« November 2004 | Main | January 2005 »
December 22, 2004
And We Wonder Why They Hate Us
A caller to the Sean Hannity Show today (guest hosted by Paul W. Smith), attempting to defend the servicemen being court-martialed for scavenging for parts, explained that it was a common practice and said that during Desert Storm one of his jobs in the military was to steal civilian tanker trucks in Saudi Arabia, where, of course, the U.S. military was graciously allowed to build bases. "If it had fuel in it, so much the better; and if it had water, even more so much the better," explained the caller.
Did it matter that they were robbing civilians whom they were supposedly protecting from invasion and subsequent rape and plunder by Saddam Hussein (which wasn't going to happen anyway)? Apparently not. In fact, the caller was a little peeved that the U.S. government hadn't told the Saudi police that the pillaging of the populace by its alleged defenders was to be allowed to proceed unhindered. Those darn fool cops actually tried to arrest members of our fine forces when they were caught making off with Saudi civilians' property! To what is this world coming?
Anyway, in case you needed it, this is more proof that (a) government and its wars are nothing but one big criminal racket and (b) governments' actions, especially in wartime, never live up to their lofty rhetoric.
But, gee, I can't imagine why any Arabs, particularly Saudis, could possibly hate the United States.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 08:16 PM | Comments (0)
December 21, 2004
Keep Me Out of the Ballgame
Or, if Robert Siegel gets his wish, keep me commuting from the Washington, DC area to Baltimore and the Orioles. According to the local news, it turns out 'Siegel is a major landowner on the South Capitol stadium site, an area that Siegel calls "D.C.'s unofficial Red Light district."' So it turns out that Siegel is trying to save his businesses and is just another American fighting eminent domain with what clout (dollars) he has.
When it comes to pouring confiscated money down ratholes, I prefer some holes to others. Since I've given up the state-owned airports (and easy access to my Carribean time-share), is my balance sheet okay to take my boys to see the baseball game?
Posted by Robert Jackson at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 16, 2004
Ann Coulter Opposes Pre-Emptive War for Regime Change Based on Lies
In a recent column on the babes of Fox News, Ilana Mercer directs us to these words from a December 1 column by Ann Coulter:
With Albright at the helm of the State Department, Osama bin Laden ran wild throughout the Middle East, the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes under her nose, and we staged a pre-emptive attack solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people by Albright about a world leader who was not an imminent threat to the United States.
Uh . . . Ms. Coulter, may I point out to you how utterly hypocritical those comments are, coming from you, one of the biggest boosters of George W. Bush, on whose watch "Osama bin Laden ran wild throughout the Middle East, the North Koreans [continue] feverishly building nukes . . ., and we staged a pre-emptive attack solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people by [Bush] about a world leader who was not an imminent threat to the United States"? (She's actually writing about Albright as a reference point for the appointment of Condoleezza Rice to the same post Albright once held, but the words hold true for "Mushroom Cloud" Rice as well as her boss.)
Apparently Coulter figured out that some could use her words here against her, so she quickly appended to that paragraph the sentence "Slobodan Milosevic wasn't even a latent, long-term, hypothetical threat." I guess if he had been, Ms. Coulter would be a huge fan of Madeleine Albright then. After all, that's all Bush and his cheering section have to go on now.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:42 AM | Comments (0)
We Would've Succeeded, Too, If it Hadn't Been for Those Meddling Arabs
Reuters reports:
President Bush on Wednesday warned Iran and Syria not to meddle in Iraq ahead of elections scheduled for January 30 and voiced new hopes of forging peace between Israel and the Palestinians. . . .
"We will continue to make it clear to both Syria and Iran that ... meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq is not in their interests," Bush told reporters.
You tell 'em, Mr. President! Only one foreign country (along with its allies) is allowed to engage in "meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq." Even better, that same country gets to take over Iraq, killing tens of thousands, wounding many more, and destroying billions of dollars' worth of property. Then that country gets to impose a military dictatorship followed by a puppet government and (coming soon) rigged elections. How dare those Iranians and Syrians stick their noses into the business of a sovereign country!
(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)
The Two Million Dollar Congressman
"Representative Billy Tauzin, a principal author of the new Medicare drug law, will become president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the chief lobby for brand-name drug companies, the trade group announced Wednesday," according to the New York Times.
This is all pure coincidence, of course. Our noble public servants would never pass laws to benefit companies in exchange for jobs upon their exits from government. Right?
Drug makers said that the job was not a reward for Mr. Tauzin's work on the Medicare bill, which followed the industry's specifications in many respects. The law was signed by President Bush on Dec. 8, 2003, a few weeks before a lawyer for Mr. Tauzin began talks with the drug trade group.
Mr. Tauzin, 61, is the latest policy maker to move from government to industry. "It's a classic example of the revolving door," said Lawrence M. Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group that tracks the influence of money on politics and government policy.
