July 03, 2004


The leader of the probe examining the UN Oil-For-Food scandal has been assassinated:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi official heading the investigation into alleged corruption in the United Nations (news - web sites) oil-for-food program was killed in a bomb attack earlier this week, officials familiar with the probe said on Saturday.

Ihsan Karim, head of the Board of Supreme Audit, died in hospital after a bomb placed under one of the cars in his convoy exploded on Thursday, the officials said.

Iraq's former U.S. Governor Paul Bremer gave the board independence from the executive branch of government and appointed Karim as its head in April.

It's not hard to find a motive here. Thousands of people in France, Germany, Russia, China, across Europe and even one or two in the US made millions from Saddam in return for their political assistance in first trashing the sanctions regime and then in trying to keep us from toppling Saddam. The tough part will be narrowing down who's behind this.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:49 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


Just so we're all on the same page, take a look at this:

Can we all agree that this goes waaaay too far? Do any of you Bush haters out there have an ounce of integrity left? Can you see where your side is headed with this garbage? Do you have the moral capacity to condemn this?

Didn't think so.

For those of us who can still reason and think, the image above appeared on the back page of The Nation magazine. The Nation is a far left publication.

On CNN's Capitol Gang, Bob Novak brought this ad up and tried to get Clinton spinmeister Paul Begala--a man who once worked in the White House--to criticize it. Let's listen in:

NOVAK: All right. Readers -- readers of the left wing magazine, "The Nation," might be a little shocked when they see the back page of the current issue. Even the most fanatical Bush haters might be shocked.

Yes, the drawing shows George W. Bush eating a headless child. This is inspired by a 19th century work by Francisco Goya, Saturn Devouring his Children, aimed against the Spanish monarchy.

Sitting at this table, I know how emotional and relentless and mindless is the hatred directed against George W. Bush. But in the spirit of patriotism, this Fourth of July weekend, I wonder, Paul, if you can join me in deploring this treatment of any president of the United States as over the line and unacceptable?


BEGALA: In the spirit of patriotism, let me support the first amendment, which says the nation shouldn't be censored by right- wingers.

Novak should have verbally knocked Begala's block off right there. Who is saying anything about censorship? All Novak wants is for Begala to criticize an obviously immoral and eggregious political ad depicting the President of the United States eating a headless child.

And Begala can't even do that. So he changed the subject and turned the whole thing into a smear of Novak. Left uncriticized, the hateful ad that The Nation saw fit to commission and publish.

I repeat, do you Bush haters have any shred of decency left? Is there no criticism of President Bush that you people consider out of bounds.

And can you give me even one specific reason why you hate him?

Let's take a minute and knock a few down.

9-11. Bush didn't know about it beforehand, didn't plan it and hasn't used it to put a single American citizen in any concentration camp anywhere on earth.

Gitmo, military tribunals, Geneva Conventions, etc. Terrorists don't fight under the rules of Geneva, and therefore by the rules themselves are not subject to Geneva's treatment guidelines. Yet President Bush ordered DOD to treat them in accordance to Geneva anyway. Military tribunals have a long history of being used to try enemy combatants. If you leftists had the capacity to understand history, you'd know that tribunals have been used in some form in nearly every war we have fought, especially World War II, when US citizens were caught in the act of working with Nazi saboteurs. Gitmo was a very good place to house terrorists caught on the battlefield for several reasons. One--since it's on a Marine base, it's harder for the terrorists to escape. Two--it's also harder for fellow terrorists to attack the base and free them. Three--isolation keeps the terrorists from US, you idiots.

Patriot Act--passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Many of its provisions originate in former Vice President Al Gore's Reinventing Government initiative. To date not a single case of abuse of any Patriot Act provision has been found to have occurred. Civil rights remain as strong today as they were before 9-11. Just ask your hero Michael Moore, who is out there free to lie about the President, the war and the United States itself with impunity. If his take on the Patriot Act was correct, don't you think he'd been in jail by now?

The Iraq war. It became official US policy in 1998 to remove Saddam Hussein. In case you can't add or subtract, that's three years before President Bush took office. The move to change the regime was justified by the Clinton Administration and Congress on the basis of Saddam's continued defiance of several UN resolutions, his continued pursuit of WMDs, his human rights abuses, his hostile designs on his neighbors, and the crumbling sanctions regime put in place to contain him. After 9-11, it became clear that the situation in Iraq was untenable, and we either had to remove him or let the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese continue to arm him in violation of the UN sanctions at the same time he was buying them off to help isolate us on the UNSC. What part of this don't you people understand?

Bush economic policies. Bush inherited a recession that started in Spring, 2000. Again in case you people can't add or subtract, that's before Bush was even the GOP nominee. He was still governor of Texas, so you can't blame the recession on him. Shortly after taking office, President Bush pushed through a big tax cut to get the economy moving again. It was working until 9-11 came along and gravely wounded our economy. The second and then third tax cuts helped stave off another recession, probably even a depression, and today the economy is posting its best numbers in 20 years. What part of this don't you people understand?

So why do you hate the guy? Is it just because he's proving how useless your politicies are, and how useless your hero Wild Bill was against terrorism? What is it? And why do you people feel the need to ratchet up the hate minute by minute?

You're taking yourselves and our country down a very dangerous road.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:22 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack


Here's one of the things I love about the left--it's so fargin' easy to prove what a bunch of sickos they are.

Go here. Look at the one in the bottom right corner. Don't you just love how they repurpose the "regime change" language and make it their own little anti-Bush cheer? Do they even consider the fact that a "regime change" in the US wouldn't be a change of administrations, but a change of our form of government? Nah. They don't care. They just like the sound of the words, without considering the meaning.

