The T-Blog

Is anyone surprised at the NYT hit piece on McCain?

2008-02-24T05:08:00.001-08:00

I'll begin with this. After the Clinton presidency, who are Democrats, liberals and progressives to comment on a politicians extramarital affairs whether real or fabricated?

Now, with that out of the way let me talk about the New York Times' hit piece on John McCain. In case you did not read the article, the supposed affair that John McCain is having with a lobbyist was never substantiated. But whether or not McCain had an affair is not the issue. The New York Times' reporting is.

You see, the New York Times had this story in December and they told McCain about it in December. So why was this potentially damaging story held until now? It sure was not benefit John McCain. The New York Times wants a Democrat in the White House, plain and simple. This story is evidence that the media is left leaning and attempting to manipulate the outcome of an election.

The New York Times could have published that story in December, but why not? If the story was published then and had its desired effect then McCain would not be the Republican nominee. Now, McCain is going to be the nominee, and now the media will strike.

I am not any more upset with the media than I normally am. A snake is a snake and the NYT is the NYT.

A note to John McCain: you've stepped on the conservatives and gotten colzy with the Libs. And where has it gotten you? Did you honestly think that your Lib buddies wouldn't forsake you for Hillary or Obama? Lesson learned. I hope.

Bush proposes tax rebate. Dems spin.

2008-01-22T16:56:00.000-08:00

President Bush is working on a proposal to address economic worries. Within this plan he is proposing a "rebate" on income taxes. This is similar to the rebate we received in 2002. Singles are said to receive $600 and married couples receive $1,800.

Of course the media and libs are out there spinning this. Several stories have surfaced in the media where people are dragged out who will say that they don't feel like this will help the economy.

Let me ask, weeks ago when Hillary, Barack and Edwards were touting their "free" give aways wasn't this going to undoubted help the economy? Isn't that how it was touted in the media? So what's the difference between the Dem "giveaways" and Bush's "rebate?"

To begin, rebate is not the proper word. Refund is. Bush proposes taking money directly out of the government coffers (our money) and giving it back. Hillary's supposed free, universal healthcare or "baby bonds" redistribution of wealth. Under Democrats taxes will raise to pay for the program. Bush on the other hand recognizes that we have a tax surplus and is not going to spend it, but give it back.

This is only a half-solution. The real solution, make the tax cuts permanent.

Iranian navy provocation brings out the crazies.

2008-01-13T06:41:00.000-08:00

As you may or may not know, last week the Iranian navy sent fast attack boats out to confront a US Navy destroyer group. I have no doubt that the Iranians knew they would not be able to successfully attack the destroyer group and that their harassment was intended to provoke a response by the destroyers.

One thing that you can always count when something like happens is the kooks will come out in droves calling shenanigans. Just ask, the sinking of the Lusitania? Faked/the US did it. Pearl Harbor? FDR knew about it. USSR invasion of Afghanistan? the USSR was "lured" in by the CIA. 9/11? Bush did it.

What is the common theme here? The US is the bad guy. The US is to blame. No other nation, ever, ever, ever does anything against the US. The US is just so hell bent on war that we fake provocation to acheive that goal.

Ridiculous.

The kook spin on this will be that the Iranians would not dare attacking the US Navy as they know they would be destroyed. This will come from the same people that say we cannot win a war in Iraq or Afghanistan and have stated that the US military cannot fight terrorism.

Russians reliving the space race...

2008-01-09T03:51:00.000-08:00

I ran across this headline, "Russia says it is ahead in race to put man on Mars"

The Russians say that they are winning the space race. Really? There's a race for that? Imagine that the Russians are racing for the red planet.

Here's a guarantee. Based on the USSR's previous performance they may well put a man on Mars first. Whether that man is still breathing when he gets there is another question.

Comments on the NH Primary

2008-01-09T03:40:00.000-08:00

After last night's primary it looks like Clinton is still in the game. Good. I truly hope that she gets the nomination because she will be easier to beat in the general election.

Here's my question. Obama was polling at double-digits ahead of Clinton leading up to the New Hampshire primary, where are all the lefties crying voter fraud? I mean come on, in 2004 it had to be voter fraud because polls said Kerry was ahead, right?