Thomas A. Scully, the administration's main negotiator with Congress on the drug bill, got a waiver of federal ethics rules that permitted him to negotiate with potential employers while he was still running the Medicare program. Since he joined a law firm last December, Mr. Scully has registered as a lobbyist for drug companies, including Abbott and Aventis.
Mr. Tauzin (pronounced TOE-zan) and Mr. White refused to discuss Mr. Tauzin's new salary, except to say it was comparable to the pay at other large trade associations. People at other trade groups said they believed that Mr. Tauzin would receive $2 million a year or more.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)
December 15, 2004
The Deadly Religions of Marxism and Neoconservatism
Of all religions, secular and otherwise, that of Marxism has been by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide.
In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. For perspective on this incredible toll, note that all domestic and foreign wars during the 20th century killed around 35 million. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly then all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Rummel then extends the discussion to the more general topic of unlimited power in the hands of any government, with lessons all too applicable to the current "war on terror."
The more power a government has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite, or decree the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives and welfare will be sacrificed. As a government's power is more unrestrained, as its power reaches into all corners of culture and society, the more likely it is to kill its own citizens.
As a governing elite has the power to do whatever it wants, whether to satisfy its most personal wishes, or as today's Marxists desire, to pursue what it believes is right and true, it may do so whatever the cost in lives. Here, power is the necessary condition for mass murder. Once an elite has full authority, other causes and conditions can operate to bring about the immediate genocide, terrorism, massacres or whatever killing the members of an elite feel is warranted. But it is power – unchecked, unconstrained, uncontrolled – that is the killer.
Would that the staunch anti-communists of days gone by would take Rummel's comments to heart! Instead they seem perfectly satisfied giving unlimited power to their own government "to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite," with the result that the "governing elite" may pursue its ends "whatever the cost in lives." How many WND readers will shout hearty affirmations of Rummel's column without ever realizing that they are cheering on their own government as it treads the same path blazed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)
Khrushchev Awards People's Medal of Freedom to Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - President Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom today to three men who he said had "made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty": Gen. Tommy R. Franks, George J. Tenet and L. Paul Bremer III.
General Franks, now retired, led American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Tenet headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1997 until last year. Mr. Bremer was the civilian administrator in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
"These three men symbolize the nobility of public service, the good character of our country and the good influence of America on the world," Mr. Bush said at a White House ceremony as he bestowed the awards, which were established by President Harry Truman to recognize civilians for contributions during World War II.
So these three have "made our country more secure," huh? Well, let's see. Tenet's CIA failed to anticipate 9/11 and then provided phony intelligence to support Bush's case for war on Iraq--in which Franks and Bremer took part--which has demonstrably made us less safe.
They have also "advanced the cause of human liberty": Tenet by (again) providing phony intelligence, Franks by invading and occupying another country that never threatened us, and Bremer by running a military dictatorship and transferring power to a U.S. puppet.
They also "symbolize the nobility of public service" by stealing from productive Americans and destroying the lives and property of foreigners; demonstrate "the good character of our country," of which there is no such thing since a country is an abstraction but apparently to Bush means the fact that we say and believe that we are doing good by bombing other countries into oblivion; and show "the good influence of America on the world" by flouting international law, attacking countries that have done us no harm, killing thousands of Muslims, and installing U.S. puppet rulers.
Yeah, I can see why these guys deserve a medal of freedom. After all, it's being awarded by the same guy who believes (or at least wants us to believe) that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, which, presumably, means our government's freedom not only to ruin our lives but to ruin the lives of people the world over.
Big Brother would be proud.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 09:07 AM | Comments (0)
December 13, 2004
Why Is Kim Jong-Il? He's Sick of Capitalism's Beating Communism
No wonder the neocons want to bomb North Korea into oblivion, too! The North Koreans are beginning to get out from under the thumb of their government, as Andrei Lankov writes in the Asia Times. Neocons, as former Trotskyists and lovers of central planning and government control, can't have that.
(Thanks to the Mises Institute blog for this link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 04:43 PM | Comments (0)
NEOCON REVIEW Has Second Thoughts on Iraq
Either somebody at National Review fell asleep on the job or the neocons there are starting to get it through their skulls that maybe--just maybe--they were a little naive to believe that the U.S. could "liberate" Iraq and be greeted with flowers.
Whether or not one agrees with all the analysis in this piece by Steven Vincent--and I find some of it a bit patronizing myself--it's still a welcome sign that NR would dare to exhibit any doubts about the war at all.
