<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, March 29, 2004

Tricky Dick II 

Its taken me a while to figure out exactly what I think of Richard Clark.

What bugs me is that the press is saying that, since he worked for administrations of both political parties, he is automatically above politics, and therefore undeniably objective.

I think career bureaucrats can be some of the most dangerous people in our government. They answer to no one, have power over how our tax dollars are used, and are often free to abuse their power. Clark presided over the terror problems that plagued the Clinton Administration. He was the one who essentially shot a $10 million missile up a camel's ass, to paraphrase President Bush.

Many of the most evil people in history were bureaucrats above politics. Submitted for your consideration is one Charles-Maurice Talleyrand, the French diplomat. This man served under Louis XVI, the Revolutionary Government, Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis XIII, and Louis-Philippe.

Talleyrand survived all these administrations by being interested in one thing. No, not the welfare of the French Empire-turned Republic-turned Empire-turned Republic. Talleyrand survived by looking out only for himself.

I contend that Richard Clark survives in much the same way. He was hired by President H. Bush as a moderate. He liberalized his views when Clinton takes over, and amazingly manages to keep his job. When W. Bush brings his administration to the White House, Clark became a neo-con. However, for whatever reason, the new Bush administration was not impressed with Clark, and demoted him to monitering a cyber-terror taskforce. Clark realized that his future wasn't going to be long and bright with this administration and resigned.

However, to reingratiate himself to the neo-cons, he ratted out the Clinton administration, pointed out all the failures of the Clintons in the battle against terrorism. He made himself out to be the one lone voice of sanity against the rest of Clinton's advisors. Only he, Richard Clark, was wise enough to realize the threat Al Qaeda posed.

But then, a funny thing happened. George W. Bush began to slip in the polls. The neo-cons may soon leave power! Let the transformation begin!

Now, to appeal to Kerry, and to get a position in his administration, he has renegged EVERYTHING he said about Clinton. Clinton was a master when it came to dealing with terrorism. Bush, on the other hand, was totally distracted with an irrational need to take out Saddam Hussein. Condi Rice? A moron who never heard of Al Qaeda. Don Rumsfeld? Iraq-obsessed megalomaniac.

What this comes down to is that Richard Clark is a filthy sycophant who's loyalty is up for grabs at any time. He'd probably fit well in a Kerry administration. He contradicts himself almost as often as the Senator.

(0) comments

Friday, March 26, 2004

Non-Political Entry 

Okay, now, as some of you may know, I used to really be into video games. Like, to the point where I probably could have used a Seven-Step program to break the addiction.

Luckily, the video game companies made such a program unnecessary by releasing a lot of crappy games for about 12 years. Now, there are a few exceptions. For example, the Final Fantasy series was fantastic, up until the tenth installment. Legend of Zelda was great until they retooled the series into 3-D for N64, then into weird polygonal cartooniness for Gamecube.

One of my favorite games of my childhood was Sam and Max Hit the Road, a comical game made by LucasArts, who mostly makes boring Star Wars based games, beloved by those who accept the fact they will never touch a real women. Apparantly, these Star Wars games cost a lot of money. So much so that they cancelled the long-awaited sequel to Sam and Max.

Now, honestly, after the last two Star Wars movies, are there really any Star Wars fans even left?! Anyhoo, if anyone else remembers this admittedly obscure game, and wants to work to save the sequel without actually putting in any effort, simply fill out this online petition. Thank you, and goodnight. Or, afternoon. Or whatever.

(0) comments

Questions about Edu-ma-cation 

I spent over $150 to take the GREs.

I spent over $200 to take the LSATs.

Now here is a question. Where the hell does that money go?

Who profits from these idiotically high prices? What expenses do these prices offset? Why does the College Board get an automatic monopoly on Grad School Admission tests? Who gave the Bar the absolute right to ban anyone else from becoming a lawyer without jumping through all their stupid hoops?

What does the Department of Education pay for? Why don't they pay for me to take the GREs and/or LSATs? Are they paying for something more important? If not, why don't we simply abolish it all together, so that I do not have to pay taxes into it, and therefore, leave me with more money with which to finance my education?

Looking at their webpage and budget (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/tables.html?src=rt for those who care), the Dept. of Education does seem to spend most of their money wisely. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see that. However, at this point, I'm not gonna delete this blog. I wasted my time writing it, you can waste your time reading it. Although, I don't see why Howard University gets special funding directly from the DoE.

Also, apparantly in the budget is something called the "Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program." I don't see why I have to pay for that. Sounds like some Black colleges simply refuse to desegregate. Guess they don't value diversity.

(0) comments

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Who is to Blame For 9/11? 

Is anyone else tired of listening to people bitch that Bush and/or Clinton could have prevented 9/11?

We elected a lawyer and a businessman, not psychics.

