And speaking of Affleck, he’s played some schmoes in his days...and with some quirky names as well.

-Holden McNeil (One THE biggest lunk-heads in any movie I’ve seen)
-Gavin Banek (Oops, just lost all those important documents! Sorry.)
-Rafe McCawley
-Larry Gigli
-Ollie Trinke

Matt Murdock and Bartleby were decent, but his Jack Ryan was craptacular.

First, this:

Terrorism has dropped to the lowest level since 1969, the year I was born.  Please, please, show this to everyone that talks about Bush ignoring the War on Terror.  They are, as I have said, being vapid and intellectually dishonest.  Logically, if Bush was ignoring the War on Terror via the Iraq situation, terrorism would have increased in 2002 and 2003, right?  Well, it dropped as time went on. 

This is another example of the Left being shown that their worldview ignores practicalism and realism.  Logically, if you kill the terrorists and their leaders, or remove their ability to mount offensive action against you, the number of attacks by those self-same terrorists will decrease.  The Left thinks that terrorism is fed solely on the emotional angst of the put-upon, desperate, and wronged Muslim People, but the real world requires money, logistical support, arms, and channels of communication.  We are taking that away on an international scale.  We are winning at this point.  It is, as Churchill said, the end of the beginning. 

Oh...lemme chime in about this little insect that wrote about Pat Tillman yesterday.  Here’s a link to Right-Thinking’s post on the subject.  I posted in the comment thread at Right Thoughts that this kid was trying to get attention from his peers.  Well, since the entire ‘Net went insane over his little article, he got exactly what he wanted.  He’s little noise, and got his little pop of fame.  Let’s just ignore his little ass from now on.  He’s a professional student, unexperienced in life and common sense, and proof-positive that anyone can post on the Internet, regardless of acumen. 

57% or Iraqis want us to leave within a few months? That makes sense, with Al Jazeera and the rest of the anti-Bush press (thus including Reuters and CNN), with the blessing of Ted Kennedy, banging the gong of ‘quagmire’. Folks, this ‘uprising’ is really nothing of the sort.  There are other factors that we aren’t hearing about...let me share some facts with you:
--Sadr, this ‘holy man’ holed up in Najaf, is Iranian, and is acting with the blessing of the Iranian mullahs.  He is standing in opposition to a fellow names Sistani, who is a cleric of some reknown in the Sh’ia faith.  Sistani asked for peace, and a cessation of armed resistance to the occupation.  The Iranian government doesn’t want this, so they supported Sadr.  Also, there was an internal power struggle between the older Sistani, and the younger Sadr, having to do with prestige within Sh’ia Islam.  What we have seen is the influence of the Iranians in Sh’ia Iraq, not a general uprising against the Allies. 
--The battles in Fallujah are not directly related to what is going on in Najaf, and Sadr.  The Fallujah situation is being caused by old Ba’athists, who are trying to ‘Somalia’ us into leaving.  The time of their attack is more attuned to the upcoming transfer of soverignty.  Most of you have probably read that this was planned by Hussein inthe event of their inevitable loss to the US invasion.  That is, as they say, common sense.  OF COURSE Hussein planned this, becaue he had no chance of beating us on the field of battle.  His only hope of saving his skin was to let us ‘win’, then pick at us until the anti-Bush, anti-American groups in the United States went ‘Vietnam’, and politically forced a pullout.  That is why we have to stay the course, and not give in to the dual feelings of “They don’t want us?  Let ‘em kill themselves!” and “We’re DYING over there!”.  That is what the President is telling us to fight against, because victory over the Ba’athists is inevitable. 