Writes Vincent, for example:
"If only you'd given us more time, we would have risen up and overthrown him," a waiter at the Orient Palace lectured me a couple of days later. "It's terrible, when I think of it," a student at Baghdad University said. "A foreign army has to come across the world to free us from Saddam — who are we, then?" This sense of indignity, of loss of "face," explained the ungracious gratitude many Iraqis evinced toward the U.S. — the "Thanks America, now go home" syndrome. How naïve we were to believe that they would greet our troops with flowers, as Dick Cheney so famously and wrongly predicted. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained in a report on Iraq's reconstruction, "the United States should expect continuing resentment and disaffection even if the U.S.-led reconstruction efforts seem to be making positive, incremental improvements to the country according to quantifiable measures. In other words, the occupation will not be judged by the sum of its consequences, but rather qua occupation."
Of course, the question now becomes: Will the gang at NR take their newfound doubts about Iraq into consideration when the time comes to start stumping for Bush's wars with Iran and/or Syria? Unfortunately, I think we know the answer to that.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)
December 09, 2004
Debunking Republican Government Reform Proposals
We've all heard the great conservative plans to reform the federal government by privatizing Social Security and replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. On the face of it, both sound like reasonable ideas that are at least a step in the right direction. However, closer consideration proves otherwise. Here are two columns debunking those myths:
- Lew Rockwell on the Social Security "privatization" scam
- Anthony Gregory on the national sales tax
Enjoy!
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)
December 08, 2004
Don't Get Into That Pre-Bombed Sudan!
The great James Bovard writes:
Many politicians and much of the media are hollering for a U.S. military intervention into Sudan to stop the growing carnage in that nation’s civil war. However, few Americans clearly recall the debacle from the last time the United States attacked Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach was a farce of the first order – and may have helped pave the way to the September 11 attacks. And the fact that the false statements surrounding the operation proved cost-free for the Clinton team may have encouraged the Bush administration’s creativity on Iraq.
Bovard's point about avoiding further intervention in Sudan is well taken and timely. Perhaps more interesting, however, is his demonstration that Bill Clinton's lies and interventions were at least partly responsible for 9/11 and also helped set the stage for Bush's lies and interventions, something the antiwar camp, being largely liberal and Democratic, tends to overlook.
As always, a Bovard column is worth a full, careful reading.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 10:54 AM | Comments (1)
December 06, 2004
Indefensible
The Tallahassee Democrat reports: “The commissary of a Navy Supply Corps school was robbed late Thursday by a gunman who punched one clerk, held a gun to the head of another and got away with a large sum of money.”
Despite a $400 billion annual budget, the US military cannot protect their five-sided trailer park (a.k.a., the Pentagon) from some fanatics armed with box cutters. Why should we be surprised if they can’t protect a commissary in a small Georgia town from some local hoodlum? I’m sure the clerks weren’t armed. That, of course, would make sense. It’s just as well they weren’t. They would have probably just shot each other, anyway.
Don’t you feel safer?
Posted by Roger Young at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Brits to Stay in Iraq Until 2008
THOUSANDS of British troops will have to remain in Iraq until at least 2008 - two years later than the government intended, The Scotsman has learned.
Senior military sources say the army has been told to plan to keep a brigade-sized garrison of more than 7,000 troops in Iraq for four more years or more.
The planned extension in deployment has been prompted by the continuing Iraqi insurgency and the inability of local security forces to control the country without US and British troops.
If the Brits plan to be in Iraq for another three or four years, how much longer do you suppose the Americans will be there?
(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)
Freedom Is Slavery
According to the Boston Globe:
The US military is drawing up plans to keep insurgents from regaining control of this battle-scarred city, but returning residents may find that the measures make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy they have been promised.
Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned. . . .
One idea that has stirred debate among Marine officers would require all men to work, for pay, in military-style battalions. Depending on their skills, they would be assigned jobs in construction, waterworks, or rubble-clearing platoons.
"You have to say, 'Here are the rules,' and you are firm and fair. That radiates stability," said Lieutenant Colonel Dave Bellon, intelligence officer for the First Regimental Combat Team, the Marine regiment that took the western half of Fallujah during the US assault and expects to be based downtown for some time.
Yeah, well, I'm sure there was "stability" under Nazism and Communism, too, but that doesn't make them good systems to emulate . . . especially for a government that is supposedly spreading "freedom" and "democracy."
(Thanks to Antiwar.com for the link.)
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:24 PM | Comments (1)
Last Army Standing?
All good conservatives favor "defense" spending and love the military. This, of course, is right in line with the view of the Founding Fathers--or is it?
Jacob Hornberger demolishes that myth with a column called "Antipathy to Militarism," in which he describes the Founders' firm opposition to standing armies and military adventurism. The article features many outstanding quotations from the Founders as well as a good one from the State Department's website.
