Saddam's History of Terrorism

Ya know, I was not a big proponent of the War on Iraq. I felt we needed to concentrate on Afghanistan until the 'mission' was completed. That said, I felt Saddam had run his course with the UN sanctions. Anyone have children? Well, after the fifth or sixth 'if you do that again!!', your children will blow you off if you make that mistake. Which is exactly what Saddam did. He did not fear ANY repercussions since NONE were coming. So for Annan to say the US broke the law removing Saddam, what do you call a thirteen time offender?

While I never felt nor knew for certain Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda, I did know of his fincancial support of the Palestinian terrorists. How can one support Terrorist, just a little? Bullshit!

Check out this detailed history of Saddam's Philosophy of Terror by Deroy Murdock. It compiles and documents (nice footnotes) supporting the argument.

Lack of Posting

I apologize for not blogging lately, but I've been just slammed with family stuff especially on the weekends.

I'm also just sick and tired of this election. The dishonesty is appalling. What's happened?

Kerry has a plan for EVERYTHING and for EVERYONE while slamming EVERYTHING Bush has done!!!

The accusation that Bush is behind the Flu Shot shortage is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!!! I work in the Laboratory field and lab accidents or contamination occur more than it should, but it's not Bush's fault. This shows me Kerry has NO CLUE.

Kerry and Edwards using Mary Cheney's sexual orientation is a desperate ploy that my work against them. I thought it crossed the line since in the VP debates when Edwards brought up his daughter's orientation, Cheney politely answered the directed question and refused to take the bait. That should have been an indication to the dense Kerry that the topic was off limits. But no...

Could you imagine if Bush/Cheney brought up the topic of automobile safety on vehicles such as Jeep and then turned to Edwards and inquired if he felt safety was an issue with young drivers!!! The point would be germane since Edwards' son Wade died in a freak one car (Jeep) accident. But this would what we'd rightful get:

Pressed to talk about his son's death, Edwards struggles to find a polite -- and
not impolitic -- way to decline.

Hey, isn't that what Cheney did . . .

I'm just bored with it all. As I told my only old-time friend who cannot begin to understand why I'm voting Repub for the first time: I'm more afraid of what Kerry WILL do, than what Bush HAS done!

Talk Radio

I had the pleasure of driving down to Eugene, Oregon on Sunday. It’s a 4 ½ hr drive ! ! ! On top of it, I had to listen to the Seahawks blow a massive second half lead. Wow, that was painful.

But on the drive back, I was able to listen to Air America. I’ve never had the opportunity since I don’t think there’s a station in the Seattle market, which is surprising since Seattle is such a liberal enclave. Well, I listened to the Randi Rhodes show for about an hour or so and came to the belief there is absolutely no differences between the wackos on the Left and Limbaugh wackos on the right!!!! There must have been 4 or 5 callers who said POTUS was mentally ill or psychotic. The shame is it truly was hard to tell which side I was listening to if I substituted Rush’s spin on Clinton v. Rhodes take on Bush.

I love listening to talk radio, but this was just sad. In the Seattle market, we are fortunate. In the AM drive post 9:00am we get Rush (boring), Tony Snow (new, yet good) and local Dave Ross (on sabbatical due to his run at House of Rep as a Dem). The noon time is Sean Hannity (too conservative), Michael Medvid ( not bad, but….) and my personal fav Dori Monson ( Libertarian, yet practical !!!).

And when all else fails there’s Sports Radio!!!

NAQBA

I've seen the word Naqba in several posts recently. I was unfamiliar with so I Googled it and didn't come up with anything I could readily grasp. So I Yahooed it and came across something from Vancouver.indymedia.org that was wonderful!! I've often felt the biggest vilian in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was not Israel but the Palestinian 'leaders'. I've also questioned the regional 'leader' in how they've treated the Palestinians. The Palestinians are kept in 'camp' to be used as pawns.

Palestine was not a vibrant country prior to the influx of Zionist. It was a sparsly populated outland of the Ottoman Empire. That's why it was so easy for the Zionist to BUY the land from so many poverty stricken 'Palestinians'.

Here's the article (go down a bit, all of it is interesting) which just re-inforced what I've read and heard. I've got to check out Mark Twain's writing now:

In 1867, Mark Twain visited the Holy Land and was dismayed at what he found, "a desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds -- a silent, mournful expanse. . . . A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. . . . We never saw a human being on the whole route. . . . There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (From "The Innocents Abroad.")

