I have decided to take a break from blogging until the new year. I have 21 people coming to my house for Thanksgiving, I have five family birthdays in Nov. and Dec. (I always make a big deal out of birthdays) and I have this pageant thing and some traveling to do and THEN Christmas!
Every time I sit down at this dang computer time flies. By the time I read news stories and my favorite blogs and then blog myself, half my day is gone. I have just too much too do right now, so I need to quit cold turkey...;-)
I will miss miss my commenters! (even my leftwing ones!) Everyone has certainly made me look at different viewpoints. And I hope that I have allowed you to consider mine. One thing I know for sure..all voices matter.
Whether you think I am right on issues or not, I hope that I have shown that there is no doubt that I want the best for everyone. I hope that I have shown that rightwingers care about the poor and the disadvantaged as well.
I am saddened by the viciousness of politics now compared to when my dad was involved in it. In fact, I am saddened by most things to do with politics. I totally understand why most Americans don't care for it and avoid it.
I wish I could.
So check back here in the new year! I'll still be checking my e-mail email@example.com and I will still be roaming the blogs.
Have a happy Thanksgiving and a wonderful Christmas and New Year!
Friday, November 18, 2005
I have decided to take a break from blogging until the new year. I have 21 people coming to my house for Thanksgiving, I have five family birthdays in Nov. and Dec. (I always make a big deal out of birthdays) and I have this pageant thing and some traveling to do and THEN Christmas!
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:45 AM
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Get use to it!! And today he gave me another reason to love him:
"Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.
Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.
A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?
Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?
The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory."
via New York Post via Powerline.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:54 PM
Bill Clinton plays his usual game of trying to have it both ways:
Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.
"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.
Gee, How would you have done it Mr. Clinton? Oh wait. Nevermind. You had 8 yrs to do it and didn't.
Iraqi blogger Hammorabi has harsh words for our former President:
The world without Saddam is not only better place for the Iraqis but for the whole world. Those who are fighting the changes towards democracy in Iraq are Al-Qaeda terrorists and the other extremists and their supporters in Syria. Bill Clitonn is no different from them. Bill Clinton certainly failed to remove Saddam and failed to prevent the terrorists but was successful in killing more Iraqis by his rockets and by Saddam hands. Bill Clinton is a supporter of the dictator regimes in the Middle East indeed.
And Iraqi blogger Alaa told us prior to the January elections what would happen and why we have to stay the course.
Moreover, no one should expect that the security situation and strife would somehow improve after the elections; it is more likely to intensify. This is an unfinished war; the Saddamists and their allies have fully regrouped and rearmed and are being very well financed and supported. The brave American people have given President Bush the mandate to finish this war despite the painful sacrifices and material cost. The Iraqi people are up in arms through the political groupings, new army, N.G. and various security forces and are suffering the greater part of the sacrifice. Despite all the snags and faltering, these forces are getting bigger and stronger and should be supported and nurtured until they can bear the full responsibility; this is the only viable "exit strategy" available. In fact, we do not like this phrase, for what is required is a "victory strategy". This war must be fought to the bitter end, and there is only one outcome acceptable both to us and to you: Total and Complete Victory. Anything else is completely unthinkable.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:49 PM
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
The Democrats and the media played up the Abu Ghraib scandal even though it was clearly an isolated instance of prisoner abuse which, while deplorable, did not come close to what Saddam Hussein committed during his dictatorship. Yet you hardly hear a sound from Democrats or the media on how thankful we are that this man is no longer torturing people.
Let's take a look back, shall we? via Newsweek
"One former prisoner he talked to, Anwar Abdul Razak, remembers when a surgeon kissed him on each cheek, said he was sorry and cut his ears off. Razak, then 21 years old, had been swept up during one of Saddam Hussein’s periodic crackdowns on deserters from the Army. Razak says he was innocently on leave at the time, but no matter; he had been seized by some Baath Party members who earned bounties for catching Army deserters. At Basra Hospital, Razak’s ears were sliced off without painkillers. He said he was thrown into jail with 750 men, all with bloody stumps where their ears had been. “They called us Abu [Arabic for father] Earless,” recalls Razak, whose fiancee left him because of his disfigurement."
No humilating pictures, but I'd say Razak wins the "I really got tortured" award over anyone at Abu Ghraib.