Speaking of voter fraud, how does that work in Democratic primaries? Does one candidate get all the "dead voter" support and one get the "I vote once... in each county" support?

US Rep gets in argument with Capital Police

2007-07-21T09:48:00.000-07:00

Hey guys I just read the Rep Christopher Shays (R) CT got into a shouting match and apparently grabbed a Capital Police officer while trying to bring visitors in through a restricted entrance.

Of course Rep Shays lost his temper and acted like an idiot and embarassed himself.

Predictably, the Dems and Libs have popped up comparing this to Cynthia McKinney. Is the right wing going to demand that Shays resign? And so on.

Here's the thing, on the surface these two incidents are very similar. One thing is that McKinney actually struck the officer and Shays did not; I don't need to tell you that in the left wing mind Republicans should be rounded up for any infraction. But the real difference is in how the situation was handled.

Did Shays blame the officer afterward? Did Shays cite some kind of prejudice? No, he said I'm sorry, I was wrong and I am to blame. These are things we never heard from Cynthia McKinney, that is the biggest difference.

Iranian missles aimed at US base in Iraq.

2007-07-15T06:18:00.000-07:00

The United States military has found 50 Iranian "penetrator" missile launchers aimed at a US base in Iraq. The began after two of the same type of missiles were used in an attack the killed two American soldiers.

They have been sending people and weapons into Iraq to be used against our soldiers. What is it going to take for our government to strike back against Iran? Fearing just that Mahmoud has denied the evidence and at the same time threatened Israel.

I have to ask, what the hell are Iranian missiles doing in Iraq. It doesn't take General Patton to tell you close off the border between Iraq and Iran (of course Patton would what level Iran for its interference). But this should not come as a surprise since the government isn't even willing secure our own border.

I guess we can always offer the Iranians a "guest combatant permit".

U.S. House approves surrender to Muslim terrorists.

2007-07-12T18:12:00.001-07:00

The House of Representatives approved a measure today to begin the withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq. The plan specifies that the withdrawal begin within 120 days and be completed by April 1, 2008. April Fool's Day, wow is that fitting.

This measure also dictates that some US military personnel be left in Iraq to "train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists."

So let me get this straight, the Democrats say that we are losing the war so their solution is to pull most everyone out and leave a skeleton crew? Now that is strategy. The Dems said we are losing the war, I guess now they want to prove it. Maybe al Qaeda in Iraq won't let us surrender unless we let them win a few battles for their propaganda videos.

Here's what really pisses me off. If the Dems want us out, why don't they just vote to pull us out? Why do they have to chip away at every resource our military men and women have? Why do the Dems feel this need to demoralize and disarm the military in a time of war?

The Dems just don't have the guts to stand up for ending the war and they sure as hell don't have the guts to win it. We all know that the Dems are cowards when it comes to fighting islamofacists, but they are even too cowardly to say they just want to give up? The other reason they don't just vote to pull out, each flag draped coffin has the potential for propaganda, the more the better.

Either way the Dems are surrendering to an enemy that will follow our soldiers home.

Looks like Nancy has already been practicing for her role as "Speaker of the Dhimmis".

Battle of the Moonbats

2007-07-11T11:07:00.000-07:00

Ladies and gentlemen, Cindy Sheehan has once again taken her self-importance to a new level. Only weeks after vowing that she was leaving the game Cindy Sheehan is headed to Washington D.C. and if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has not impeached George W. Bush Cindy is going to challenge Pelosi for her House seat!

Cindy Sheehan has made quite a career for herself exploiting her heroic son's death and now she hopes to parlay that into a political career.

It will be the battle of battles. Mother Moonbat vs. Nancy PeLousy.

Here the possible outcomes all of which I find to be pleasing in various degrees:

1. Sheehan and Pelosi effectively split the kook vote enough to where a Republican wins. Pelosi is out, new Speaker is named, Sheehan loses too.

2. Sheehan wins, Pelosi is out, new speaker, Sheehan becomes an embarrassment on center stage.

3. Pelosi wins (least desireable), Sheehan is tossed out.

Of course the only way the scenario 1. happens is if someone spike the San Francisco drinking water with anti-psychotic medication.

