussein, he can avoid any conflict with amazing ease. Saddam could decide that life would be easier if he gave up his bioweapons and chemical weapons, then let the UN inspectors come in free and clear and have a look at EVERYTHING. Then he could stop killing his own subjects, stuff the rebellious ones into a corner of the country, give them their own state and tell them to do something obscene with it. War avoided, case closed.
Who knows? Maybe the threat of an all-out US attack will even make roll over and play dead, stop pulling a Milosevic on his own people, and stop gathering enough gasses to make new epidemics of plague, etc. But the odds of that happening are…?
There is no one on the planet who wants to blow away Saddam just for the fun of it. But honestly, who thinks that—after ten years and God knows how much cash Saddam has blown on his weapons programs—he’s just going to let it all go? That after so much effort wiping out Kurds that he’s just going to take the easy way out? One major problem I find with the current attitude is it’s too much of the Hollywood Wild West ethic of “the good guys don’t draw first.” Since when did American foreign policy involve a shootout at high noon, mixed with a little touch of poker-style bluffing?
This isn’t the nineteenth century anymore. When the Congress of Vienna tried to carve up a post-Napoleonic world, the world fell apart in about fifty-to-sixty years. After World War I, Europe created Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Nineteenth century rules barely worked in the 19th century, and when we applied them to the Middle East, we got burned; OPEC in the 70s, Iran in the 80s, then Iraq and Afghanistan. Europe played 19th century politics waiting for Hitler to strike first; the US waited for Bin Laden to give us an “actual” attack (as though blowing up US barracks wasn’t enough).
Welcome to the 21st century. We’re in a war now; it’s just that the rules have changed. We didn’t start it, but we should definitely finish it.
No one wants a war simply for the sake of having one. No one wants our soldiers to die. There were ninety-eight civilians on board Flight 93 didn’t want a fight either, and they didn’t want to die. But a war came to them, and they didn’t wait for a suicide dive. Their response was “Let’s roll.”
Let’s hope that, when the time comes, our response won’t be any less.


Let's Roll.

Why bomb Saddam?
Why not?
Slobodan Milosevic killed how many people before the US (UN Peacekeepers came in later) wiped the floor with him? It was enough to describe Milosevic as a Hitler prototype. But Saddam Hussein's killed tens of thousands of his own people, and we let him get away with it…why? September of 2001, the Torch “school” opinion had seven of eight students saying we shouldn't wipe out the Taliban, because we would kill so many innocent people and have so many soldiers die. With limited causalities and a few weeks later, say goodbye to the Taliban. In the first Persian Gulf War, it was argued that we'd lose thousands of soldiers. Aside from car accidents, helicopter mishaps and the like, we barely broke double digits (12 people).
The U.S. gave Saddam bioweapons to fight Iran. Don't we have the responsibility to clean up our messes? What's that I hear you say? The UN inspectors? After ten years and nothing done, how many people think that anything will get done NOW? What has the UN done to Saddam but put sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that do nothing but hurt the Iraqi people and leave Hussein unhurt? We went to war in the Gulf to wipe out his weapons of mass destruction (see: Caleb Carr, "The Lessons of Terror."), why not now? Besides, when SJU went to a Nike factory in Mexico, everyone tore them to shreds because Nike directed what they saw; Saddam Hussein isn't crafty enough to imitate Nike?
What about our allies, like the French? The French gave Saddam parts for nuclear weapons in the early eighties, and they've been helping Iraq despite the sanctions. Who wants to place money on what the French have given to Iraq lately?
I hear cries of "wait for the UN and our allies!" And if Saddam's six months away from getting nukes, it takes six months to assemble the UN, and what then? We pray that he won't wake up in a fit of peak and nuke Iran or Israel, perhaps?
"But the Middle East isn't worried!" Why should they be? We came running to their aid last time, so why should they help us get rid of what is only a potential problem?
Why don't we go after Iran or North Korea instead? They already have nuclear weapons. Next question?
Why don't we deal with terrorism? According to Bill Safire of the New York Times, the head of Iraqi intelligence met with someone in Al Qaeda's chain of command before 9-11-02. Must I draw you a flow chart?
This is our next step on the war on terror, please make no mistake about it. The Taliban crumbled, odds are that Bin Laden is buried in the sands of Tora Bora, and we haven't had a terrorist attack in one year; that was step one. Step three might be wiping out the French…or at least having a very long talk with Mr. Chirac; maybe we can even talk with the House of Faud in Saudi Arabia about fifteen hijackers.
CNN logic is nice, but never assume that a gut reaction is wrong because it's merely a gut reaction. Logic's good, but logic is a tool, and like all human tools, it can be faulty.
Last point: Once upon a time was a place called Ethiopia. It was invaded by a man named Mussolini. The League of Nations told him to back off. He didn't. The League of Nations did nothing and it died.
Once upon a time was a man named Saddam, and he wanted weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations imposed restrictions. He didn't follow them. The UN… well, let's wait and see….

