I Miss You, Daddy

Alright, I'm human. I have weaknesses, especially when it comes to fathers and their little girls. So, when I ran into this video on "You Tube" while checking out some 9/11 tributes, I watched and teared up over this one. It's only a cartoon, but it's very effective. It's called I Miss You, Daddy-9/11 Tribute by Phill Collins. You know some little girl (actually, litteraly thousands of them) are going through this every day. It really, sincerely breaks my heart. It's a great 9/11 tribute. I hope this one wins an award somewhere.

Is It Time For A Review?

The last thing I want to do is besmirch anyone that has served his country, especially in a time of war. But I think we really need to look at Democratic Rep. John Murtha. Does his recent cut-and-run comments on Iraq have anything to do with it? Yes, but in case you didn't know it, there is more to this man's history.
And he may just be a can short of a six-pack, to boot.

The Hits Just Keep on Comin'

Are you all that surprised at this?

Ain't it the Truth

Check out these updated vintage World War II posters on Michelle Malkin's website that pretty much describe the dangers of the "patriots" at the New York Times.

They're Never Satisfied

So o.k, the kooks are not claiming that the WMDs found in Iraq (over 500 since 2003) were planted (yet) however, they are saying that "these are old weapons and were no threat to American troops or that of their allies." But I believe the argument (started by the left) was that there were no weapons of mass destruction at all! Now that they've indeed been found, the anti-victory sects are changing their arguments once again. Sounds eeirly like a John Kerry argument to me: "I voted for the war resolution so I could vote against it."

Or perhaps an analogy to the "most trusted man in news", Dan "Can't Stand Bush" Rather is more appropriate. You will remember during the 2004 presidential election, that Rather knowingly used false documentation about the President's National Guard service in an attempt to bring him down and to help implement John Kerry as the new commander-in-chief. After he was exposed, he figured a "heart-felt apology" would suffice in defusing the situation. But perhaps the best part in all of that was he claimed the documentation, that were proved to be false, were "fake but accurate". It makes you wonder just how "accurate" his claims on Richard Nixon were. The same biased, unresearched reports resulted in riots abroad when Newsweek magazine printed a story about the physically impossible act of Qu'arans being flushed down the toilet. People died as a result of it, and it never happened. At least they printed a retraction. A little too late it turns out, but at least, the very least, they admitted their mistake-with sincerity.

Moreover, the WMDs found in Iraq (why didn't they let the world know sooner, like as soon as they were found, is beyond me) proves that Saddam Hussein did in fact lie about not having any WMDs. It may not be the smoking gun that everyone was looking for, since it doesn't prove that Hussein had an ongoing WMD program. Facts, among others, that have been discovered, but conviently not reported by the mainstream media:

• A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW [biological weapons] agents and that "Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N. "why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological weapons program?"

• "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal,"a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of "starter set".

• New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemmoragic fever and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

• A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their delared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit".

• "Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant usful only for prohibited Scud-variant missles, a capability that was maintained until at least the end of 2001 and that c0-operating Iraqi scientists have said that they were to conceal from the U.N."

• Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missles with ranges up tp at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -well beyond the 150 kilometer range-limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N." Missles of a 1,000 kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey] Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi, [United Arab Emirates]."
  

"In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, siezed documents and other evidence, the ISG [Iraqi Survey Group] learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from N. Korea technology related to 1300 kilometer range [807 miles] ballistic missles-probably the No Dong-300 kilometer range [186 miles] anti-ship cruise missles and other prohibited military equipment."

-David Kay, U.N. weapons inspector
source You may notice that this source page was written/posted April 26, 2004. A full two years ago.

However, we don't know all the facts about this yet and there are no doubt more to be discovered or reported about (or more likely not reported about) So it goes without saying that all the reports (especially in the New York Times ) about there being no WMDs are obviously very wrong, and every one of them should immediately appologize to the President, but don't hold your breath on that one. As of this writing, with the exception of the aforementioned opining about the WMDs found are "no good", to my knowledge not one reporter from any left-leaning newspapers or websites have made mention of the found WMDs as a good thing. But then again, that would give credibility to the Bush administration, now wouldn't it? But as usual, they keep on gulping down that Kool-Aid like it's going out of style. With people like Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Ted *hic* Kennedy, John Kerry, John Murtha and the whole editorial staff of the Daily Worker, oops I mean The New York Times, working against the President and his administration at every turn, there's no chance of any of their glasses being empty. However, that's not to say that their glasses aren't perpetually half-empty at any given time, either.

