Mark Bossingham

Betting a losing hand

KEEPING UP with the American Left, the Democrats and the lapdog media is becoming increasingly difficult. They have bet the house on defeat in Iraq, a position that is looking to even the most delusional as a losing hand. What can they do? Their demands for defeat are are becoming more transparent and they are starting to realize that it is they, not the U.S. military, that has stumbled into a quagmire.
    Two days ago I read an above the fold headline in the Japan Times that said in a surprise move the administration was reversing course on its Iraq policy. I, was certainly surprised, knowing that if it was actually true, the NYT would be tripping over the LAT to trumpet the news. So I read the article. The first red flag was the credit--AFP-jiji. The French have a lot to gain if we lose, so their stories are immediately suspect. This one was simply incoherent. Something about the administration accepting a proposal by Joe Biden, a senator from tiny Delaware with big presidential ambitions. It turned out to be a load of nonsense. Biden had said the U.S. couldn't pull its troops out until Iraqi forces could take over security. As this is precisely the administration's position, it was no surprise that a White House spokesman agreed.
    Today, for reasons known only to itself, the idiotic left, including the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets of note, if not common sense, were breathlessly predicting that Bush in his speech to the midshipmen at Annapolis would announce a timetable for troop withdrawal. He did no such thing. Of course. I could have told them that. He has been nothing if not consistent. Victory is the exit strategy, nothing else.
    So how could they have been so terribly wrong? Because they needed to be. Coalition forces must pull out of Iraq soon very soon or the media elites will have been overtaken by events--namely victory. They can see it staring them in the face and they know what a free and stable Iraq would mean--their consignment to that particular historical dung heap reserved for the dismissed, the ignored and the irrelevant.

Happy Thanksgiving Weekend

AS WE cook the bird a few days late--Thursday was a working day here--GWB said it best in his Thanksgiving Weekend Radio Address:
"Every person who dies in the line of duty," he said, "commands the eternal gratitude of the American people. The military families who mourn the fallen can know that America will not forget their sacrifice -- and they can know that we will honor that sacrifice by completing the noble mission for which their loved ones gave their lives."