Libs lash out with talk of "Fairness Doctrine"

2007-07-02T11:32:00.000-07:00

Since the public spoke up, refused to be bullied and shut down the Senate's attempt to give illegal immigrants superior rights and protections the liberal have been been looking for a scapegoat. Talk radio is set to take the blame for the downfall of the bill.

The stage is now set for the government to impose the so called "fairness doctrine" on us. The premise is simple and it goes like this:

Radio companies are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to indoctrinate the masses of this country by forcing "Svengalis" like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram down our throats and we are essentially a captive audience. No one really *wants* to listen to these shows but we have no alternative, we can't even turn off the radio to avoid indoctrination. It's not that there is a demand for Limbaugh and others, there just isn't enough liberal programming out there to equally "put the whammy" on the American public. The radio companies are perfectly willing to piss off their listeners by playing programming the public doesn't want and the collective American public has enough doodoo butter substituting for there brains that we just can't help but take it all in and just mindlessly accept it. Obviously, the government needs to step in and make it "fair".

This so-called fairness is not about fairness, it is about control.

Let's start with the liberal definition of fair. Liberals define fair by the outcome or results. In order for anything to be fair the results have to be the same. If liberals ran the Olympics everyone would get a gold medal (except for the American athletes). In the liberal mind the results should all be the same and they will change and govern the proverbial playing field until they get the results they want. The liberals think that it is not fair that Air America doesn't get the same ratings as Rush Limbaugh.

This fairness doctrine, like much of liberalism, assumes that the people are too stupid to decide what they want to listen to and even what their opinion is about the issues. Every American is a blank sheet of paper waiting for either Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken to fill in the blanks. In a nutshell, we are all morons.

The fairness doctrine also attempts to go against one of the very tenants of the Constitution. The congress is attempting to pass a law to control free speech.

Now let's get to the heart of this issue. What is this really about? The government wants to punish the talk radio folks. In their minds talk radio soured us against this great and wonderful immigration bill.

All talk radio did was tell us what was in it when our government representatives would not. Without Paul Revere the British Army would have surprised American revolutionaries, likewise without talk radio the Senate would have slid this bill under our noses.

Talk radio is accused of "whipping the public into a frenzy" but ask yourself do you need Rush Limbaugh to tell you to get mad about any of the following?:

-All illegal immigrants would benefit and get legal status, including known felons
-All back, unpaid income taxes would be forgiven
-No provisions for border enforcement

I didn't think so. Call your congressman and kill the fairness doctrine.

Bomb Plot Stopped in London.

2007-06-29T04:34:00.000-07:00

British police defused a car bomb loaded with gasoline cans and nails this morning in London, the story from Yahoo can be read here.

This again proves that we have to keep on out toes despite liberal insistence that there is no terror threat.

Today your voice was heard.

2007-06-28T18:08:00.000-07:00

Today your voice was heard. The United States Senate, the United States government, our government tried to circumvent us. As Abraham Lincoln stated the government is to be of the people, by the people, for the people. This concept does not seem to be very appetizing to members of the Senate who would shove amnesty for illegal immigrants down our throats.

The important thing is that they serve us, not the other way around. The Senate's desire to sneak these measures in against the will of the people has resulted in the loss of our trust.

Despite recent, insulting remarks made by members of the Senate (racist, nationalist, etc.) the real problem that the Senate had is that they faced an informed public. They faced a public that knew this bill would grant overnight amnesty, would forgive back taxes, would not secure the border and so on. Not only does this go against common sense it goes against the basic Constitutional right of equal protection under the law. Don't believe me? Ask yourself, if you skip filing taxes and do not pay for a few years will your tax bill be forgiven?

I expect that there will be measures in the future to shield the Senate from our communiation. I expect the Senate will try to sneak measures of this bill in under our noses. Be vigilant.

Next up, let's kill the "Fairness Doctrine."

I were President Bush's speech writer...

2007-05-01T16:48:00.000-07:00

My fellow Americans, today, for the second time since taking the oath of office of the President of the United States of America I have exercised my right to veto legislation. The Democrats in Congress presented to be today a bill that was said to be a "war funding bill". The bill presented would indeed put money in the coffers of the military, but at a price.