And Don't Tell Me They Planted Them, Either

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. First they found Russian-made Mig-25s in the Iraqi desert back in July, 2003, (which I bet you didn't know about, thanks to the liberal media) now they've found so-called "non-existent" weapons of mass destruction. Anyone getting the theme here? You just know the desperate lefties out there are already scheming to come up with a way to say these weapons were planted. Look, one more time; Bush did not lie. Where's the Proof you ask? Well there's this:

Clinton Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, Feb. 1998:
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there means a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rouge state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, Feb. 1998:
"He [Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, Oct. 2003:
"When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently, he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to priveleged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President, Jacques Chirac, Feb. 2003:
"There is a problem-the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrolable country, Iraq. The international community was right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

Former President Bill Clinton, Dec. 1998:
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them, not once but repeatedly-unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing scud missles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq...I have no doubt today, that left unchecked Saddam Hussien will use these terrible weapons again."

Bill Clinton, July, 2003:
"It is incontestable that on the day that I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

General Wesley Clarke, Sept. 2002: Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. ...Yes he has chemical and biological weapons...He is, as far as we know actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sept. 2002:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Howard Dean, Feb. 2003:
"I agree with President Bush-he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deciever. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and he has refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spreading weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a diiferent place other than in the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

Howard Dean, Mar. 2003:
"[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

Clinton assistant secratary of state for non-proliferation, Robert Einhorn, Mar. 2002:
"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missle attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years, it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissle material produced indigenously-and to threaten U.S. territories with such weapons delivered by non-conventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get it's hands on suffiecient quantities of already produced fissle material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 2001:
"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is [undoubtedly] using the cover of licit missile program to develope longer-range missles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., Dec. 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W. Va., Oct. 2002:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."

Former President Bill Clinton, Feb. 1998:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develope weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Bill Clinton, Feb. 1998:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.program."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mi., Sep. 2002:
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fl, and others, Dec. 2001:
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missle program to develope longer-range missles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others, Oct. 1998:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with congress and consistent with the U.S. constitution and laws to take necessary actions (including, if appropiate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For the record, faulty intelligence is NOT lying. Moreover, for those of you not paying attention before the war, everybody from John Kerry and Howard Dean to Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi voted in favour of the War Resolution. Why? Because they saw the same intel reports that the President did. As did the U.N. Security Council when they gathered information from the intelligence communities from such nations as France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Australia, as well as the U.S. AND, the President, contrary to popular (i.e indoctrinated) belief did not "rush to war". Unless of course, you consider 18 months of diplomatic manouvering to gather a coalition, rushing to war. Remember: Sept. 11, 2001 (Terrorist attack on America) Mar. 19, 2003 (Start of Operation: Iraqi Freedom)

And one very important thing to keep in mind is, all of these people as well as the U.N. Security Council, saw the same intelligence reports as the President did. They voted on the War Resolution and voted to go to war.



So, it may appear that the faulty intel was not so faulty afterall.

Liberal Lies, Hard Facts

Are you sick of the liberal myths, distortions and down right lies about President Bush? Are you tired of the left's re-writing of history and social engineering? Instead of my blog, I'm going to reprint a portion of a column from Townhall.com written by someone a lot smarter than I and definately knows what he's talking about: Thomas Sowell.

President Bush, like Ronald Reagen before him and the innumerable others who are out of favor among liberals, has repeatedly been depicted as such a mental lightweight that he is not in the same league with brilliant guys like Al Gore and John Kerry.

The fact is, both George W. Bush and John Kerry went to Yale, where Bush had a higher grade point average. Bush also scored higher than Kerry on intelligence tests that both took in the military. Gore went to Harvard, where he finished in the bottom fifth of his class two years in a row.