Until we die—all the news that wasn't

I HAVEN'T been posting much recently. Mostly because I have been avoiding the news as presented by The Cut-and-Run Associated Press. If I don't read their agitprop, I manage to stay fairly calm.
    The article that pushed me over the edge was published the day after George Bush finally called the Democrats out on the lies they have been peddling. We won't go into that again. Suffice to say, the next day, the AP led their news cycle (and thus every subscribing paper in America) with a "story" headlined (I paraphrase) "Bush risks GOP backlash with attacks on critics."
    As is often the case these days, I read the head and was confused. What could the writer possibly be saying? I read the lead. According to the lemming, by responding to the slanderers and reciting their own words back to them, the president was risking angering, get this, Republicans. I am not making this up. But the AP sure was.
    Trust me, 100 percent of GOPers, of all stripes, believed it was long past time Bush fought back. Clinton had his attack dogs, Ram, James et al out there 25 hours a day taking chunks out of anyone who even looked askance at the "first black president."
     What of this administration? Zilch, nada, turn the other cheek. The only backlash Bush was, and is, in danger of from Republicans is not kicking enough ass--both in Iraq, Syria and in the U.S. Senate chamber.
    There is simply no other way to put it: The administration is waging war against terror; the media is waging war against Bush, the GOP, and ultimately America itself.
    How did we get here, to the point that the AP would cook a story about an absurd GOP backlash? Let's face it, non-news stories are just that—NON. They are not like a train wreck or a vote on the House floor.
     In some room, senior AP editor-DNC lapdogs held a editorial meeting and the boss said, "How do we counter Bush's response to our campaign to smear him?
    "We need more than just our standard practice of presenting his charge but none of his supporting evidence. Huh? Yes, of course, we won't use Bush's Kerry quote. Make sure we get Kerry to respond to the quote. What? Sure, Bob, that's fine, you write the response for Kerry and run it by the DNC.
    "Shit, where was I? Oh, yeah. I was saying we need more than the usual standards and practices. We need a new angle. Idea's anyone?
    "OK. Betsy, what've you got? Hmmm, not bad. Republicans will be angry with that son-of-a-bitch Bush if he fights back. You know, you're probably right, I sure am and I bet they will be, too. If we had a Republican on staff we could ask ... but, uhh, never mind, you can get one of your think tank wonks to back you up. Just make it clear what we need. Oh, and that professor at that law school in South Carolina, Larry Sabatini— What? Virginia? whatever, use him, too. OK, everybody lets get moving on this. We are on deadline. That next election in Iraq is staring us in the face and if it goes as well as the others, well, we are royally screwed."
    You think I jest? I imagine something very similar, but with more profanity and more anger before that idiotic "backlash" story saw the light of day.
    Again, I ask how did we get to this point where mainstream journalists will lie and manipulate the news to produce an outcome they desire? I remained puzzled until I took a look at myself. I am a boomer and a recovering flower child. If I hadn't woke up and strayed from the path, I, could be at top of the AP heap. These are MY people. Dear, God. Yes, cats and kittens, it all comes down to a theme I have mentioned before: The Worst Generation (TWG).
    Ten, 20 years ago we weren't running the show, now we are. The senior editors at AP are unrepentant campus radicals from the 60s-70s. Or more likely, former nonentities who wish they had been leading campus radicals. They are road kill on the highway of intellectual life. They revel in the past—they think the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan are Gods that still Walk the Earth. In a profession that requires very little beyond the ability to write a coherent sentence, the inmates have taken over the asylum.
    The AP bosses, card-carrying TWG members, now send their brainwashed acolytes—"Damn, I missed the 60's, that must have been fun—out to do their bidding and they crawl—through gutters seeking Their Own Private Vietnam.
    So what do we do? Nothing. Weather the storm and hope the wounds they inflict on the United States and the world are not fatal. Are they aiding and abetting the enemy? Of course. Are they prolonging a war and in the process killing more Americans and Iraqis? Of course. Will we eventually die out and become a historical aberration and embarrassment? Of course. Of course.

UPDATE – Crazy Noise

YO, FANS, here's what you have been waiting for with great anticipation. We are now about one third of the way through the novel. In Chapter 11 you will find the all the usual thrills and spills you have become accustomed to.
    Incidentally, because of you, my loyal readers who have actually purchased the book, I received another royalty check last week. So what if it would cost me more to cash it here in Japan than it's worth? One always hopes to make a zillion dollars when starting a novel, but to see it through to the end, requires motivation that goes far beyond cash. I have enough of that stuff. But someone, also last week, requested I write a sequel to Crazy Noise. That I  can never get enough of.

Traitors

THE HEADLINE cannot be used enough to describe the left and what it is attempting to do. Michael Barone, a smart guy who I usually find a bit to centrist for my taste, has distilled the U.S. political situation perfectly. This quote is being widely posted on the Web for good reason.

    "The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of 'Bush lied' are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country." —Michael Barone

Veterans Day IV

USMC CHAPLAIN Dennis Edward O'Brian: "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Veterans Day III

JOHN STUART Mill knew a thing or two about the human condition. He understood the American left before the unfortunate breed had even invented itself.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Veterans Day II

SPEAKING OF lying liberal scum (see below) here they are in all their glory, complements of the Federalist Patriot:
    Naturally, the Democrat's media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

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

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "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."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.

So, ask Ted, Dick and Harry, what is their real agenda?

One might fairly conclude that they are willing to reduce U.S. national security to political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of "lying." Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office -- to defend our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their most recent antics -- and all of America should look upon these disgraceful Demo-gogues, and anyone who supports this dangerous folly, as traitorous louts.