Several months ago the military and I asked congress for funding to continue our mission in Iraq. In return we received an offer, an offer to purchase the defeat of the United States military and the United States of America. The men and women in uniform, serving in Iraq the offer from Congress was simple. In return for the money to load your rifle, to fuel your humvee; you must hang your head, turn your back on the enemy you have been fighting for four years and march home in defeat. Not because you do not desire victory, not because you cannot be victorious but because Democrats in Washington will not let you be victorious.

Over the past four years Democrats in Congress have offered criticism for our mission in Iraq but ideas for victory. They have placed the ability of our troops to operate effectively beneath their own political careers. They have called the operation a failure. But while their mouths have been open, their eyes and ears have been closed. Saddam Hussein will never again fill a mass grave, his sons will never again rape and torture at will, Abu Zarqwai will never again behead an innocent, and the Iraqi people will not fall under the boot of thugs and dictators again. That is NOT failure.

The Democrats in Congress often question my plans and strategy for Iraq. If the Democrats on Congress only listened to the troops they would know the plan. The plan is the same as the first Americans had when they rebelled against British rule. The plan is the same plan those American soldiers that fought at Gettysburg had. The plan is the same plan the American Soldiers fighting in the trenches of Europe in 1917 had. The plan is the same as the Americans that stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima had. The plan is the same plan as the men and women who defeated Saddam Hussein 16 years ago had.

That plan is one that the Democrats may not be familiar with.

The plan is to Win.

Sherwood Ross - Grade A Moron.

2007-04-20T15:44:00.000-07:00

I just read some comments from Sherwood Ross, senior headcase, at CounterPunch. Sherwood's comments can be read here. The gist of his article is that no one has a right to grieve for the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Why? Because they were Americans and Americans are the problem. He then blathers on about America's so called gun culture followed up by dribble about America's wars of the past century (he even makes us the bad guy in WWII).

I could school this jackass all week about America's involvement in war and how we have held this world together but it would be like trying to drive a paneling nail into a Abrams tank. Aside from that what I would write might just turn out a book.

But the "gun culture" I can handle.

Let's start with the premise of the gun control crowd. Make guns illegal and there will be no gun crime. Let me ask this, If a person is intent on committing a crime (robbery, murder, rape et al) do you honestly think that that person will care that gun possession is illegal? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. That person will get a gun illegally.

The next point made by the anti-gun crowd is usually something along the line of, if we get rid of the illegal guns criminals will not be able to get them. Response: is cocaine illegal? Yes. Do criminals still manage to get cocaine? Yes.

Liberals cannot see this though. They cannot bring themselves to blame criminals for crime so instead they want to blame inanimate objects. They cannot come to grips with the facts. Here are the facts:
-Murder cannot be committed by anything other than a human being.
-Firearms are nothing but paperweights without someone to pull the trigger.
-People killed each other (and in much greater rates) before the invention of gun powder.

History dictates that before guns people killed each other with arrows, before that swords, before that sharp, pointy sticks, before that rocks and before that bare hands.

I've heard comments from the gun control lobby play the "what if" game. they say if guns were illegal the Virginia Tech shootings would not have happened. BS. If guns were illegal, Cho Seung-Hui would have found a gun on the black market, perhaps he would have brought a knife or a machete, regardless of how, he would have killed.

Allow me to give you a what if: What if every professor at that college carried a gun? What if every student carried a gun? Do you honestly think that Cho Seung-Hui would have been able to kill 32 people? Me neither.

Supreme Court uploads partial birth abortion ban

2007-04-20T14:55:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week the Supreme Court upheld the legislation banning partial birth abortion. Naturally Liberals are livid by this decision. Over the week we have heard all the usual suspects yammering on about "women's health" and "women's rights" and so.

However, nowhere have seen these people call it as it is. Not once has anyone said, "This denies a woman the right to have a doctor reach into her, grab her unborn baby by the feet, pull it out up to his/her neck, jam a needle into the base of the babies skull, inject saline into the skull to 'loosen' all that brain matter before finally, using a vacuum cleaner to simultaneously suck the brains and collapse the skull."

For those of you that support this form of atrocity do not fret, rumor has it that your favored butchers are working on another form of late term abortion. In this method the baby is dismembered in the womb. Nice.