And a fun time was had by all.

All vacation long, I listened to Democrats whine about North Korea; we should wipe them out for breaking a 1994 agreement that it stop its nuclear program for aid. I hear we’re not going after N. Korea with the same pressure on Iraq.
“Bush mislead us so he could go into Iraq!” the cry echoed, despite two and a half pages of intelligence briefings offered to Congress on the subject (Colin Powell, This Week, 10/20/02). We’ve been in peaceful diplomatic negotiations with N. Korea and their nuclear supplier (Pakistan, not Clinton or Jimmy Carter), and we’re even continuing UN deals on Iraq.
What’s the problem? Why do I hear Democrats demand to invade N. Korea, but do little or nothing to Saddam? Even Amnesty International suggests that Bush and Blair are “too selective,” when talking about the human rights abuses in Iraq, even though AI has reported Iraqi horrors for years.
All I can think is “Why not have an Amnesty International hit list? Let’s deal with every tribal war in Africa; why not the shifta murder gangs of the Sudan who’ve enslaved whites and Christians of all ethnic groups for decades (no, can’t do that; Sudan’s on the UN human rights commission…you see something wrong here?).
“Why don’t we go after China, which persecutes, beats and jails Christians for fun, and drops baby girls down wells? Clinton’s state department let US businesses perfect China’s ICBM program like we gave weapons to Iraq, so why not clean up the mess?
“Why don’t we go after North Korea, free Tibet, and provide peacekeepers in Northern Ireland, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Palestine?”
For those of you who missed the sarcasm, you can’t complain about NOT declaring war on North Korea while at the same time treating Saddam with diplomacy. The US is trying to talk with North Korea like we’re STILL talking with Saddam.
But still, each time Iraq is mentioned…
“Bush is a warmonger.” Who have we bombed since the Taliban?
“Bush is ignoring terrorism.” After all, look at the bombed American buildings, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and…oh, yeah, that’s been it for sixteen months and counting. It took fifteen months for Al-Qaeda to get back in shape again, thousands of prisoners at Guantanamo and we’ve had no progress with the war on terror?
While I personally wouldn’t mind regime change in China, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and Northern Ireland, I’m not holding my breath, since China and England are on the UN Security Council (China holds sway over the area once known as Tibet. England set up Saudi Arabia’s House of Faud, and holds the leash on the British Army in Northern Ireland).
So the next time you hear talk about “conflict resolution,” think a little bit about the new Global order in which we live. Remember that everything is connected to almost everything else. Then stop, think, do a Lexus Nexus search, and ask, “what’s their connection?”
Remember that governments deal in compromises and convenience, and it’s up to the rest of us to make up the difference.

The House of the Rising Sun is Closed.

I initially did not do this because, well, it's not nice to speak ill of the dead. However, that has changed for me, why.... because I believe that, while error has no right, PEOPLE have rights.

So what does St. Augustine have to do with anything? Simple, people have rights, error doesn't.