John Kerry is just about done, unless he does something spectacular, and if the President does something totally asinine.  Looking at Real Clear Politics, it is evident that Kerry has lost his edge, even though the press coverage has been largely favorable to the Democrats.  Mark my words...if it is a dead heat in the middle of August, Kerry is done.  If he doesn’t come off of the Democratic Convention with a 7 to 10 point lead, Bush will win 40 states.  Also, rememebr that Bush has been campaigning since about the second week of March, while Kerry has been going since October or so.  With all the ‘trouble’ in Iraq, the DMA coverage, the Meet the Press show (where Bush didn’t come off so well), and the softball Hardball with Kerry, the fact that Kerry isn’t 8 points up right now is both a testament to his weakness, and the acceptance of Bush’s vision about the War, the economy, and the like. 

OK.  I’ll await your salient commentary.  Time to go to work.

Comments: Sorry about the lack of blogging…
“The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.”
Posted by Drumwaster at April 29, 2004 05:31 PM

OK....The Holy Roman empire was a rather shadowy organization that managed to exist in-and-out-of-name-only for about 1000 years.  The beginnings of the HRE was actually Charlemagne, and the Frankish Empire that he built in the early 800’s.  The partition of the Frankish Empire between Louis the Pious, Charles the Young, and Pepin occurred in 806.  However, Louis and Pepin died before Charlemagne, and Louis became emperor of the Franks.  Louis himself divided the Empire between his sons Lothar, Louis, and Charles The Bald.  Finally, in 911, the last of the line of Charlemagne (the grandson of Lothar, or Lothair) died, and the line was ended.  However, by that time, the eastern two-thirds of the Empire had split into several parts, and this fragmentation would persist, more or less, until the official dissolving of the HRE by Napoleon in the 19th Century.  That is also why the HRE was not an empire....it was more a loose confederation of small German and Austrian states. 

The HRE was not Holy, at the onset, because though the Pope crowned Charlemagne, he didn’t crown his successor.  Also, though Otto I and Otto II ruled Italy, and Otto was crowned by the Pope, the Papacy managed to rob the Holy Roman Emperors that decended Otto(s) of real political power. 

Is the United States more like the Roman Empire or the Greeks?

Posted by Macey at April 29, 2004 05:50 PM

Roman Empire...definately.  Especially in terms of economic power and geopolitical prestige.  However, the biggest difference is that the United States does not rely on military expansion to fill the coffers...we never have.  We rely on economic freedom and expansion to run the society.  Also, we actually have a republic that functions. 

1. Ted Koppel’s personal anti-war campaign.

Posted by pappy at April 29, 2004 05:54 PM

1.  ABC is doing further campaigning for Kerry, because Kerry is a terrible candidate.  This is just representative of their mindset.  Koppel simply agrees with them. 

2 and 3.  I call it “Star Trek” Syndrome.  The Left (and many right-leaning intellectuals) see Star Trek as something that we can attain.  All peoples, living together, cooperating and having no borders, boundries, or nations.  One world, where democracy reigns, where hunger has been defeated, and where there is no reason for the use of force unless you are attacked. 

Problem is, people are more like Klingons and Romulans than we wish to admit.  Sometimes, the use of force is necessary to maintain peace, security, and a deterrent force.  Hence the Neutral Zone, and the heavily armed DS9.  Peace, and the rewards of peace, are great things to desire, but many ignore the fact that human beings will be human beings, and will have desires for power without sharing the desire for equality and peace.  Hence, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Hussein. 

4.  run left, run left, run left, fake right. 

5.  Most people are inherently conservative...capitalism forces people to think about how to save money, and how to get the most for the least.  We also wish for others to leave us alone, unless we desire otherwise.  Therefore, collectivism doesn’t appeal to Americans.  However, collectivism dominates several major cultures in the world, like Europe and East Asia, and that is why they don’t like our current foreign policy.  They are not concerned with the soverignty of the state because they are socialistic in their world-view, i.e. spread the wealth to everyone equally, remove power from the wealthy, etc.  We tend towards looking at the pragmatic condition of people, i.e. self-preservation, desire for economic security, desire for self-determination, and the like, and we understand why organizations like the LEague of Nations, and the UN, fail, no matter the utopian ideals of their adherents.  People serve their own interests first, then the interests of others.  Conservative thought recognizes this, and acts on that observation, while the Left acts on theories and ideals that, while comforting in a way, are not supported by the course of human events. 