Here's the thing, the pro-abortion folks never want to talk about the baby. Anytime you talk to a pro-abortion zealot they will always talk about "rights" and "health" and "choice" as if someone is having a mole removed. But that is not it. They are removing and killing a human life.

Before signing off I can say to all the pro-abortion folks I've talked to, "YOU are the best person to make the case for abortion."

What have some white boys NOT go to do to get some love?

2007-04-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

After a more than one year long Liberal feeding frenzy, the three Duke (or Dukies for you Libro-Americans) lacrosse players have been cleared of all charges. Naturally, Liberals are miffed at this and have shown their disdain in various ways. And why should they not be upset? I mean afterall in the bizarro world that IS the Liberal mindset this was the perfect fairy tale story. A poor disadvantaged, black woman, forced to strip for a living because of social injustice raped by three rich, white, lacrosse playing, frat boys from Duke University (conveniently located in the South). I mean the only thing that could have made this more a Liberal wet dream would be if one of the accused was named Bush. There is one problem with the story, it wasn't true. At all.

For a year we were treated to guilty verdicts from the Libs all over the place from would-be John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte with this little gem, "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?" To Mike Nifong's hooligan remarks. The thing to remember is that Liberals found these men guilty, with no trial, no evidence and an inconsistent story from the accuser. But now that the truth has been revealed the Libs are making all the efforts to find these men guilty of something or anything.

Our more "high-brow" Liberals in the media take the tact that these men may not be guilty of rape (like we've been saying for a year); but they are NOT innocent. That statement is followed by snippets about how the lacrosse players hired strippers, drank alcohol and allegedly said racial things to the strippers. The real award goes to Terry Moran who who lamented that if it were not for the fact that the players' families were able to afford good legal representation that they would have likely gone to prison. Oh great, if only their parents were a little poorer we could have sent these men to prison something didn't do, damn the luck.

For the lower brow Libs it breaks down to race and "class". You read plenty of "poor little white boys" remarks or "rich white boys will get on with their privileged lives" and so on. Bascially, it doesn't matter these men did not commit the crime but what does matter is that they have not suffered enough for being white, male, college students.

To the first I say this no one is truly innocent but we are talking about the law here. Is it illegal for men to hire strippers? The answer is no. Is it illegal to drink alcohol? No. Is it even illegal to call someone a racial slur. Morally disgusting but no. These men did not commit rape, they did not deserve to get indicted, they did not deserve the attempt at railroading that Nifong tried. But what they do deserve is for those papers that found them guilty to stand up and say, "These men are innocent."

To the second. Do these men not deserve equal protection of the law because they are white? Does due process not apply? Perhaps they are not even human and thus a year of derogatory and scathing indictments in the media do not matter? Go to any Lib blog. The Duke lacrosse players were not only guilty of "rape" but being white and "rich".

If we want a "color blind" society as so profess that color blindness has to work both ways.

I, Democrat

2007-02-07T11:15:00.000-08:00

Democrat Senator Carl Kruger is proposing legislation to ban people from using personal electronic devices while crossing the street. This is in response to two recent deaths in his district that involved people run over while listening to their iPods.

This is just another in a long line of proposals by Democrats to outlaw anything and everything that they deem dangerous. Sugar, fried chicken, cigarettes, SUVs, guns, coffee and the list goes on. Essentially, we need to be saved from ourselves because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. It kind of reminds me of the Will Smith version of I, Robot. You know the robots want to take over and make us prisoners because the robots are charged with our protection. If we are imprisoned and kept basically as pets we can cause ourselves no harm.

Two things:

1. People die. All the time. All day, everyday. It's what we do on a regular basis. We do it in all kinds of unseemly ways. Part of what makes life precious is that we risk dying everyday. That's why we have to make it count. If every that could harm us were to disappear tomorrow the world would be a pretty dull place.

2. Democrats are proponents of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So much so that they would supplant any and all religious teachings with this theory. A big part of the theory of evolution is the notion of natural selection. Briefly, natural selection dictates that animals that do not properly adapt to their environment die, and with them the genetic line that produces animals that cannot adapt. Members of the species continue to die off until one of two things happen, the species adapts as a whole or goes extinct. See Dinosaurs. The same applies to people.