On Veterans Day, President Bush noted: "Today our nation pays tribute to our veterans -- 25 million vets.... At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of this century. This war came to our shores on the morning of September 11, 2001. ... We know that they want to strike again and our nation has made a clear choice. We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the War on Terror is won. ... [I]t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

Veterans Day

NOT MUCH posting recently. I have been very busy at work trying to learn a new page design system. A bit tense but we managed to produce a paper last night that looked OK. Another reason for the lack of posts is topic. I have spent a great deal of time noting the biased reporting of The Associated Press. I'm worn out. Pretty much like beating a long-dead horse. Either you get it, or you don't.
    Today, Bush finally tried to fight back at the revisionist Democrats and their media hangers-on by pointing out that there was near universal agreement that Iraq had WMD as far back as 1998. The Clintons, Albright, Kennedy, Kerry--you name it, they were all on board the Saddam was a grave threat to the United States wagon. The record is indisputable. The sound bites and statements can't be erased.
    Almost needless to say, the AP let Bush get in one sentence and then turned to its friends to allow them to repeat their baseless slanders. Once upon a time, journalists gave a shit. Now it's all about power, or in their case, lack of it.
    You'd have to be brain damaged to forget these endless warnings from people who now, with a straight face, say Bush lied the United States into the war. If you, too, are one of these, and claim that Saddam's WMD capability was a Bushitler "manipulation" concocted to get us into Iraq, you are the liar and and you are fully aware of your dishonesty.
    I am sorry, but history didn't begin with Bush's election in 2000. I have you on record. Your pathetic histrionics, are, on many levels, amusing. I firmly believe you think, when you think, that everything is just going to be hunky dory the day Bush leaves office.
    Christ, you are delusional--can you not see the smoke rising from Mordor (Saudi Arabia) as we speak? You think the Muslims radicals are just going to pack up their tents and ride off into the sunset because you are more understanding of their "underlying grievances"?
    Your naivete is astonishing. I know you are keeping your eyes closed until the rioting is over in France (this time) because it doesn't quite fit your world view. Must be difficult to reconcile the facts (your model society is burning and clearly doomed) with your emotions. Tough. Live with it, die with it.
    One old cliche is "you get the government you deserve" and I am so sick of aging leftists, and soft, uninformed moderates, I find myself often hoping you and your party take back the White House in 2008. Hyperpuissance my ass. You're bringing your own country to its knees.
    If you do manage to lie and distort your way into power in '08, good for you. You will then really get what you deserve, and it will not be a pretty sight. The accusation that the Democrats are soft on national defense is a vast understatement.
    You hate the military, but claim to support the troops. Liars--we both know you think the men and women in the service are a bunch of stupid hicks only to be used in your repugnant battle against your own country.
    On a deeper level you hate yourselves. You claim you would fight, but not this war. Let's face it, you are cowards, and there never will be a war worth fighting for.
     But the day will come. Remember Nick Berg and the madman with the butcher knife? Remember when he began to cut into Berg's jugular? Only then, when the knife is at your collective throats, will you fight. But it won't be you, you self-righteous fucks, it will be your children or your grandchildren.
    The butcher's bill will be horrifying when they are forced to stand up because you stood down. The dead will not thank you. History will remember you, and not as the righteous, but as the appeasers. You kicked the can down the road and as a result millions died. That will be your legacy. So indeed, we have a lot to look forward to once that awful man is out of the White House.
    Moving on. The only thing worse than a Republican senator or congressman is a Democrat. The Republicans in power are scum, only marginally less scummy than their buddies on the other side of the aisle. If they get turfed out in '06, they will have only brought it on themselves. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) should be hung by his feet from a lamp pole for his disgraceful comments on the spending bill. Out with the old bums, in with the new bums. Bush is no better. Domestically, he is indistinguishable from what used to be called a moderate Democrat. It is amusing at the scorn the Dems heap on him when he is a bigger spending pig than Clinton. Still, unless the Republicans nominate McCain, a opportunist of the first order, I will vote with my party in '08. If they put forward "Maverick" my swing-state vote stays here in Tokyo.
    Ahh, I feel better.

   
   

Just wondering

HOW COME the only pictures I see of the Inifada in France are of firemen putting out burning autos, schools and buses? The Muslim jihadists are throwing Molotov cocktails (and as of the latest report beating at least one man to death) Why no pictures of them?