No one is sure how many men were mutilated during that particular spasm of terror, but from May 17 to 19, 1994, all the available surgeons worked shifts at all of Basra’s major hospitals, lopping off ears. (One doctor who refused was shot.)
It is hard to measure the depth of Saddam’s wickedness or the devastation he wreaked. In Baghdad last week, silent families wandered through Saddam’s jails and dungeons, looking for long-lost loved ones. They were convinced there had to be an underground prison, somewhere. But the jails were empty. At the Abu Ghurayb Prison, neighbors had witnessed convoys of buses carrying prisoners away before the first American bombs began to fall. Where to? No one seemed to know.
Issa was tortured for simply not joining the Baath Party:
As part of the prison routine, Issa was tortured daily, sometimes twice a day. Battery acid was spilled on his feet, which are now deformed. With his hands bound behind his back, he was hanged by his wrists from the ceiling until his shoulders dislocated; he still cannot lift his hands above his head. The interrogators’ goal: “They just wanted me to say I was plotting against the Baath Party, so they could take me and execute me. If they got a confession, they would get 100,000 dinars [roughly $40].”
Even paying bribes didn't keep one from this:
Kubba’s money insulated his family from mayhem, but it did not shield him from witnessing the almost casual slaughter of his people. Last week he recalled a “scene that haunts me still.” Kubba was driving his Mercedes through Basra’s Saad Square when he came upon some 600 men who had been detained while police checked their IDs. According to Kubba, “Chemical Ali” Hassan al-Majid, Saddam’s half brother and the tyrant of southern Iraq, stopped and inquired, “No IDs? Just shoot them all.” Kubba watched as “they shot over 600 people in front of me.”
The fates of thousands of others are buried in Saddam’s numerous prisons. One of the most notorious was the IIS prison at Haakimiya, near a bustling commercial area in downtown Baghdad. A nondescript five-story building notable only by the extra barbed wire on the roof, the Haakimiya Prison is actually 10 stories. Belowground are interrogation cells where unspeakable horrors were committed. NEWSWEEK’s Liu, prowling the dank and empty halls, ran into a former inmate, Mohsen Mutar Ulga, 34, who was searching for documents about his cousin, executed under Saddam. Ulga said he was sentenced to 12 years in jail for belonging to an armed religious group called “the revenge movement for Sadr,” referring to a martyred Shiite cleric. He had been arrested with 19 others; the lucky ones were executed right away. The rest were tortured with electric cattle prods and forced to watch the prison guards gang-rape their wives and sisters.
THIS, my friends, is torture. THIS is what we took down. THIS is what the Democrats seem to be arguing that we shouldn't have gone to war for. They now say this man was not a threat. They would rather rail against America for an isolated incident than be grateful that we saved a country from THIS.
Next time a lefty tells you that this war is a failure, show them this.
Ask them if stopping this was a failure?
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 5:28 PM
NRO has this beautiful but sad story of a Rabbi serving in Iraq who helps comfort a dying boy with verses from the Holy Koran, in the language that the boy would be familiar with.
Read the whole thing. It is touching. But as a Catholic Priest comes to comfort the Rabbi, the Rabbi wonders this:
"I thought to myself, isn't this the kind of world we are fighting for-- a world where an Imam teaches a Rabbi words from the Holy Koran to comfort a young Muslim boy, and that rabbi himself is comforted by a Christian, a Catholic priest."
Yes, this is the world we want. A world where we respect our differences, not kill because of them. We want a world where murderers, like the one who killed this boy, cannot roam free.
The Rabbi says this also:
"There are many Americans who ask why we're here. Why are we sacrificing so many American lives and placing so many in harm's way? What is the purpose of it all? Well, I don't really know the big picture. But from my small sector of the battlefield, the reason I am here is to give "the least of these," my children over here, a shot at "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" just like my other children living in America."
This is also the world we want. A world where children are raised in freedom. Not just our children, but every child.
This is what we all want, isn't it? If bringing liberty and free elections to Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't bring us this world, what will?
If helping stabilize the middle east, reducing the incidence of islamo-fascist terrorism, and providing models for other Arab nations and people doesn't bring us this world, then..I ask again, what will?