So why is it that Democrats want to forsake one of the very ideals they hold dear? Is it that they have good intentions. Have they taken a play out of the book of Big Brother in 1984?

None of this matters. The question we should be asking is "Where will they stop?" Just in case, I call dibs on the handle "Bubble Boy".

Big offensive in Iraq announced...

2007-02-05T10:19:00.000-08:00

...In plenty of time to allow the bad guys to melt away.

Believe me, I'm all happy that we are launching this big operation in Baghdad but would someone please tell me why we are announcing it? Is it me or is the military and its leaders over communicating just a little bit?

I have a problem with this for many reasons. The first being that announcing your offense, i.e. letting everyone know that it's going to happen removes one of the biggest deciding factors in battle, the element of surprise. I just read it this morning, so I'm sure the insurgency knew about it well before that.

So what can we expect? The leadership of the insurgency will hightail it out of there well before the shooting starts. They will leave behind of few of the standard issue, not so bright, fanatical shooters with the promise of martyrdom. Of course these pre-martyrs will end up on the slab, not before making sure some women and children can be placed in the line of fire for propaganda to be sure. But the fact that they know we are coming increases the risk to our soldiers.

Finally, there is this notion of feeding this to the media. Why does the US Military insist on trying to play nice with the same media that is intend on making them look as bad as possible? You can play ball only so long when the other team is constantly screwing you over.

Congratulations COLTs!

2007-02-05T10:14:00.000-08:00

Indianapolis Colts take the Super Bowl.

I've never been much of a football fan but last night it felt different. It felt kind of like I and all other Hoosiers were a part of the win.

Israel, the kid who fights back.

2006-07-14T15:03:00.000-07:00

Nearly everyone has experienced a bully in their life, or even a group of bullies. Israel IS the bullied kid. And the rest of world (the U.S. excluded) is apparently the moonbat educrats of the public school system.

Let me take you back some twenty-three years ago. There was a kid that constantly picked on me, he made my life hell. The harassment ranged from verbal abuse to petty theft to physical aggression. I made all the attempts I (or my parents) could to stop the behavior. The teachers and principal instructed me to ingore the bullying or tell the teacher. Ingoring the behavior emboldened my tormentor and telling the teacher resulted in me getting in trouble for "tattling."

The final showdown happened at the school library. The bully and his friends cornered me. My bully hit me in the mid-section, it was not a good punch, but it angered me. I let loose with swinging my fists in the best windmill a nine-year-old could muster. I punished the air around me for several seconds before landing a blow out of sheer luck. When the teacher broke up the "fight" the bully was taken over to sit with the librarian look at books. I on the other hand was taken to principal's office where my parents were called.

What came next was a lecture from the principal of the school explaining that I had no right to hit that child. This child was a poor minority who had lived "a hard life" and his bullying behavior was to be excused. The bullying behavior not his fault, but the fault of his circumstances.

Fast forward to 2006. Israel his given the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians after years of terrorist attacks against citizens of Israel. How do Israel's "neighbors" respond? They continue the attack. Hamas crossed into Israel's land and kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Hezbollah kidnaps two. Now Israel is fighting back and is being condemned as wrong?!

Liberal moonbats are livid because Israel is defending itself. In the next days they will post on their blogs about every offspring of a terrorist (pardon me, 'freedom fighter') that gets killed during this, while caring nothing about Israeli deaths and even applauding them.

Israel's hostile neighbors instigated this hostility, they instigate it in every case. They bullies, and they are excused by the UN and the moonbats who enable them. Israel, well Israel is the kid fighting back.

WMDs found, Libs try to change the game.

2006-06-25T08:08:00.000-07:00

Well, well, well, it looks like we found WMDs in Iraq afterall. So what is next?

This week Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Pete Hoekstra announced that as early as 2004 US and coalition forces have several WMDs in Iraq. The WMDs are mainly comprised of Sarin and Mustard gas shells. You can read the details in this Fox News story (funny that CNN and MSNBC did not think this was news worthy):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200601,00.html

With that I have a question for the Libs in the audience: what now? I mean, you've all these books, made all these t-shirts about how Bush lied about WMDs and now low and behold it turns out there were WMDs. For liberals there is only one thing to do, change the game.