Go here. This is where the one I pinned on Saddam came from. The "John Kerry Will Do" bit is from a real button. That's more sad than anything else.

Go here. They have a couple of charming ones. My favorite is "Regime Change Begins at Home." Ha ha.

Here's another anti-Bush button site. Third row from the left, fourth one down. "No One Died When Clinton Lied." That's a real axle to the head, that one. Waco, anyone? And didn't Billy Boy bomb Iraq a couple dozen times in his eight years, based on the same intel Bush would eventually use to justify ousting Saddam? Eh. Who cares? Facts mean nothing to these people. And another one with a single word on it--"evildoer." To whom is Bush referring when he uses that word? Look it up. He's talking exclusively about terrorists when he says "evildoer." So is that button meant to align the wearer with terrorists?

By the way, they're also selling buttons calling Bush a war criminal and Satan's running mate. Nice. But I thought liberals didn't believe in Satan.

There's more where this stuff came from. Just Google "anybody but bush button" and see what charming, wonderful thoughts dominate today's psychotic, America-hating Democrats.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 02, 2004


And he's right, but only in terms of gross tonnage.

Moore is out there whooping that his film, F*** 9-11, outgrossed The Passion of the Christ. And it's true, F*** 9-11 is gross, but it didn't outgross The Passion.

Check the numbers for yourself. Make up your own mind. Do you see F*** 9-11, even under its official title, anywhere on those lists? Do you see The Passion of the Christ on those same lists? No, and yes, respectively.

The crockumentarian may be pulling a Kerry. Remember, John F. Kerry cooked up his own "misery index" and then used it to "prove" that the Bush economic policies haven't worked. That was a few months back, so if you need a refresher, go here. Even liberals mocked the Kerry misery index as a cooked-up pile of nothing.

And thus may it be to Moore, who by any factual standard is lying--again. This time he's lying about having more box office mojo than Jesus.

Pride goeth before a fall, Mikey.

(thanks to Chris)

UPDATE: Moore applies Stalin's touch to an article reprinted on his website.

Posted by B. Preston at 12:48 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack


More proof that Josh Marshall is the blogosphere's Bubble Boy:

I wanted to e-mail the gent who claimed virtually no one who voted for Gore in 2000 will vote for Bush in '04 [that would be Josh Marshall]; however, no e-mail address was available for him. Perhaps you might forward my message.

I accompanied my parents as they campaigned for John F. Kennedy; my husband and I went door-to-door for George McGovern; I've lived in major urban centers my entire adult life, haven't had a TV since '75, lived abroad during much of the '80s, speak and write Japanese, have an advanced degree but no children, and produced and hosted a feminist radio show on an NPR affiliate in the '70s, and of course voted for Gore in 2000. All very nice and leftish.

However, I believe George W. Bush is one of our greatest presidents and I will cast my vote for him in November. I can only speak for myself of course, but if a committed lefty like me can change her mind, all I can say is carry an oxygen tank, you might get buried in that landslide you're predicting.

--Kelly Colgan Azar

I'm sure he got the message, and there's more where that came from. Lots more.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


The JYB's eyes and ears are everywhere. The mullahs are up to no good:

June 30, 2004 -- Two security guards working at Iran's U.N. mission were kicked out of the country for spying last week after they were caught videotaping New York City landmarks, authorities said yesterday. It was the fifth incident in less than three years involving Iranian guards.

Sources said it occurred early last week when agents of the FBI's foreign counter-intelligence branch followed the two Iranians in Midtown.

The men, members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a security arm of the Tehran government, were seen videotaping Rockefeller Center and St. Patrick's Cathedral, sources told The Post.

The mullahs counter that the men observed "No Videotaping" signs and didn't tape anything sensitive, just popular tourist destinations.

M'kay. But.

[T]he men weren't taking video in a normal manner — holding their cameras at eye level — but held the cameras at their hips, shielding them under their jackets or otherwise using their bodies to conceal them.

They were videotaping tourist destinations in order to recon ways to kill tourists. 9-11 2.0 is in the works.

(thanks to Chris, who posted on Iran's ties to al Qaeda and 9/11 last week)

Posted by B. Preston at 09:47 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


Baltimore's Boy Mayor needs to retune his moral compass:

Senator John Kerry was in town Monday night for a fundraiser hosted by Mayor [Martin] O'Malley at M & T Bank Stadium.

While introducing Kerry, O'Malley said, "I remember after the attacks of September 11th, as Mayor of the city, I was very, very worried about al-Qaida....and still am. But I'm even more worried about the actions and inactions of the Bush adminstration."

That's one to include in future pro-Bush ads, too. Kerry's supporters actually think the President of the United States is a bigger problem than a terrorist thug who wants to kill us in a nuclear apocalypse and set up a global caliphate. Idiots.

(thanks to Hanks)

Posted by B. Preston at 08:51 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

IF I HAD A 527

What was that old folk song? "If I had a hammer, if I had a nail." Something like that.

Oh well. I never liked folk music anyway.

Thanks to CFR, if you wrote the song today it would have to say "If I had a 527, if I had a million bucks," and if I had a 527, I'd tap into the mood that Spider-man 2 will create.

The film opens with a brilliant graphical recap of the first movie. If you were living under a rock when it came out, the S2 open brings you up to speed. If you saw the first film and remember it well, the S2 open just reminds you what a cool film it was.