How did the donkeys go from Truman to Kerry, and would Truman Be a donkey today?

Posted by Macey at April 29, 2004 06:08 PM

Every Democrat before 1964, excepting FDR, would be considered a Republican by today’s standards.  The watershed event was LBJ’s massive increase in social spending.  Since then, his legacy has defined the Democratic party, not FDR’s. 

I’ll leave Drum’s response....because it’s his site....

Is the United States more like the Roman Empire or the Greeks?

Happy to help.Posted by Drumwaster at April 29, 2004 06:32 PM

We sent baseline strains of some fairly nasty stuff, including anthrax, to Iraq, to be used the same way our universities and hospitals would use them - to create vaccines and cures.

There was a chemical company that sold pesticides to Iraq to assist in agricultural endeavors. (Dow Chemicals, IIRC.)

To those on the left, these dual-use supplies and example strains of some diseases, sold more than two decades ago, are “weapons of mass destruction”.

But when we point to similar materials that are even more deadly, and to the evidence of things we never supplied, they aren’t WMD anymore, they’re “innocent supplies”. Such as the pesticides that were found buried in Karbala…

At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large “agricultural supply” area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a “camouflaged bunker complex” that was shown to reporters—with unpleasant results.

”More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent,” Hanson says. “But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The ‘agricultural site’ was also colocated with a military ammunition dump—evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG.”

That’s just from being in the same room…

So are they WMD or not?

Another quote:

Again, this January, Danish forces found 120-millimeter mortar shells filled with a mysterious liquid that initially tested positive for blister agents. But subsequent tests by the United States disputed that finding.

“If it wasn’t a chemical agent, what was it?” Hanson asks. “More pesticides? Dish-washing detergent? From this old soldier’s perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy.”

Spread the word, folks. This story needs to be published, and the White House is lying down on the job…

Here are their top stories:

More Top News
U.S. Forces Blast Falluja Targets After Deadline
-----First off, what do you think when you read this?  Well, I think, “Those Americans went back on their word, and shot at those poor Iraqi ‘freedom fighters and militiamen’ after they said they wouldn’t!  Please, insert Howard Dean-ish yell here....YYEAAAARRGH!  How about this, “Iraqi Insurgents Fail to Live up to Cease Fire”.  THAT is the truth of what happened. 

UN Aide Warns U.S. Against Armed Action in Falluja
-----Again, the United Nations, an institution WE spearheaded, and that is now full of dictators, money-grubbing sycophants, and socialists, is advising us on Iraq policy.  I thought these guys were gone.....anyways, try this on for size, “UN Continues Opposition to US Policies”.

Bush Admin. to Court: Cheney Papers Must Be Secret
-----No real answer to this one, because Cheney has been crucified in the press for three years.  It’s a negative association between Bush and Cheney,and also reinforces the lie that this is the “..most secretive administration in US history.”.  Let’s hear it for, “Energy Policy a National Security Issue, Bush Says”.

Kerry Attacks Bush on National Guard Duty
-----This should be, “Kerry Reverses Self On Importance of Presidential Military Duty”, because Kerry said THIS:  “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways.” about the President...oh...President Clinton, while he was running for the office.  My bad. 

Sisters of Dead Soldier Not Going Back to Iraq
-----Now, this story is so obviously an anti-Bush, anti-Iraq screed that I had to print it up as well.  It’s dressed up like they are conscientiously objecting to returning, because of the death of their sibling at the hands of Halliburton...er...Iraqi Terrorists, but the last paragraph of the story says that the military DOESN’T WANT THEM TO RETURN.  Read this:  “The sisters’ commanders in Iraq have asked that they not return because of their high visibility, a National Guard spokesman said.”

I hit Reuters never any-hoo, but I’ll do it less now.