And ANYONE who complains even the LEAST bit about the War in Iraq or the Patriot Act has no right to criticize either Clinton or Bush. The Patriot Act simply gives the FBI the tools to moniter terror suspects AFTER GETTING A WARRANT, yet from the way people react, you'd think it repealed the Bill of Rights. We did not have the Patriot Act before 9/11, so there was no way to know what the terrorists were planning.

To prevent 9/11, we would have had to have attacked the Taliban and Al Qaeda long before the attack could have even been planned. And we all know how that would have went. The same people who clamored to save Saddam from justice would have dedicated their lives to defend the Taliban. Hollywood would take to the airwaves to declare the sitting president the equivolent of Hitler. College professors would lead their students in protests. Just as they did before the Iraq War. Just as they did during the Kosovo Campaign.

The blame does not lie on either Clinton or Bush. The blame for 9/11 belongs squarely on the international Anti-War lobby who have worked to castrate the leadership of the West, and the United States in particular, since Vietnam. Reagan and both Bush presidents effectively bypassed the Anti-Warists when emergencies struck. Clinton, though more beholden to the Anti-War lobby, was willing to send troops (for at least a short time) when the need presented itself.

The attack in Spain proved that there is a close alliance between the Anti-War movement and the Terror movement, and the irony is, the Anti-Warists don't even realize it. Al Qaeda knows who will allow them to continue their reign of terror, and who will hesitate to use force when it matters. They know they don't need to ally with Western dictators. They simply need the Western Democracies to be led by appeasers. Men like Prime Minister Zapatero. Men like Howard Dean. Possibly men like Senator Kerry.

In a Democracy, the leaders only have the powers we give them. If you want to know who to blame for 9/11, simply look to those who withheld the power to protect us.

(0) comments

Monday, March 22, 2004

Controversy Ahead 

There has been a great victory in the War on Terror today, but you wouldn't know it from world reaction. The founder and leader of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, was taken out by Israeli forces. And the world couldn't be angrier.

Now, Yassin's reign of terror is one that makes Osama bin Laden seem like an okay guy. His terror group pioneered the art of suicide bombings. Every explosion on an Israeli bus, ice cream parlor, or busy street was a direct result of this coward's order. He is responsible for more deaths of Palestinian children, whom his followers strapped bombs to, in order to kill innocent Israelis, than any single Israeli prime minister.

Protestors have taken to the streets all over Palestine. You want to really kill the terrorists? Bomb the protestors. I would also bomb his funeral. Barbaric? Perhaps. But Israel is already so despised it can't go worse. Israel needs to make the Palestinians afraid to rebel against them, and then needs to integrate them into equal members of Israeli society. That is the only way, besides Israeli genocide, to end the Israeli/Arab conflict.

(0) comments

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Sickening 

Proof that Democrats, at least in the House of Representatives, do not support the Troops.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll064.xml


(0) comments

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Spain's Lesson: How John Kerry Can Prevent Another 9/11, and Possibly Win the Presidency 

"We must hang together, or surely we shall hang seperately."- Benjamin Franklin.

It is sad that Spain did not heed the advice of America's greatest wit. Prior to 3/11, Spain was bitterly divided on whether to support the United States in the War on Terror. Conservatives wanted to aide the US's Crusade, where the Socialists wanted to leave the terrorists alone. Al Qaeda saw a golden opportunity. They attacked Spain right before their elections. Their ideological allies, the Socialists, jumped into action and blamed the United States for the attack, won the election, and vowed to cease any aide to the United States in the War on Terror, most notably in Iraq.

Now, imagine if Spain had been united in their conviction to combat terror. Al Qaeda would not have felt there was a tactical advantage in attacking Spain, and may have left them alone while they planned another attack on US soil. It is rather telling that such a shaky ally was chosen, rather than a more traditional ally like Britain or Australia.

Now, there is a lesson here that America needs to learn, John Kerry most especially. There needs to be a bipartisan consensus to combat terrorism, in the harshest possible way, so that the terrorists know that they'd be no better off if Kerry won than if Bush did.

Kerry needs to unleash the Hawk inside.

Kerry must cut all ties with Howard Dean. He won the primaries on the basis of NOT being Howard Dean. Dean will be more poisonous to Kerry than Al Gore was to Dean. And by the way, Senator, I hope you're smart enough not to allow Gore to taint your campaign.

Kerry needs to realize that he won his party's nomination due to his perceived support of the Iraqi War, not in spite of it. Stop courting the anti-War vote, Senator. If the anti-War crowd voted, Dean would be the Democratic nominee, not you.

Right now, conventional wisdom is that Al Qaeda will attack the United States in the last days of October, in order to force Bush out of office. The only hope to prevent this is if Kerry gives rhetoric just as fiery, if not moreso, than the incumbant. Al Qaeda must fear Kerry more than they fear Bush.