Which means the mayor and the governor of New Orleans and Louisiana, respectively, are lucky that they never lived in the Soviet Union, because they would have been taken out and shot-- there, people who err had no rights. At least here they do [and you don't joke about assassinating politicians in New Orleans, they're touchy ever since Huey Long].

"But what about Bush? The federal government did nothing until it was too late." If you honestly believe that… well, wait.

But what triggered this? Why did I decide to go off on the Left wing nuts blaming Bush for the weather? Well, someone asked me about it, to start with, and I like to answer in a detailed, somewhat thoughtful manner. However, I have a headcold, so forgive me if some of this is incoherent.

But this blog post was triggered by 9/11. Yes, 9/11. I wanted to do an in memorianum, but I thought it would be too sappy.

But now I’m pissed. Governor Blanco, I’m certain, deliberately exaggerated the 10,000 dead in order to claim that Bush is responsible for more dead than on 9/11, but now we won’t even break one thousand, never mind three.

And I was reminiscing about the day. I had heard about the first crash the minute it happened… someone asked if I had heard about a plane hitting the World Trade Center [WTC], and I laughed, saying that the towers are too damn big for someone to accidentally run into them. I got out of class an hour and a half later, to my next class, and we were all told that class was cancelled… okay, but why? And why didn’t Fr. Caserta leave a note? Or have the theology department post one. I called my father on one of the inter-college phones, and he said “Come to my office.” That’s it, nothing more…but okay. Whatever.

I walk out of the building, across the great lawn, and for some reason, the chatter is oddly isolated instead of University wide. And everyone on God’s green earth has a cell phone out. I felt like I was in Hitchcock’s The Birds [or The Boids for Warner Bros. fans]. “Wow this is odd.”

I walk into my father’s office, and he says that “Planes have crashed into the World Trade Center, they’ve fallen and the Pentagon is burning.”

“Didn’t Tom Clancy already do this novel?”

And everyone and his brother knew Bin Laden had done it. My father said “Of COURSE bin Laden did it!” Then again, when even my campus joke magazine advocated killing bin Laden, I might want to note that we’re biased. My second reaction was “bin Laden is a dead man” [and he might be—his press statements are few and far between, and the language is off, but that’s something else.].

Twelve hours later, Kabul was burning. I heard later that they weren’t our bombs. To quote Ann Coulter, “I wanted them to be our bombs. They should’ve been our bombs.”

I remember… the NY Times calling Rudy Giuliani Churchill in a baseball cap.

I remember NYPD and FDNY going into the fire, knowing they were going to die, but there were still people up there, and they were going to get them out… and they died trying. They had trained for this every Saturday for every week of Giuliani’s administration, and they were ready, and they gave everything.

I remember them staying there for a month cleaning out the rubble.

I remember it all.

And now I remember something different.

I remember how Amtrak offered to send trains to evacuate New Orleans before the hurricane even hit—and the Mayor REFUSED THEIR HELP

I remember the Governor having 65 THOUSAND National Guard troops outside of New Orleans, sitting there, doing NOTHING. Buses, sitting in their docks, not being used for evacuation .

I remember the governor evacuating the rich white tourists from the hotels and letting them cut the lines out of town.

I remember that the levies couldn’t take a level 3 hurricane and that Katrina was a 5, but no one called for a mandatory evacuation.

I remember Louisiana getting TEN TIMES more federal money than California. That New Orleans diverted the funds from rebuilding the levies this past year because “they’ll be fine,” and shifting them to pork barrel projects.

I remember Bush calling for an evacuation of New Orleans before the hurricane hit, and the Mayor only made it voluntary.

I remember that New Orleans had a contingency plan to deal with disasters/hurricanes. Only Mayor Nagin didn't follow it, nor did Governor Blanco. And these are the people complaining about what Bush didn’t do? [PS: In Long Island, they tell you to leave, or you drown. And they’re NOT below sea level.]

I remember that the Red Cross was not allowed to enter New Orleans by decree of local officials.