Stylistically it's perfect, with the art by turns hard-edged graphics and drawings that sit somewhere between true comic book style and the work of the masters.

You make an ad using the same art style and a similar graphical treatment as the S2 open, but instead of Peter Parker and the Green Goblin, Mary Jane Watson and Jonah Jameson, you use moments from the past few years. 9-11, the bullhorn at Ground Zero, the statue of Saddam falling, Saddam's capture, the capture of Kabul, capture of major terrorists, and so forth. Your theme is "In a world beset with arch villians, with a treacherous, malignant press" etc "One nation stood up to the challenge. One nation, led by one man with the courage to fight evil, led the world, confronted the killers and destroyed their sanctuaries." You'd write it better and with more pop, but that's the gist. Use a narrator that makes it sound like a movie trailer, great big orchestral score, very slick graphical treatment, and you've tapped into the moment and reminded viewers of what we've been through these past few years. We've come a long way and we're going in the right direction. It would be worth reminding people how and why.

So...anyone out there have a 527 you could lend me for a few weeks?

MORE: My brain is a sketch pad today. Here's another ad idea, if I had the 527 cash stockpile to pull it off.

Think back to the weeks just after 9-11. The Bush administration ran an ad campaign that told America to go on with life, take vacations, get educated, whatever, just don't disrupt life and let the terrorists scare us. It was an effort to keep the economy moving and keep us from scaring ourselves to death.

Predictably, the liberals hated it. I remember arguing with several about those ads, about how dumb they were. It didn't matter that those ads inspired a certain confidence that one sure way to win was just to not let the terrorists get us down. They hated Bush, and therefore they hated his ads.

Well, this year you've had Algore out there doing his best impression of a stoned revivalist preacher, shouting "He played on our fears!" and accusing Bush of scaring us into war. This, after it was Algore himself who in February 2002 made sure war with Iraq was a front-burner issue, speaking out in support of such a war.

So you show Gore ranting "He played on our fears!" and then cut to those 2001 keep-the-economy-moving ads, and back and forth to reinforce the point that Algore is full of crap and that Bush did not play on our fears. In fact, Bush tried to buck us up for the fight ahead while getting the economy back on track after the massive wound inflicted on 9-11. And it worked. Unemployment is down, everything good is up, and the Fed even had to increase the prime to keep things from overheating.

Gore as a Democrat attack dog would get a big, fat rolled up newpaper to the nose. What's left of his credibility as a public figure would be destroyed.

So...anyone got a 527 I could borrow? I'll give it back.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:26 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 01, 2004


Hmm. Typing Fahrenheit 9-11 is a pain. I have found myself shortening it, when I type it or even speak of it, to F911 or F-911.

Others are doing likewise.

Which, if you stop and think about it for a nanosecond, is war profiteer Michael Moore's entire attitude toward 9-11. F*** 9-11. It might as well never have happened, but since it did it's Bush's fault and he led us into two fraudulent wars afterward, wars which had nothing to do with 9-11 itself, about which Bush probably knew beforehand anyway. That same spirit, f*** 9-11, has been mainstreamed, for that matter mainlined, into the Democrat party. It's DNC Chair Terry MacAuliffe's attitude. F*** 9-11. See Michael Moore's film, vote against Bush. 9-11 never happened. F*** it.

F911. F-911. F*** 9-11. That may not be the title of Moore's propaganda film, but it is its spirit.

NOW ONLINE: Large chunks of war profiteer Michael Moore's F*** 9-11 transcript. Fisk away, maties!

Posted by B. Preston at 06:41 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


Spiderman 2 will break box office records. In fact, it already has. Enjoying the biggest opening day of all time, and on a Wednesday at that, Spidey will be a cultural phenomenon this summer, and the webslinging superhero will make Michael Moore little more than a bad memory. Spidey to the rescue!

(mild spoilers ahead, so proceed at your own risk)

And rightfully so. I caught Spiderman 2 last night in a sold-out showing in one of the area's biggest theatres. Prior to the show, the line snaked out from the theatre doors into a deep cue that finally ended within shouting distance--but not within sight--of the doors. The theatre clearly anticipated a mega-hit was in the making. After taking our seats but before the reel got rolling, a couple of employees placated the eager crowd with a Spiderman trivia contest, giving away Playstation 2 games, toy discounts and T-shirts (I didn't win a thing). They had a little makeshift souvenir display set up in the lobby, full of toys and game tie-ins. My four-year-old will be all over that stuff.

The movie itself is a rip from the first frame to the last. Spiderman 2 is easily the best comic-book film made to date, so much fun to watch that I didn't want it to end: At nearly 2.5 hours, it felt a little too short.

The viz fx are first rate, better than the first movie and fun to dissect on the fly. When Dr. Ock climbs brick walls with his metallic animatronic arms, he gouges chunks out of the buildings that rain down on the ground below. The story never lets up, offering a solid dose of the introspection that makes Spiderman the compelling character/hero that he is while not becoming as heavy-handed as the cartoons tend to do. My only complaint is that the ending not only forces you to suspend disbelief, but any belief at all in basic physics. If the big menacing Problem can gravitationally attract taxicabs blocks from where the climactic battle is taking place, why can't it, say, attract a skinny red-head watching moon-eyed while Spidey does his thing? Eh. Who cares? It's a great film anyway.