With this discovery there will be three different directions that liberals take to spin this find:

1) The find is insignificant. They will say that the WMDs found were not a threat and not that big a deal. To that I say, tell those Kurds that were murdered that Sarin is no big deal.

2) The WMDs are ours. We supplied them to Hussein. Here's a clue, the WMDs found were primarily Sarin. Sarin the was the primary nerve agent used by the Soviet Union. Now, if it were VX that we found in Iraq then there'd be a beef.

3) Finally the classic claim that the report is false.

Primarily we will see spin #1 played out. Number #2 is primarily for the anti-war crowd and #3 for the paranoid conspiracy theory folks.

This however is to be expected. It will take us finding a nuclear arsenal large than that of the US and Russia combined before the Dems yield on the "WMD lie" spin.

Libs, Dems and America haters spinning about Zarqawi.

2006-06-09T04:55:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't heard, Zarqawi is dead. The man that is responsible for thousands of deaths of both coalition soldiers and innocent Iraqis has left this planet courtesy of two 500 lb bombs from a US F-16. Naturally, before Abu's body was cold the hard left, Dems and America haters were starting their spin. Normally, the death of a wartime enemy of a nation is good news to the people of said nation, but not for these guys. If it benefits the war or more specifically George W. Bush, they are opposed. Believe me, our favorite hard left bloggers relish the idea of some great crisis that they can lay at Bush's feet.

The left is trying to spin this victory in a few different ways. The goal is to deprive Americans from feeling good about this victory.

What you most likely here Democrat politicians saying is a rehash of what they said about the capture of Saddam Hussein, "It means nothing, there will be another one (or two) that pops up right behind him and takes over." The second statement may be true, but does not make this victory mean nothing. Here's why, Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, no organization can easily sustain the loss of its leader. No matter how much the Islamofacists release statements and such that they congatulate Zarqawi for becoming a martyr, they would much rather have him alive and leading their operations. The loss of Zarqawi is bad for morale. Secondly, Zarqawi had more than three years of experience fighting us "infidels". He was at the top of the decision making, tactics and strategy making process, now he is dead... and his knowledge and experience with him. The next guy that comes up will not be as seasoned as Zarqawi.

A continuation of that little piece of spin is that "Zarqawi is a Martyr, they will be emboldened more now." To that I say, Is Zarqawi a Martyr? I mean afterall, the Islamofacists are very fond of recruiting the easily persuaded with the promise that if they take on suicide missions against the infidels or die fighting the infidels that they go to paradise. When did Zarqawi take on his suicide mission? When did he engage the American soldiers? He never did. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi has spent the last several years in hiding. He didn't even believe what he was preaching. And deep down inside, our Islamofacist enemy knows this. So is our enemy "emboldened" by that fact that there leader was killed while hiding a in shack? Somehow I doubt it.

Finally we get to my favorite little piece of spin. "This is convenient timing". This a tried and true spin tactic that I have seen for years. The premise is that Zarqawi was dead (or Saddam was captured) long before the Government says he was. Why would the Goverment do this? To have a "get out of jail free" card so to speak. When things are going bad for Bush, he just leaks Zarqawi's death to the news and viola! The sheeple are distracted from whatever. Well the truth is the "This is convenient timing" spin is quite convenient. Simply because they will always be able to apply it. If we had killed Zarqwai in five months from now why it's an "October suprise". If we killed him six months ago, it would be to distract from judicial nominations, or three months ago to distract from the Cheney shooting.

Gulf War I Conspiracy Theory Revisited.

2006-02-19T12:07:00.000-08:00

NO WAR FOR OIL!!! Ahhhhh, a new catchphrase for a generation protest and conspiracy-minded people. I was a junior in high school when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the first Gulf War started in 1991. I remember hearing the conspiracy mongers delve into “all the angles” on the issue. One thing was for certain, this was not a just war like WWII when we ended the Holocaust. The only reason we were involved was one thing, oil. We had no business inserting ourselves into the squabbles of other nations. We stood no chance, Hussein had one of the five largest armies in the world and said this would be the mother of all wars. No American's life was worth saving 10¢ per gallon at the pump. And above all else George H. W. Bush was an “OilMan” who gave Hussein permission to invade Kuwait assuring him that is he did invade the US would not interfere (thus making Hussein a hapless patsy).; once the war was over he was going to pillage the Middle East and “steal all the oil.” It seemed plausible enough, to a sixteen-year-old boy that is.