And I remember the New Orleans Police Department. I remember them well. The stinking cowards ran like river rats, almost a third of the police department abandoned the city before the hurricane even hit. Now half the department has resigned, most in disgrace. The NOPD has dishonored their badges. One committed suicide, as did one PR representative.

The NYPD didn’t run, they didn’t hide, they went to their deaths in the hope that others may live. The NOPD live to die some other day.

And should I start on the looters?

Why bother?

On 9/11, Guiliani was there, on site, and in fact was thrown into a building to escape the debris from the collapse of the South Tower.

Nagin? He bellowed for federal help, complaining that it was the federal government's fault. He did NOTHING. He deserves nothing in return. New Orleans has been known as the big easy, but also as the Big Sleazy. And no wonder, it got taken out by several of the Seven Deadly Sins—greed, pride, envy and anger [hence the looters of the Trinitrons and the rapists].

And then what did he do? He announced plans to give NOPD officers vacations to Las Vegas (all on the tab of FEMA). And he's now bought a house in Dallas. At the very least, send your cops to Houston—they’ve got strip clubs, and they did save YOUR voters.

See, that’s the one problem with being a Republican—the Republican federal government generally assumes that the local government knows enough to take care of itself, and it’ll call when it needs the big guns sent in.

That’s a problem when the Governor’s an ass who doesn’t know that her cell phone won’t WORK in a hurricane, and will need a satellite phone. That’s a problem with the mayor supported the Governor’s opposition in the previous election and the Governor’s still holding a grudge. That’s a problem when the Governor seems more intent on letting New Orleans down the gutter than doing her job.

A message to Governor Blanco—you are the duly represented official of your state, not an impotent weakling. You remember those National Guard troops you had? You can USE them. If you are too gutless to use the national guard in evacuating a city, and sending in those 65,000 troops when the riots break out, then you should’ve called President Bush the day Katrina was declared a category 5 hurricane, and said, “Mr. President, I am a corrupt, incompetent fool. I squandered all of our federal money on anything but the levies, and we’ve known for over a year that they can’t take what’s coming. I need to be relieved of duty because I don’t have a clue.”

Now, in this case, Bush messed up. Oh yes, W. went wrong….. BUSH SHOULD’VE COMMANDEERED THE STATE FROM THE GOVERNOR AND DECLARED MARTIAL LAW THE DAY KATRINA WAS SPOTTED.

However, that’s a problem. In saying the above, it’s basically saying that Bush couldn't do anything about Louisiana without doing something that hasn't been done since the Civil War— use the insurrection acts to usurp the power of the state government.

And now that two incompetents killed over four hundred people—so far—they blame Bush for causing the storm [I didn’t know he was God]. The blame Bush for not personally coming down immediately into the war zone that is New Orleans with a hundred thousand federal employees on his back, bringing in the troops that were in Iraq….

I’m sorry, wait a moment? The democrats wanted Bush, a republican, to declare martial law? With the military? Had that happened, he would’ve been impeached—well, they would try, anyway. And how exactly would Bush say that, hmm? “I, the white Republican male, am going to usurp the authority of the black, democratic, female governor, and declare martial law”?

Then again, Bush would’ve at least had someone competent running the place—I don’t mean the FEMA director, I mean the man the Mayor praised as “John Wayne,” the army General Honore.

Rudy and Pataki didn’t have the President on 9/11. The president was being hidden by the Secret Service in an undisclosed location. Probably several. In any other city, there would’ve been riots and blood in the streets. New York didn’t need it. Had New Orleans been prepared for the worst, the citizens would’ve been moved out of town on buses and Amtrak trains. We may not have needed body bags [although there are always idiots who would’ve stayed—people are STILL staying, until the military comes to their door, M16 assault rifle and all].

And now Barak Obama is calling Bush a racist? Forget the rappers, but this was the guy who spent half his talk at the democratic convention pretending to be a Republican [even the black Lt. Governor of Maryland at the RNC said “I was going to give the RNC platform here tonight, but Barak Obama already did it up in Boston six weeks ago.”]. Now it’s “W.’s a racist,” only said articulately…. Mr. Senator, if W. was a racist, he’d mention that all of the blacks of New Orleans are being saved by white rescuers. I’m told that you haven't figured out yet how the evil "neocons" cooked up a hurricane that targeted only black people. Let me know how that turns out, would you?