Because we all agree...A world free of terrorism and providing liberty for all in the Middle East--
This is the world we want.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 1:21 PM
as long as we win the next elections. (the Democrats strategy translated into simple terms)
Let me put this as briefly as possible. The Democrats have nothing to run on in '06. So, as was laid out in this Nov. 6th memo from Senator Rockefeller, they decided to take advantage of the general public's ignorance on how intelligence is handled and say that the President saw something VERY different than the Senate Intelligence Committee did regarding WMD's. When in fact, as is cited below, the Robb-Silverman Commission found the reports were not that much different at all. AND that there WAS NO DISTORTION or even pressure from the White House regarding intelligence.
Democrats were hoping the public wouldn't really hear or focus on the facts of the commission. (which the media would be just fine with) But they forgot about us. The bloggers.
Interestingly, as Froggy points out here, Presidential Candidate John Kerry said that he would have given the authority to go to war even knowing what we know NOW. (emphasis mine)
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
So given the fact that this whole bogus argument is about being "lied" to about WMD's, it seems the Democrat's Presidential nominee would have gone to war even if it had been proven at the time that Saddam didn't have them.
The Democrats know the President didn't lie. This was all part of a grand plan to fool the public and to hell with troop morale and our efforts in the war on terror.
Shame on them. Shame. Shame.
links via PW
UPDATE: Ace has the goods on Tim Russert showing Sen. Kennedy what liars the Democrats are and some interesting thoughts of his own about this whole "we were misled!" strategy.
UPDATE2: Ace has the goods on Chris Wallace showing Senator Rockefeller what a liar he is as well. (I have got to keep up with the Sunday shows!)
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:35 AM
Monday, November 14, 2005
From “Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence":
The Washington Post Implies That The Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) Was Superior To The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Given To Congress:
“But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community’s views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country” (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, “Asterisks Dot White House’s Iraq Argument,” The Washington Post, 11/12/05).
But The PDB Was The Focus Of Intelligence Reform And Was More “Problematic” Than The NIE Given To Congress.
# The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence In “More Alarmist” And “Less Nuanced” Language. “As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community’s biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time--in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)
# The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not “Markedly Different” Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE. “It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)
The Washington Post Implies That There Have Been No Findings On The Use Of Intelligence:
"But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush’s commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: ‘Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.’” (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, “Asterisks Dot White House’s Iraq Argument,” The Washington Post, 11/12/05)
But Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Reported No Distortion Of Intelligence
# The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report “Did Not Find Any Evidence” Of Attempts To Influence Analysts To Change Intelligence. “Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.” ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)
# The Robb-Silberman Commission Finds “No Evidence Of Political Pressure.” “These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.” (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 50-51)
# The British Butler Report Finds “No Evidence” Of Intelligence Distortion. “In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the ‘45 minute’ report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying quali cations. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the in uence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior of cials on the JIC.” ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, Pg. 110)
via Protein Wisdom.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 5:41 PM
SadieMAG.com asked me some questions about women bloggers. The article is titled "Broads on Blogs." It describes women's blogs pretty accurately:
Left, right, salacious, serious, bitchy, ballsy, Bush-bashing or liberal-smashing, women have entered the blogosphere in growing numbers, amassing devoted followers along the way. Female bloggers represent the entire political spectrum, some offering original reporting, others unabashed activism--all hosting a forum for anyone with a computer to weigh in on the controversial subject at hand.
Here are my excerpts:
Kathy, who hosts Right Wing Sparkle (www.rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com) and prefers her real name not be used, remarks, "The benefits of an active blogosphere commenting is that so many voices get heard. The disadvantage is that unfortunately so many of those voices are shrill and insulting. I hate that. But," she adds, "my Dad always said that 'cream rises to the top,' so I think that eventually the main blogs that will be read by the general public will be those who carry on civil discourse and voice their opinions in a thoughtful manner."
On what I do while blogging:
The Texas-based Kathy, of RightWingSparkle, does her e-mailing between running a carpool, helping her two kids with homework and starting dinner. (note: I have four kids, but who's counting?)
On what I think of Wonkette:
Kathy states it more bluntly: "Any woman blogger on the web can use her sexuality to gain readers. But is that what we want?"
On the difference in male and female blogging on issues such as abortion:
Kathy cites the example of abortion. "Women bloggers on both sides will post long and emotional and detailed essays. Male bloggers throw a few sentences at it."