Greater still, Spiderman 2 is a perfect film for our times, and its producers clearly know it. Placed throughout, in background shots, atop buildings and so forth, the American flag flies. The film's constant refrain that with great power comes great responsibility reminds us that as the sole superpower, we do have a certain obligation to use our status to right what wrongs we can. One of the film's most difficult moments to take comes when Peter Parker, having renounced his secret spider life, turns his back on a mugging taking place right in front of him. Wouldn't leaving Saddam Hussein in power, when we had the chance and the reasons to remove him, been just as morally wrong? Or worse? With great power comes great responsibility, after all.

Spiderman 2 captures what should be the zeitgeist of our time. Like Peter Parker's fictional world, ours is beset with archvillains. Parker has to deal with Dr. Octopus after dispatching the Green Goblin; we have to deal with Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, the Iranian mullahs, and so on and so forth. Like Parker's fictional world, there is only one force able to oppose the very real evil. In his world, it's Spiderman; in ours, it's the United States. If we were a sane country able to grasp our moment, like Spiderman we would rise to the occassion when it counts and deal with the evil confronting us. So far we are doing that, but there's reason to fear that like Parker halfway through Spiderman 2, we'll forget who we are and what our purpose on this planet is. Our moment of truth comes in November.

Spiderman 2 is a fun film, worth the price of admission and then some. Go see it. Enjoy it. It represents Hollywood at its summertime, popcorn-consuming best.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:55 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


First Hezbollah, now the Red Chinese:

Michael Moore's provocative anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" is likely to become the first imported documentary in China.

Sources indicate there's a strong possibility some of the violent scenes will be cut if "Fahrenheit 9/11" is screened in China.

The film, which is currently playing in cinemas around North America, was the top ticket-seller last weekend.

There is so much wrong with this story it's hard to know where to start. The first doc we send them is a crock? The first doc we send them is an anti-American crock? And Moore will actually consent to editing so that it meets Chinese Communist standards? He wouldn't do that for the MPAA, but will do it for the Butchers of Beijing.

Do we need any more evidence that Moore is as close to an enemy combatant as you can get without actually jumping into a spiderhole and firing on our troops?

Posted by B. Preston at 10:44 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


When read the charges against him--crimes against humanity, gassing Iraqi civilians, invading neighboring countries, etc--Saddam Hussein responded:

"I did a bad thing. I did it because I could."

Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton's defense. But the level of moral judgment was about the same in both cases, no?

(thanks to BB)

Posted by B. Preston at 08:18 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

June 30, 2004


I've become more and more intrigued with Bush-hate lately, almost in the manner of that scientist who lived among great apes to study their habits.

The other morning I sauntered into my office, having been absent for a few days. A co-worker sort of laughed a bit and said I'd shown good timing. Amused, I asked why. The reply: This co-worker and another had just been having a good time Bush-bashing, but I'd come in just in the nick of time to miss it. Well bully for me! I missed two co-workers acting like utter jackasses. I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to witness similar behavior in the future.

If you ask Bush-haters why they hate the man so much, they'll usually reply that he lied about WMD, stole the election, or took us to war and murdered civilians. But that doesn't explain this, which Chris dug up the other day:

"Snipers Wanted" still causing trouble for CBS. As noted Tuesday night by Tony Snow on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, an FCC commissioner wants a better explanation from CBS for how the "Snipers Wanted" caption appeared over video of George W. Bush during a comedy item on the Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn.

Pamela McClintock of Variety reported Tuesday:

Though CBS publicly apologized for running a picture of GOP presidential contender George W. Bush with "snipers wanted" as a caption on Craig Kilborn's late-night show, FCC commissioner Gloria Tristani has admonished the network to further account for the "appalling broadcast."

It sounds like a run-of-the-mill slam on President Bush, par for the grim course these days.

Except George W. Bush wasn't President when Kilborn wanted snipers to shoot him. That broadcast aired in 2000, the week of the GOP convention of that year, when Governor Bush became the Republican nominee for President. 9-11 was more than a year into the future and Saddam Hussein still grinned and hoisted a sword while his bully boys raped women and beheaded men for fun and profit. Osama bin Laden was at that moment sending cash and men to our shores to kill our people and destroy our tall buildings, military headquarters and either the Capitol or the White House. "Snipers Wanted" aired in a context entirely devoid of the reasons Bush-haters proffer now for hating Bush. I find that very interesting.

Why did Kilborn or his producers--whoever approved that apalling stunt--want snipers to kill the Governor of Texas? What had he done to deserve that kind of hate?

The next time some leftist lunatic tells you they hate Bush because of something he has done as President, call them what they are--a liar. The Bush-hate that is bubbling up like a poisonous brine this year is at least four years old. It has aged to a ghoulish perfection, nursed by something that preceeds Iraq, 9-11, and even Florida.

UPDATE: Fellow Bush-hate taxonomists, take note of this case:

CALLER: Actually I'm getting my bachelor's. My major is journalism in communications at University of Maryland and I'm doing online distance education. And I have this professor -- don't I always have professor problems -- I have this professor who just gave us an assignment that we were supposed to write for a broadcast as if it was, you know, going to be on the news. And the story was that President Bush, our President Bush right now, gets shot after the Republican National Convention.

RUSH: You've got to be kidding me!

CALLER: No, I'm not kidding. I could show you --

RUSH: Wait a second. Megan, you're going to journalism school, University of Maryland?


RUSH: Okay. And the professor gives you a writing assignment as though you're a broadcast reporter and you've got to write the story --

CALLER: For a television broadcast.

RUSH: Huh?

CALLER: For television.

RUSH: Television broadcast, about how the president has been shot after the Republican convention. You've got to write that. What did you do?