These people are vile. Mistakes were made all around, but for God’s sake, Blanco and Nagin, you are the duly elected local authorities. If you can’t have the moral courage to admit you made a mistake, if you can’t have the courage that George W. Bush has already exhibited by saying that he screwed up, then how DARE you try to put this all on him? You failed to protect your citizens. Admit it and move on.

On a related note:

Someone asked me recently if W. was still a hero of mine. Maybe I should tell you why he was in the first place—decisive action. Once he was given proof who was responsible for 9/11, they were gone before the next month was over. Clinton would’ve gotten even MORE indictments ready for bin Laden, as if we didn’t have enough. Al Gore… who knows?

Is he still a hero to me, now that he’s admitted that he screwed up in New Orleans? Even more so. Any other man would’ve been screaming about the faults of others. But he hasn’t. It was his fault that the FEMA director wasn’t qualified. It was his fault for not taking control of New Orleans when the train wreck was coming.

On 9/11, he was a man. He was a man who showed kindness to those who were made victims. A man of stability and reassurance. “I hear you. The American People Hear you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will be hearing from us real soon.”

And now, he says that the buck stops at his desk.

Pay attention, gentlemen. This is the mark of a true man.





“There is
A House
In New Orleans
They call
The Rising Sun.
And it’s been.
The Ruin
Of Many
A poor boy
And God
I know
I’m one.”

A Requiem for a City, New Orleans, RIP.

Even if New Orleans is not demolished with the option of moving further uphill, it will take three years for it to make a comeback structurally, and ten years economically. When people think about Katrina, they see bodies floating in the water, they see people dramatically rescued from their roofs via helicopter, they see whiners about Bush, and MPs in the streets.

Let me tell you what I see.

I see New Orleans as it was. The Cities of the Dead, six- and seven-foot-high mausoleums the homes of this ‘parish’ of New Orleans, keeping the dead buried aboveground, since six feet under the city was water. The stone tombs were also designed to be ‘natural’ crematories. At one point, the Catholic Church had banned cremations, and since New Orleans was very Catholic—or at least very French—they obeyed. They came up with a way around it by making the mausoleums act as natural ovens operating on heat from the sun. The inside of the coffins would reach over three hundred degrees Fahrenheit. By the time another body had to be buried, the coffin would be slid in, sweeping the remains of the previous body to the back, to fall down a vent to the bottom of the sepulcher.

When you first get out of the plane, you feel like you've fallen into a pool of warm water, except you're was on solid, semi-dry ground. Then again, you are about thirty feet below sea level, the only think from making Lake Ponchatrain from becoming Lake Orleans is a dam, and luck during the hurricane season, for a good hurricane will just shove the lake into the city, and the Levies can't withstand more than a Category 3 hurricane.

Bourbon Street, New Orleans in the Sunday predawn hours was not exactly pleasant, since the time was in-between: after the party the previous night and before the cleanup the morning after, when all the shops took hoses to their sidewalks and sprayed off the three types of beer: spilt, vomited and excreted.

Bourbon Street is where you think of when you think New Orleans, and Marte Gras, and it's also New Orleans’ red light district. A row of strip clubs, bars, restaurants, and tourist traps. In one window there was a video-loop of woman stripping her clothes off in a translucent window backlit by a yellow light. The neon lights flashed along the street, and scattered groups of people from all ages danced to jazz still pouring out from the nightclubs.
A tiny ambulette slowly rolls down the street to collect drunks for the drunk tanks and dries them out.
On the same street is the Royal Sonesta Hotel, and you wonder if you’re in the same place. It opens into a the expansive hotel lobby behind crystal class doors. The floor laid with marble and chandeliers hung from the ceiling. The hotel bar on the right and a hallway filled with gift shops on the left.
It is also the home of Brennan’s—where, on Sunday mornings, you can go and have a late breakfast that IS dinner. A breakfast where they serve absinth and huge pink iced drinks with an umbrella in them; fillet mignon that melts in your mouth, topped with poached eggs with hollandaise sauce as an entrée.