Grades and test scores are not everything, but they are something-and those who are convinced that their guys are way smarter have no facts at all to back up this widely and fervently believed notion.

The cold fact is that anyone who spouts the liberal line is likely to be depicted as sophisticated, if not brilliant and anyone who opposes it is likely to be considered dull, if not stupid, in the liberal media.

The grand political fallacy of the age is that the Republicans are the party of wealth, while the Democrats are the party of compassion for the little guy. This is something that has been assumed and repeated so often that it has become a "well-known fact" without any hard evidence being asked for or given.

In the 2000 elections, the counties that voted for Bush had a smaller percentage of their population with annual incomes over $100,000 than the counties that voted for Gore. The Bush counties also had a higher percentage of their population earning under $30,000 a year.
It has become axiomatic in the liberal media that big-money donors give most of that big money to the Republicans. But the hard data show that the top ten donors to political campaigns, gave far more to the Democrats, with the lone exception being the National Association of Realtors, who gave 51% to the Democrats and 49% to the Republicans.

"Racism" is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans. But the cold fact is the whole Jim Crowe era in the South was dominated by Democrats. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights legislation.

Bill Clinton's cabinet consisted overwhelmingly of white males while Bush's cabinet has been the most ethically diverse in history.

But who cares about facts anymore?

Everybody Loves Us, Huh?

More on the Canadian 17.
What are we going to do about these "people"?
Try to "understand" them? Oh, believe me, I do.

From the Files of the Oliver Stoned

Have the kool-aiders of the far-left again lost their collective minds? For a while now there has been a huge upsurge of 9/11 conspiracy theories since 2002. In short, these theoretic abominations do nothing for the truth and even less for the victims families. There are many various websites and blogs circulating the internet about how the Bush administration master-minded the terror attacks on New York and Washington.

All the while the hijackers had done their pilot training in the U.S. during the Clinton presidency, so President Bush must have done all this scheming while he was still governor of Texas. Pretty good for a dumb, hick-cowboy, huh? They conclude from selected half-quotes (of which, many of the authors have either retracted their statements, or deny the quotes altogether) paranoia and pseudoscience that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc. hatched this devious plan to murder over 3,000 of their fellow countrymen just to have a precursor to war in Iraq, consciencly forgetting that Saddam Hussein had broken almost every U.N. resolution imposed on him by the world in 1991, thus giving the U.S. every right to usurp him from power. Don't get me started on whether he was a direct threat to America or he had no connection with 9/11. That's all rhetoric by the apologists and terrorist supporters who have no interest in history or protecting their nation.

The purveyors of these videos and websites sell this concept in an attempt (other than more faux reasons to hate Bush) to sell their DVDs, t-shirts, bumper-stickers, pens, key-chains and what have you. I quote Debra Burlingame (sister of flight 77 pilot) when she was intervied by William M. Welch, writing for USA Today, dated April 29, 2006:
"The only thing they seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred. They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world, they're con-artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars."

This quote is in direct contradiction to the biggest amalgamation of myths put to video to date that is "Loose Change", made by 22-year-old Dylan Avery and friends. But have faith all ye with common sense, there are some that have had enough of the distortions, manipulations and downright lies. These people have started their own blogs, websites and made their own videos rightfully debunking and condemning these deliberate attempts at rewriting history. One of which is right here on blogger.com that goes by the name of "Screw Loose Change".
(www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com) Another being "9/11 Myths...Reading Between the Lies" www.911myths.com If you want to check out the answer to "Loose Change", see this video, and this. Of course, Popular Mechanics is officially now in on the conspiracy.

These sites can say and disprove more than I can at this particular point in time, so perhaps I will be satisfied with this and future blogs here being a compendium of sorts to those and others that are fighting the good fight. A fight, by the way, that shouldn't have to be.
I will be posting (along with my fellow debunkers) anything and everything that I can find to expose the kooks wherever and whenever I can, although the above websites pretty much said all there is to be said. Just remember this; these are the same sort of wackjobs that said man has never walked on the moon either.