CALLER: Well, I e-mailed her, and I showed it to all my family first to see if I was overreacting because I felt very -- I felt just offended. And so everybody else was shocked, and they said I can't believe that you have to write that, and I would say something. So I e-mailed her, and I said I just am very uncomfortable with this. I don't think the Secret Service would think this was funny, either. And why can't we write about --

RUSH: Megan, wait just a second. It doubt that your professor wanted a humorous story. Right? I mean, your professor wanted to see a story how you would write about Bush being shot. She's obviously fantasizing about this.

CALLER: I guess.

It gets better.

CALLER: Yes, and she also works, she's a producer or something of one of those Meet the Press shows on Sundays. I don't have her bio in front of me but she's done one of those political talk shows, writing or doing something for them.

RUSH: Unbelievable.

But Limbaugh comes up with the perfect response:

RUSH: Hey, Megan, I know you're still out there. We're still working on this scenario. We want to you write the piece. Go ahead and write the piece exactly as assigned. Here's what happens. The assassin fires on Bush, misses, Secret Service fires on assassin and hits. Assassin identified as your professor. She is known to be one of a concubine of Terry McAuliffe of the Democrat National Committee and has been seen clutching Algore's book "Earth in the Balance" in days prior to this assassination attempt.

So make the assassin your professor, she gets hit by the Secret Service, and it's later learned that she is a concubine of Terry McAuliffe of the Democrat National Committee. Bush survives because the assassin misses because women don't know about guns -- this woman doesn't know about guns -- and Bush goes on to win in a landslide. (Laughing.) And then Congress presents Bush the Purple Heart. (Laughing.) After all this happens. Do it, Megan. Do it. She gave you a premise. You can take it and make it what you want. You're the student. Screw the grade and just do it. Send us a copy.

It is disgusting to think that a professor--who works in the "mainstream" media, no less--would assign such a story to students.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:53 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack


Six words: Heather Nauert, Michelle Malkin, split screen.

Posted by B. Preston at 04:58 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack


Brad DeLong wants to re-educate a fellow liberal for having supported the Iraq war. The Nation's editors depict President Bush eating a baby.

Can't you "liberals" reserve even one ounce of your boundless hatred for actual terrorists and tyrants? Is that too much to ask?

Posted by B. Preston at 01:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


In spite of the press' and liberal-left's best efforts, we are winning the war. Take some time to read Glenn Reynolds' latest, and then come back here.

The history of terrorism in the Middle East makes Reynolds' point crystal clear. Quoting Jim Dunnigan, Reynolds says that wherever al Qaeda operates it becomes hated and despised, while in areas where it doesn't operate--meaning it doesn't sponsor and carry out attacks--its popularity increases. Prior to the Iraq war, al Qaeda was popular across the Middle East. Today, thanks to its beheadings, its wanton murder of hundreds of Iraqi civilians, it is becoming as reviled in the Middle East as it already is here, and as it was in Afghanistan. A Saudi government that was once sympathetic to the cause is now doing its best to hunt down and kill every last al Qaeda operative within the kingdom.

Roll the clock back a couple decades, and center your thoughts on Jordan. Jordan is a Palestinian state, in the sense that Palestinians (to the extent the term means anything) make up a majority of the population. Jordan is ruled by the Hashemites, though, and in the late 1960s and early 1970s the PLO wanted to seize Jordan, rule it and turn it into a gigantic terrorist state. Its hope was to use rule in Jordan to destroy Israel.

So Arafat and his terrorist cronies waged a revolution. At the time, Jordan was your typical Middle Eastern state--founded on harsh Islamic rule and dead set on destroying Israel. But the PLO's effort helped accomplish what had been unthinkable before. It not only made Jordan wary of its Arab friends and neighbors including the Syrians, it gave the Hashemite rulers common cause with the Little Satan itself, Israel. Within a short time the PLO's revolution was crushed, Arafat and his thugs had been driven from Jordanian soil, and Jordan itself had made peace with Israel and become an implacable foe of Palestinian terrorism. Arafat became personna non grata in Jordan as well as Israel. Today we are helping train Iraqi Special Forces troops on Jordanian soil, troops whose mission is to defeat terrorist forces in Iraq. We can not only thank King Abdullah for that--we can thank Yasser Arafat. His stupidity and cravenness have led to the state of things today in Jordan.

All it took was a good, up close look at just how evil the terrorists really are. In Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban ruled, they became despised. In Iraq, al Qaeda has become the despised enemy of the newly sovereign and free state. They are hunted men in Saudi Arabia, and in Jordan, and in Yemen and across most of the Islamic region. Pakistan, former sponsor of the Taliban, now hunts al Qaeda terrorists like rattlesnakes. They are apparently only welcome in Iran and Syria, and even there only with winks and nods. Both governments feel forced to make a show of fighting al Qaeda even while they host terrorist operatives.

We are winning. We are fighting al Qaeda on our terms in Iraq rather then on their terms here in the US, and we are winning.

UPDATE: The Saudis have eliminated a top al Qaeda op. They are getting serious about the war, which is probably a reason we didn't go after them before Saddam. Look at it this way--can you imagine for one second Saddam actually coming around to the idea of fighting terrorism, under any circumstances? I can't. He didn't respond to pressure, only to force, and even then he never really changed his ways.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:26 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

June 29, 2004


First, go watch Evan Coyne Maloney's latest video. Note especially the last minute or so, after he asks his interview subjects to name something that President Clinton actually did that was positive.

Then Google "Bush administration accomplishments." Click on the first link it brings up. Read and enjoy. Memorize a few and share them with Bush-bashing idiots friends.