The land to which Jews began to return in large numbers during the final two decades of the 19th century -- the land they transformed from desert to orange groves, cities and kibbutzim -- was largely empty, not the thriving "nation of Palestine," as the current myth has it. One thinks of this because today's news brings fresh reports of the pitiless persecution of the Palestinians -- not by Jews, but by their fellow Arabs -- which is the true story of Palestinian oppression. The Lebanese government, the New York Times reports, is considering revoking the citizenship it awarded to about 25,000 Palestinians in 1994, a move that will cost many of them their jobs, schools, homes and access to health care. "They are not welcomed," writes reporter Daniel J. Wakin, "by a government that declares its allegiance to the struggle for a Palestinian right to a homeland." Lebanon, like Israel's other Arab neighbors, refused to absorb Arab refugees in 1948, placing them in camps instead. (Israel, by contrast, absorbed and made citizens of the 500,000 Jews who fled Arab lands at the same time.) Twelve refugee camps remain housing most of the 400,000 Palestinians who live in Lebanon. Lebanese law declares them to be stateless, and as such, forbidden to own land outside the refugee camps. The camps are a disgrace -- far worse than anything in the Israeli-administered territories (and Israel surrendered the day-to-day running of civilian life to the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo Accords). "Waste water runs through a trough in the alleys," reports the Times. "Human waste is disposed of in pits beneath homes. Some of the alleys have grown so jumbled that waste-removal trucks cannot get through, and filled-up pits are becoming a problem . . .Residents say the Lebanese Army, which has a checkpoint at the camp's entrance, sometimes searches cars to make sure no unauthorized building materials enter, so the camp does not become more permanent."

Though the Palestinians are ethnically, culturally, religiously and linguistically indistinguishable from their neighbors in Lebanon, they are rejected and excluded from Lebanese society only to make a point about Lebanon's (read Syria's) total rejection of Israel's existence. Arab governments deny this and claim that the camps will be closed just as soon as the "right of return" is recognized. But they of course know that the "right of return" would mean that up to 4,500,000 Palestinians living all over the world would have the right to settle in Israel. Israel could never accept nearly 5,000,000 implacably hostile Arabs (Israel is already home to 1,000,000 Arab citizens who can vote and even serve in the Knesset). The Lebanese, or rather the Syrians, who invaded and control the country, certainly know that the Palestinians living in those camps will never "return" to Israel. So why keep them in such squalid conditions? As a breeding ground for terrorists, perhaps? Following the Gulf War in 1991, Kuwait simply clapped its hands and expelled up to 300,000 Palestinians. Why? Because Yasser Arafat had sided with Saddam Hussein in the war. The Palestinians had been integrated into Kuwaiti society, working at all kinds of jobs, from engineering to computer to menial work. Many had been born there. But the Kuwaiti royal family had no qualms about uprooting them. Ambassador Saud Nasir Sabah said, "They didn't represent a necessity to us." There was hardly a peep from the world community. Certainly there was no condemnation by the United Nations. There is very little sincere concern around the world for the "plight" of the Palestinians. If there were, their situation in Arab countries would draw more attention. As it is, Palestinians are only useful as a club with which to beat Israel. It is disgusting that the Arabs are willing to do this to their own cousins, and equally dismaying that world opinion endorses it.

I've lost most of my sympathy for the folks in the ME. They cling to the tribal beliefs and the will suffer the tribal beliefs. . .

Fortunately, this is hard for me to reconcile. At least it shows I'm closer to God than the Islamofascits who scream 'Allah Akbar' as they decapitate another.

Lack of Blogging

I'm sorry, but I've just lost the lust to blog in this political environment.

Even after watching the 2nd debate!! It was a better showing for the Pres, by far. Kerry was Kerry, what else can be said?

That being said, I was busy with the children and everything I came back to the TV, I couldn't ever tell what the question was because they were all over the board with their answers. Especially Kerry!!!! Right out of the box he touched on five issues with one question!

I'm about done . . . Here in Washington, we have the ability to vote early. I'm going to do so just so I can tune this shit out . . . I love politics, but how the MSM has begun to sound to me is almost Oligarichical. Make them stop!!!!

Yawn. . . Debate? But . . .

I'll give this 'debate' to Kerry. He was the better political speciman. In fact, I was embarrassed by Bush's lack of 'performance'. While he tried to stay 'on message', he sounded whiney. Kerry, on the other hand, looked like a Hollywood celeb and sounded like he would promise anybody anything. He sounded like he was begging for the job, while Bush was more like 'I'm doing the best I can, can't you see that?'

Taranto at OpinionJournal provides an excellent example of Kerry 'but...' speak:

John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last night, but did you notice what the next word usually was? Here are some Kerry quotes:

"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."

"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."

"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."

"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."

"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."

"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."

"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."

"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."

Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the "qualifications" to be president. But it'd inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a "therefore" clause instead of a "but" one.

I was always taught when someone says 'but. . . ', it negates all they said previously. If this litmus test is applied, I have no idea what Kerry really stands for now.

(hat tip: LGF)