It is a land of “Live and Let Die”, of Anne Rice’s vampires, James Lee Burke’s policemen, Sherylon Kenyon’s dark hunters, the home of voodoo in America, of jambalaya and zydico. It is the last place in the world where the Napoleonic Code still exists at THE law.

It is the home of the con: “Give me a dollar and I’ll tell you where you got your shoes.” The inevitable answer being ‘You got your shoes, on your feet on Bourbon Street.” You’re usually so busy laughing you didn’t notice that you just got scammed and he’s making off with you money. A city where the fast and loose play faster and looser.

At the moment, New Orleans is a city of the dead, and only the dead. But, God Willing, it will once again be a home of the living and the lively.

Raquel and Jason have good articles on the hurricane proper, with great analysis of what went wrong, and links to charity organizations. I just felt like someone needed to say a eulogy.

Be well, and God bless.

Unless the quotes are otherwise attributed, they're most likely from Ms. Coulter.

I like this woman just for the headline, if nothing else.
"I'd rather be doing my hair than doing you." Headline for Carleigh

COULTER: TOO HOT FOR "CHRISTIAN" COLLEGE
September 1, 2005, 11:57 AM
"Christian College Succumbs to Pressure, Cancels Coulter” Alumni complain, citing facts gleaned from "Ann Coulter Is A C—-.com." The Rev. Barry Lynn will give the lecture instead. Coulter announces she is joining a Black Church.

Laurence Simon, of http://www.imao.us/
September 1, 2005, 12:48 AM
Apparently, the fire marshal and the people who plan disaster relief don't communicate, because Houston offered up 24,000 folks a cot and three hots at the Astrodome but the gates have been shut at 12,000 or so.
We here in Houston are used to this kind of screw up. Although what we're really waiting for is when the refugees threaten to relocate to Tennessee because there aren't adequate luxury box accommodations and the astroturf isn't fit for play.

THE NATION UNITES AFTER A DISASTER!
September 1, 2005, 6:51 PM
"George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, . . ." New York Times editorial, Thursday September 1, 2005.

http://imperialrequiem.blogspot.com/
"The media's got it's work cut out for itself. I'll just revel in their pain."

GERMAN PAPERS: Katrina Should be Lesson To USA on 'Global Warming'...
August 31, 2005, 12:04 PM
And getting your butt kicked in two world wars should be a lesson too.

CINDY AND THE GERMANS TOGETHER AGAIN
August 31, 2005, 12:07 PM
"Cindy Sez Katrina Bush’s Fault”
What if you had a war protest and nobody came?

August 27, 2005, 1:32 AM
"Sweetness and light: Has there ever been a phonier news story”
CINDY: "He just wanted to go over to fight for his country . . . "

August 26, 2005, 3:15 AM
"Sweetness and light: Two days after Casey's death, Cindy said . . . ”

AT LEAST THEY DIDN'T CHANGE IT TO "THE GOD OF EVOLUTION"
August 26, 2005, 8:13 PM
"The Parent, the Offspring, and the Holy Ghost”

PAT ROBERTSON JOINS STEPHANOPOULOS IN CALLING FOR ASSASINATIONS
August 25, 2005, 7:15 PM
"Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination”

SHEEHAN CALLS TERRORISTS KILLING AMERICAN TROOPS "FREEDOM FIGHTERS"
August 23, 2005, 4:13 PM
"Sweetness and Light: Cindy Calls Insurgents “Freedom Fighters”

ANOTHER GREAT FIND ON THE SWEETNESS AND LIGHT BLOG
August 22, 2005, 11:13 PM
"THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY"


And now, the most vicious hit I've seen in quite some time. Courtesy of WWW.sacredcowburgers.com