Then just for fun, go read this. You'll feel better. Trust me.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:15 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


So some lefty author has come out with a book filled with dreams of killing our President. Is there any idea at all--any idea--that the left will not entertain? Is there any level to which it won't sink? I doubt it. The book in question, Checkpoint, is 115 pages of smears directed at President Bush and his administration. Yet it will be published, presumably in the US as well as Europe and elsewhere.

But in the midst of a review of the book, the reviewer makes an odd point:

Mr Baker's publisher, Alfred Knopf, plans to release the book on 24 August, on the eve of the Republican National Convention in New York. To call it a provocation would be an understatement. The author and publishers have no intention of giving anybody ideas - to do so would be a criminal offence - but they are certainly playing very close to the edge in a United States that, in the wake of the 11 September attacks, has shown no compunction about locking people up and asking questions later, free speech rights be damned.

Since 9-11 or at any point during the Bush presidency has a single person anywhere in the United States been locked up and asked questions later for anything they said? A single person, jailed for speech?

No. Those jailed shortly after 9-11 and in the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns were either jailed for immigration violations or because our troops caught them in the course of battle. Jose Padilla was captured on a tip from a terrorist at Gitmo. Free speech hasn't been an issue at all. We've had more than a year of constant smears, lies and fabrications, even outright enemy propaganda pushed directly at the President for the purpose of undermining the war--Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes, "We'll Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers," etc--and no one has even been threatened with a hint of legal action. Only Moore himself is threatening to unleash the lawyers, and only on his own critics who are exposing his myriad lies. Now we even have a book about what a rotten President Bush is and how he should be murdered, and still no threat to speech.

But to the reviewer of the book, free speech rights have been trampled in post 9-11 America. The mind reels at the irony.

Posted by B. Preston at 06:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


A disturbing play bubbling around my head these days, told in four unrelated but mutually reinforcing acts. Make of them what you will.

Act one: A football hero's ex-wife is brutally murdered by an unknown assailant. He is at first questioned, and the public is somewhat sympathetic, until it is revealed that there were bloody gloves, strange movements, disguises and bagfulls of money at the ready--as though he was planning a sudden trip abroad, incognito. He is eventually tried for the crime, and through clever but ultimately dishonest lawyering, he gets off. Pledging not to rest until the "real killers" are found, he is most often found on a golf course. A nation's cynicism, about its heroes as well as its justice system and race relations, rises a notch.

Act two: A young mother contacts police with a frightening tale. A black man carjacked her, taking not only her automobile but her young sons inside. For days there is a massive search, until her story falls apart. It turns out she sunk the car in a lake, boys inside to drown, for entirely selfish reasons. She is tried and convicted, but has made all parents of any missing child forever the first to suspect, and the last to exonnerate. Just ask yourself who killed JonBenet Ramsey? A nation's cynicism rises a notch.

Act three: A young mother-to-be goes missing on Christmas Eve. Her wealthy, successful and handsome young husband marshalls a gigantic effort to find her, working ceaselessly. We find him in newspapers and on TV, looking every bit the worried husband and father-to-be, looking for the smallest shred of evidence. Then, it turns out he was having an affair and may have killed his family. It turns out that the campaign to find his wife was all for show, a massive misdirection. He will stand trial, and thanks to prosecutorial incompetence is as likely as not to go free. And our cynicism about marriage and the justice system will rise a notch. Our cynicism about the press should rise as well. Would the story get so much airtime if Lacy Peterson hadn't been attractive? If her husband hadn't been rich? Why do the cute missing females always get lots of network time, when at any given moment there are dozens of other missing persons? Such cynicism.

These cases have nothing much to do with politics, well except the OJ case, which had plenty of political overtones. But they have made us as a people less likely to believe any story at first blanche. We'll wait for the counter story, and we're more likely to believe it as the final truth, because it usually turns out that the counter story is closer to the truth.

And along comes 9-11, George Bush, Saddam Hussein and Michael Moore, Act Four. Official story: Terrorists attacked us and we struck back. Moore's story: 9-11 was a sham, the war is a sham and Bush is a genocidal criminal who rolls the Constitution and lights it up like a giant cigar. Left to float on the public conscience, it's the second story that wins whether it's true or not. Moore's film--Fahrenheit 9-11--is meant to convey "the temperature at which freedom burns." He couldn't have asked for a better setup, though it has been entirely accidental. We really haven't had much to place faith in as a nation for a number of years. The fact is, the red-blue divide is very real, getting wider and aided by all of the cynicism floating around out there. The worst thing one can be is gullible or believe something that turns out to be untrue, so it's easier to not believe anything any leader says than to buy a line and have it turn out false. And as we have become more cynical, we believe less in any kind of truth, and as the song says it's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else, at least not until the counter story comes out. So we wait for the counter story.

In the case of Bush and Moore, it's the second story that's false. Michael Moore is provably a liar, about nearly every single thing he says. That hasn't stopped the critics from giving him the big thumbs up, and it hasn't stopped the mainstream Democrats from embracing him. They are embracing lies, and they know it, but they don't believe in truth anymore so it doesn't matter. And by its position as the second story, and the one that the press is allowing more or less free reign, Moore's story is the one most likely to stick.