On whether you can tell what gender a blogger is by reading them:
Notes Kathy, "I think it's fairly easy to tell if it is a man or woman blogger. We are different, after all, even in the way we write."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:48 PM
While I was working with women in crisis pregnancy in the 80's and 90's, our main problem was getting the information to the women who needed it. The MSM certainly wouldn't give us any publicity (even though we did offer a "choice" after all). Advertising was expensive and all of our money went into services for the girls.
But now I read that internet banners may actually be able to reach out to girls who truly want help. And the great thing about it is young women today are all about the internet. That would be the first place they would probably look for help. WND has this referring to internet ads put out by LifeDonor.com:
Along with images of young women, the ad includes the text: "Pregnant? Scared? You have options. Click here now."
"Research has indicated that 70 percent of women contacting OptionLine and believing they may be pregnant are considering an abortion," the Life Donor Program website explains. "However, once they visit a Care Net pregnancy center, less than 10 percent follow through with terminating their pregnancy. Ninety percent will choose life!"Care Net is a nationwide network of pregnancy centers that sponsors the program, along with Heatbeat International.
I worked with The Nuturing Network, which provides free health care and job and college transfers for young women in crisis pregnancies. Started by a former Fortune 500 CEO, Mary Cunningham Agee, she began by asking Planned Parenthood if she could interview a sampling of the women who had had abortions in their clinics, PP gave permission and Mary found that over 90% of those asked said that they would not have had the abortion if they had known there was help and alternatives out there for them.
If those numbers from Optionline and The Nuturing Network are even close to being right, then the internet could finally give women what we as society have for so long neglected....a real choice.
And no one on either side would have a problem with that. Except the radicals, of course.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:52 AM
I don't call everyone on the left a moonbat. Most are just good intentioned misguided souls, but these guys.....they are moonbats. Here is a sampling:
Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.
That's right. Just like Iran, when young women are caught having sex, we hang them from a crane until they die. You have caught us.
Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.
People? Just regular people?? Are you sure you don't mean TERRORIST SUSPECTS??? Oh, that's right. To you there is no difference.
Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
Really? Gee. They forgot to tell us Christians about this religious overthrow. Let me go check my e-mail.
People look at all this and think of Hitler and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.
Right. Bush is just like Hitler. Using the Amtrak to round up undesirables I'm sure. I wonder where he is killing them? Of course, first he had to deny free speech to those who oppose him.....hey...wait a minute!!!!
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:08 AM
Little Green Footballs has this:
In an admiring photo essay on the making of suicide bomber propaganda film “Paradise Now,” the BBC reaches a new low in the caption of a photo of Palestinian child abuse: Shooting Paradise Now.
Caption for photo:
Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants.
UPDATE: Quake orphans are being "adopted" by terrorist groups. h/t Jill
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:01 AM
Sunday, November 13, 2005
The face of radical insanity.
They offer a "explanation" to the Muslim world:
"It said it had ordered the suicide attacks on the hotels "only after becoming confident that they were centres for launching war on Islam and supporting the Crusaders' presence in Iraq and the Arab peninsula and the presence of the Jews on the land of Palestine."
As Ace points out, weddings are "centres for launching war on Islam?"
Uhh..no. I don't think the people of Jordan are buying that one:
"On Thursday thousands of Jordanians protested across the country to denounce the head of the al-Qaeda terrorist group in Iraq, Zarqawi, America's most wanted enemy. They marched through Amman chanting: "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!"
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:20 PM
Ok, now the lefty talking point is that Bush "manipulated" the intelligence, or "kept" some of it away from the key Senators that looked at it and then voted to go to war.
Rove is a genius. I mean he knew way back in 1998 that all this would happen and somehow got Bill Clinton to say this to his Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998
No one can blame Bush for "manipulating" anything for what Clinton believed in 1998. The only difference, of course, is 9-11 and Bush's determination to take no chances.
I have said it before and will say it until the left finally aknowledges it. We found an international terrorists training camp in Iraq in the first week of our invasion. Terrorists+biological warfare capability=take no chances.
So the left's talking point of basically saying "Gosh, Bush just fooled us!" has got to stop. (or as I read somewhere else, "we are dumber than Bush"..heh.) h/t to dave in comments of last post. Pretty sad when I can't even remember when I read something in my own comments. I BLAME BUSH!!
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 2:39 PM