And Kerry, you must realize that the United States is not Spain. In the event that there is a terror attack before the election, the American people will scream for blood, and you can bet your soul that the more hawkish candidate will win.

(0) comments

Monday, March 15, 2004

Just a Thought... 

If Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda, and Saddam's downfall actually benefits Al Qaeda, then why would Spain be attacked for helping the US dispose of Saddam? Could one not see this as proof of a partnership between the old Iraqi regime and Osama's little frat?

(0) comments

Chalk a Victory to Al Qaeda 

Spain has decided to bend to terrorism, and has unseated their current government, and installed a Socialist one that blames the Madrid attack on the Conservative Party's support of United States. They plan on breaking off the current relations with the United States (keeping it "cordial") and pulling out of Iraq

Apparantly, Spain would rather side with the people who murdered their countrymen in the hundreds than with their traditional ally. How truly European.

(0) comments

Thursday, March 11, 2004

In Spain, 3/11 = 9/11 

Today, Spain has suffered the worst terror attack in their history, and the American news media gives it no more than a passing mention.

I can't help but think the American media is afraid that reminding Americans of the dangers of terrorism would bring the issue back to the forefront of our political campaign. If I am correct, then the American press corps should be ashamed of itself.

Four trains were attacked in Madrid by Basque seperatists, a Muslim nation that exists within France and Spain. Spain has been a great ally for the United States, supporting us in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They know all too well the kind of threat the terrorists pose. My prayers are with the Spanish people today.

(0) comments

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Curse of Success 

Bush's biggest downfall may be the exact opposite of his father. He has been too successful as president.

After 9/11, he vowed to prevent another act of terror from striking our country. Even though he pointed out that another attack was likely inevitable, there has not been a single attack on American soil by an organized terror group (unless the DC Snipers really were working for Nation of Islam, like some believe). Due to this unbelievable success, no one seems to care about the Terror issue. And, as Bush's 9/11 campaign commercial seems to indicate, a large amount of Americans are trying to blot 9/11 from their memory entirely.

As for the economy, it is grew for an entire quarter at 12%, faster than any other time since Reagan. Now, it still grows, by not at an equally astonishing rate. Since the economy is now growing at a more reasonable (and thus, sustainable) rate, Bush's economic plan is now considered a failure.

Bush's other successes don't seem to be helping him either. Saddam Hussein was captured under his watch, and Iraq is now a Constitutional Republic, the first in the Middle East since the First World War. Saddam's sons are dead, thus ridding the world of two would-be tyrants.

Afghanistan has not fallen back into Taliban hands like the so-called experts predicted.

Haiti is free of the dictator that Bill Clinton inflicted upon them.

Unemployment is at 5%, the lowest in the industrial world.

The one failure of the Bush administration is the failure to capture Osama bin Laden. However, Al Qaeda is decimated, and practically all of Osama's top men are captured or dead. Bin Laden has been rendered totally impotent.

(0) comments

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Just Filler 

A lot of little stuff in the news right now. First of all, Ashcroft is in the hospital. My psychic premonition is that Ashcroft's surgery will go wrong, he'll be unable to serve in the Bush Administration anymore, Giuliani will take his place, Bush's approval rating will soar. Then the conspiracy theories will begin. Within a year Ashcroft, the man who Leftists compared to Hitler, will be their new hero.

Okay, maybe not.

Another interesting story is that the EU is going to allow the RIAA to raid the homes of suspected music downloaders and seize property. How long until some government has the courage to stop this cartel?

(0) comments

Thursday, March 04, 2004

Whitewashing Modern History 

The Democrats are crying because Bush dared to reference 9/11 in two of his new campaign commercials.

They say it is disrespectful, but I have seen the commercials, and they are anything but.

The truth is, Democrats don't want us to remember what we all thought, even the most liberal Democrats among us, when we saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center: Thank God Bush won.

You cannot bring up the last four years without referencing 9/11, and Republicans would be negligent not to remind people that Bush's leadership was universally acclaimed for the way he handled the aftermath.

The Democrats are trying to make us ignore history, or at the very least, rewrite it so that Bush was not involved. The fact is, you cannot talk about World War II withought referencing the leadership of FDR and Churchill; You cannot remove Abraham Lincoln's leadership from scholarly debate about the Civil War; likewise, you cannot whitewash George W. Bush's leadership from the 9/11 tragedy.

(0) comments

Monday, March 01, 2004

And Haiti Makes Three! 

Another tyrant has fallen in part to the Bush administration, although, admittedly, Aristide was probably going to fall regardless of whether the United States helped. But hey, at least Bush didn't send troops to keep this putz in power, like Clinton did.

Clinton probably supposed that stability was more important than freedom in Haiti, a lament that the Pessimists from all over the political spectrum wail whenever a Western Nation tries to spread Democracy. But how stable is stability that has popular uprisings every 8 years or so?

(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?