It's death by cynicism. We have chipped away at the things that united this country, and have lost our faith in the things that matter. The very word--faith--as anachronistic. We don't really believe anything, and therefore are open to accept anything as equally true as anything else--even if the two things are mutually exclusive. Don't want to be judgemental. We immediately suspect the husband, the mother, the ex-husband, the basketball hero, and with good reason. We heard the story, and then the counter story. We've seen a President resign and another impeached, and the latter only survived thanks to our cynicism about marriage and the proper rule of law. We heard the story--an illicit affair with a subordinate--and the counter story--vast right-wing conspiracy. Enough of us bought the counter story to save a sorry hide from political punishment, and cynicism grew exponentially on both sides of the divide. And we're now transferring that suspicion and cyncism, unfairly as it turns out, on the current President while giving the lying film maker a season pass. Or enough of us are that it may matter this fall.

As I said, make of these thoughts what you will. There may be nothing to it at all. But there is an Alice in Wonderland quality to politics this year, and there must be some reason for it. That the world's most religious industrialized nation has also become its most cynical is as good a reason as any.

Posted by B. Preston at 04:49 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack


Today's notable quote comes from Queen Hill, the New Age former First Lady who can do no wrong. Speaking before a group of well-heeled liberals on the subject of tax policy, she says:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

What part of America is off track? New jobs are popping up faster than Clinton's bimbo eruptions, and the economy is growing like the weeds in my rain-soaked yard. Given time and a lack of government intervention, the deficit will shrink in accordance with economic growth. What part of the 1980s and 1990s did Queen Hill miss?

"We're going to take things away from you for the common good." How arrogant is that? How elitist is that? And it sounds a bit like..."from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Hilllary is guaranteeing that if given power, the Democrats will take things away from you (because you have too much), for the common good (by which she presumably means to give it to those who have less). At the point of a gun, or an audit from the IRS, as the need to enforce arises. Once again, the Democrats are far more interested in bullying Americans and social engineering than fighting terrorists. For our own good, of course. Giving them power would be a return to 9-10 thinking, mixed with a heavy dose of the hard leftist ideology that sustains them this year. And your taxes would go up--way up.

Lenin, author of the "from each..." quote, would no doubt approve. So would Fritz Mondale, the last big-name Democrat to promise big tax increases in an election year.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:53 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


Michael Moore's film is attacking the US military in the one place it is most vulnerable: the morale of those left on the homefront.

Many were like Natalie Sorton. She is 25 and married to an infantryman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I want to see what my husband is fighting for," Sorton said Monday before going into the theater with a friend, Kathy Norris.


After Monday's showing, Sorton emerged with a grim face. She said she plans to buy the film on DVD and give it to everyone she knows.

"I'm disgusted," she said. "Disgusted."

The film changed her opinions on the war in Iraq by convincing her that oil and corporate interests were behind decision-making, she said. Worries over whether Moore would vilify soldiers were unfounded.

"I don't think they portrayed them as bad," she said. "I don't think it portrayed them as not doing their jobs. It showed them doing what they're told.

"All this movie did was open my eyes a little more to what's really going on," she said. "I think this is definitely going to have an impact on the election. I'm glad I'm a voter."

Imagine you're serving with the 1st Armored in Baghdad, and you receive a letter from your wife. She has just seen Fahrenheit 9-11, and she is now livid about the war, hates the President and has taken the Ted Kennedy worldview as her own. You're several thousand miles away, in a war zone. How can you combat her new opinions, when you haven't seen the film and don't know what's in the headlines every day back home? It is precisely this kind of difficulty that Moore hopes to create. He's of a mind that the best way to defeat the US military is to demoralize it, and the best way to do that is to eat away at the homefront supporters. And he's right.

The film industry is the single most effective device on earth for communicating ideas. The combination of sound, imagery, music and speech strikes all the major senses save one, and can influence moviegoers in a way that a mere book or speech cannot hope to. The film industry has long been in the hands of those mildly anti-capitalist and anti-American, but Fahrenheit 9-11 reaches a new zenith in that it's probably the first film made by a man openly cheering for an enemy victory that speaks directly to the homefront in a way that, left unchallenged, will destroy support for the war among military spouses and families. If you lose them, you lose the boots on the ground, and you lose the war. That's what propaganda is supposed to do, and Moore's filmed diatribe is apparently succeeding--or so says the media.

That filmgoers believe Moore is honest, and that he's for the common American, is touching but wrong. How do we reach these people? How do we tell them that, when he goes to Europe, Moore cannot find enough insults to hurl at his countrymen? How do we tell them that he thinks Musab al-Zarqawi equals Paul Revere, and that he wants the terrorists to kill more Americans whenever and wherever they can?

I don't know. But we have to find a way. Michael Moore's influence delenda est.

MORE: On the other hand, Spiderman 2 opens tomorrow. Fahrenheit 9-11's reign atop the box office will be short-lived.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:53 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack


I've taken a bit of grief around the blogosphere--not too much, but a bit--for being too hard on the Democrat stance on the war, political correctness, and so forth and so on. Sometimes the criticism does cause me to reflect a little. Is it possible that I've gone too far, gotten too wound up in the partisan rancor, to see that the Democrats aren't as useless as I believe?

No. It's not. Every time I think the Democrats can't do anything dumber than what they were doing yesterday, they surprise me. Case in point: Montgomery County, Maryland, bluer than blue county of a blue state, where political correctness trumps experience when it comes to hiring firefighters.

The current test may skew toward applicants who have previous volunteer firefighting experience, officials said. In Montgomery, that means a largely white pool of applicants.

Yes, it's shocking that anyone wanting to hire someone to fight fires might actually want people who, ya know, have actually fought a fire before.