The war started. I remember being at the mall with by friend Christian when word that US and her allies began bombing. I called home to find out what exactly was going on. My mother had been a small child through WWII, had nearly seen my father shipped off to Korea as a Marine, Vietnam and still harbored a ton of Cold War paranoia. Her suggestion, come home now, they may try to strike back. No way was I going home. I tried to explain to my mother that there was no way the Iraqis were going to counter-attack in the US let alone Indiana.

As the war carried on first came air superiority, then came Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, then came the total defeat of Iraqi forces in the land war. Saddam Hussein and his forces were defeated; and not with the “Mother of all Wars” that was promised by Hussein. Relatively low casualties on our side.

Then something strange happened, or didn't happen. George H. W. Bush the “OilMan” did not install the puppet regime in Kuwait, did not march on Baghdad, did not make any aggressive action toward the Middle East at all. In short, the looting of oil as predicted by the conspiracy hounds never happened. Life went on, the US and her allies put out the oil fires and went on. The US base remained in Saudi Arabia, and that is about it.

The conspiracy theory that Bush and the US were going Kuwait and Iraq solely to increase the profits of the evil “BigOil” was dead and buried, right? Wrong.

Just as conspiracy kooks have no trouble re-writing history to fit their theories, they also have no trouble re-writing their own theories to fit history if they cannot effectively re-write it

I recently read an article on the popular conspiracy website, www.whatreallyhappened.com. In an article entitled, “Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship” the website contends that nearly every war fought in the last century was done so under false pretenses and always seems to place the US in the role of the aggressor. This where I found the re-write of the Gulf War I conspiracy theory “Gulf War I was so BigOil could profit.”

The purpose of the theory is to convey and “prove” the following: Gulf War I + GHW Bush + X = Profit for BigOil. Previously X = “stealing the oil.” The problem is that the oil was never stolen. So how do you keep your theory intact? Change X to something that did happen. In this case X ends up as the following. We wanted Iraq to burn the oil wells and we wanted to destroy Iraq and further sanction Iraq for one purpose... to take the oil off the market. You see? If there is a shortage of oil then the price will go up and BigOil gets its profits!

It seems plausible... except for one tiny thing. It makes absolutely no economic sense. History will debunk this theory as it did its predecessor, but I don't feel like waiting around.

The premise of this theory is that BigOil makes more money by, pay attention here, not selling oil. With the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil off the market and not being sold, BigOil makes more money. One could be fooled into believing this if they were not familiar with the way that the market works. Basic economics dictates that a company maximizes its profits by selling the most amount of goods and services possible while keeping expenses down. In other words: Profit = Sales – Expenses.

In this scenario, there are fewer production facilities online, thus less oil is sold overall. There are massive expenses in repairing the damaged facilities. In other words, expenses are up, gross sales are down. Look at any business that has failed miserably and you will find the same thing. From AMC (the automobile manufacturer) to Pets.com, low sales and high expenses killed them all.

Let's look at some real world businesses that are profitable as examples. Walmart, few companies are as profitable as Walmart. How does Walmart operate? Simple, sell as much stuff as you can, sell it fast, keep your expenses down. Walmart would never dream of allowing only 200 32 inch TV's to be sold and charging $5,000 in the name of “profit” simply because it would not be profitable. Daimler-Chrysler, a very profitable automobile manufacturer that sells a variety of automobiles.

So tell me, which serves the bottomline better, selling a couple hundred Lamborghini Diablos at over $250,000 a pop or selling hundreds of thousands of PT Cruisers at $17,000 a pop? If you can't figure it out it is telling the Daimler-Chrysler dropped Lamborghini.

Everyone knows that BigOil wants to maximize profits, that is a business's sole purpose of existing is to make money for the person and/or people that own it. So how are they going to do it? Easy, sell the most oil (which means that it will abide by the law of “supply and demand”) and incur the least amount of expenses possible (including avoiding having drilling and refining facilities destroyed).