Hornberger concludes:
In determining the future direction of our nation, the choice is clear: Do we continue down the road of empire, standing armies, foreign wars and occupations, and sanctions and embargoes, along with the taxes, regulations, and loss of liberty that inevitably come with them? Do we continue a foreign policy, enforced by the U.S. military, that engenders ever-increasing anger and hatred among the people of the world, which then engenders violent “blowback” against Americans, which is in turn used to justify more of the same policies?
Or do we change direction and move our nation in the direction of the vision of our Founding Fathers – toward liberty and the restoration of a republic to our nation – toward a society in which the government is limited to protecting the nation from invasion and barred from invading or attacking foreign nations – a world in which the United States is once again the model society for freedom, prosperity, peace, and harmony – a nation in which the Statue of Liberty once again becomes a shining beacon for those striving to escape the tyranny and oppression of their own governments?
Amen, brother Jacob. Clearly you are an anti-American, left-wing defeatist like the rest of us here at STR.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:21 PM | Comments (2)
For Those With Discriminating Taste
Everything you think you know about discrimination and its effects is wrong. So says Thomas Woods, Jr., author of the fast-selling The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, in this great column.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:09 PM | Comments (0)
December 02, 2004
Fighting for Their Country? Yeah, Right . . .
On today's front page of LewRockwell.com, and generating much discussion on Lew's blog, is a link to this article by Ted Rall, called "They Fight and Die, But Not for Their Country." For a left-winger, Rall understands government nonintervention abroad much better than the right-wingers of today. (Now if only he'd apply that same logic to domestic policy.)
Writes Rall of the hackneyed phrase that our troops are "fighting for their country":
When we hear that soldiers fight for our country, we immediately think of their role guarding our borders, protecting us from invaders. Yet the U.S. has only been invaded twice, when Great Britain attempted to bring us back into the colonial fold during the War of 1812 and in 1846, when Mexico launched a brief incursion across the disputed Rio Grande. During the ensuing 158 years, no member of the U.S. military has fought or died while repelling an invader. 9/11 demonstrated that the Pentagon doesn't consider a foreign incursion a major threat; that's why they assigned 12 "ground-based" Air National Guard jets to guard the the entire country.
Worse yet, Rall has the temerity to question U.S. involvement in the "Good War," which all good Americans know is something never to be questioned. The Left usually doesn't question it because it was FDR's doing, and the Right usually lionizes FDR for his "leadership" during the war (with nary a mention of his goading the Japanese into firing first).
I had a hard time deciding what to excerpt from the article because it's all so good. Read it for yourself.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 02:21 PM | Comments (0)
December 01, 2004
When Is Unconstitutional Spending Not Unconstitutional?
Conservatives, we are told, oppose most government spending, especially if that money is spent outside of strictly constitutional bounds. Thus, it should come as a surprise to learn that "Concerned Women for America, a conservative public policy group, announced it has received its first federal grant--$113,000 from the U.S. State Department to host a conference addressing the problem of sex trafficking."
Apparently, given the positive tone of the article on a supposedly conservative website, government grants to liberal groups are bad, but government grants to conservative groups are wonderful.
Is it any wonder why it's hard to take the conservative movement seriously anymore?
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:43 AM | Comments (0)
Pentagon Wants 10,000 More Troops for Iraq
Turn on your favorite "conservative" commentator today to find out how well the war in Iraq is going. Then click here to find out:
Faced with the problem of protecting upcoming elections and securing former insurgent stronghold, the US military tells NBC it will need between 10,000 and 11,000 more troops in Iraq. NBC-TV reported Monday night that this will "temporarily" bring the total number of US forces in Iraq to 150,000. As a result many soldiers and marines who were scheduled to leave Iraq this month will have to stay longer, while other troops will be sent to Iraq earlier than scheduled.
Clearly the war is a smashing success.
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)
Propagating Propaganda
On the evening of Oct. 14, a young Marine spokesman near Fallouja appeared on CNN and made a dramatic announcement.
"Troops crossed the line of departure," 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert declared, using a common military expression signaling the start of a major campaign. "It's going to be a long night." CNN, which had been alerted to expect a major news development, reported that the long-awaited offensive to retake the Iraqi city of Fallouja had begun.
In fact, the Fallouja offensive would not kick off for another three weeks. Gilbert's carefully worded announcement was an elaborate psychological operation — or "psy-op" — intended to dupe insurgents in Fallouja and allow U.S. commanders to see how guerrillas would react if they believed U.S. troops were entering the city, according to several Pentagon officials.
In the hours after the initial report, CNN's Pentagon reporters were able to determine that the Fallouja operation had not, in fact, begun.
Read the whole story here. It's an interesting and disturbing account of how the government lies to us and to those the government has designated "the enemy" (which usually includes us).
Not surprisingly, "the strategic communications [i.e., propaganda] programs at the Defense Department are being coordinated by the office of the undersecretary of Defense for policy, Douglas J. Feith."
Posted by Mike Tennant at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)