I could go on and on about how political correctness ruins city fire departments, since I have some tangential experience in the area. About how in Dallas a number of years ago, an unqualified applicant (unqualified due to years on the job, among other things) was allowed to test for promotion in spite of the fact that she was not present on the day the test was administered, and one of the requirements for taking the test is that you have to show up on the day it's given. In her case, the test was taken to her some days after everyone else took it, and though her score was a good ten points lower than her nearest competitor, she got the promotion. Reason? Two words: black woman.

I could go on, but I won't. But I will note that the practice of quota hiring and promotion in fire (and police) departments is rampant, and destructive to morale within departments, to unit cohesion, and to the effectiveness of these vital first responders. But none of that matters--at all--to the politically correct left. To them, identity politics trumps all, including public safety.

That's true for police and fire departments, and true in the war as well.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


He says he's a registered independent. The documents say 'taint so:

JUNE 28--Prior to last week's Washington, D.C. premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore denied that the new documentary represents his de facto endorsement of John Kerry. "I am an Independent," the filmmaker told reporters. "I'm not a member of the Democratic party."

Which is not exactly correct.

New York City Board of Elections records show that Moore, 50, registered to vote in Gotham in 1992, checking off "Democratic" as his party affiliation (below you'll find a copy of his original registration form). He listed his address as the swanky Upper West Side building where he owns a multimillion dollar condominium (Moore's office is on West 57th Street). The filmmaker's New York registration remains active, though he has not voted since an October 2001 Democratic runoff election.

Now here's the good part: Moore is simultaneously registered to vote in Michigan, where registrants aren't even given the option of party affiliation (so he's not an Independent there either). According to Antrim County records, Moore registered last April from his lakefront spread in northern Michigan, where he reportedly splits his time, but has yet to vote in Michigan. He transferred his drivers license to Michigan from New York around the same time, though Moore has a Volkswagen Beetle registered from his Manhattan home.

The crockumentarian not only lies in his films--he lies about his voter registration! He's a psychotic Democrat, just like the rest of 'em. And if he actually votes in the two places he's registered this year, he's a crook.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 28, 2004


We've already won the war. The terrorists are finished. It's a done deal.

How do I know? The LA Times says we've already lost, and the Times is almost always reporting the opposite of the truth.

(via Kausfiles)

UPDATE: Could the Times have timed its story any better? The very day it fronts a "we've already lost" piece, the CPA pulls a smart surprise and hands sovereignty over to the Iraqi people. Score one for the Bush administration, in keeping both the terrorists and their allies in the media guessing.

Posted by B. Preston at 07:27 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 27, 2004


Spc. Joe Roche is currently serving with the 1st Armored Division in Iraq. The National Center for Public Policy has published a letter from Roche relating his experiences fighting the Mahdi Army and tangentially the US press in Iraq. It's a must-read:

The 1st Armored Division, of which the 16th Engineers are a part, led the charge against Muqtada Al-Sadr's uprising. The 16th was in the front in all this in Karbala, Najaf, Kufa and Baghdad. And contrary to the negative news coverage, the reality is that we have won some major victories that are having dramatic impact region-wide. I don't think most Americans are aware of the seriousness of the threats we confronted and defeated.

Sadr's Mahdi Army was backed by extensive foreign fighters and a huge amount support. Iran's formidable Al-Quds Army (named for the conquest of Jerusalem, Israel) directly assisted their attacks against us. They trained some 1,200 of Sadr's fighters at three camps they ran along the Iran-Iraq border at Qasr Shireen, 'Ilam, and Hamid. This was backed by what one Iranian defector to us has said was $70 million dollars a month given by Iranian agents to our enemies -- from which Sadr's forces were directly funded in just the past few months by up to $80 million more. The Iranian Embassy distributed some 400 satellite phones in Baghdad to Sadr's forces, while 2,700 apartments and rooms were rented in Karbala and Najaf as safe houses. Sadr's ability to influence the Iraqi people was further enhanced by 300 "reporters" and "technicians" working for his newspaper, radio and television networks -- persons who are actually members of the Al-Quds Army and Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.

That newspaper Roche is referring to is the one the US eventually shut down, due to its being a mouthpiece for the Iranian mullahcracy as well as the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. It was more than just an annoying trumpet for the enemy--it was staffed and run by the enemy, and was used to recruit new fighters and communicate among the ones the terrorists already had. That's the newspaper that Michael Moore et al think we were wrong to shut down. Just so ya know.

We also faced Chechen snipers in Sadr's forces who were being paid anywhere from $500 to $10,000, depending on differing accounts, for each American soldier they hit. One sniper hit five soldiers in less then a minute-and-a-half, killing one with a shot in the neck. These mercenaries were sending this money back to Al-Qaeda-allied guerrillas in Chechnya to fight the Russians.

We also have constantly faced Lebanese and Palestinian Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon mixed in the fighting. Their claim to fame for the killing of 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 is something we have had to consider every day and on every mission.


We have defeated Sadr's uprising and dealt him a powerful blow that has signaled all potential would-be tyrants that the U.S. is serious. Contrary to the fudging news, Karbala, Najaf and Kufa have all been abandoned by the Mahdi Army. The local people turned on them, sometimes violently. Today local Iraqi forces secure those cities while the U.S. military is present to support them. Going to these cities was Sadr's ultimate move against us, and it was backed by a huge investment by his foreign allies. All that failed, and now he has retreated and is attempting to save face in politics. He offended the people of the cities his forces invaded, he offended the Iraqi people by claiming alliance with Lebanon's Hezballah and the Palestinian Hamas terrorist groups, and he has disappointed his foreign supporters who thought he would derail our mission here in Iraq.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by B. Preston at 04:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack