The Iraqi War Again: Do the Bush Bashers Have a Learning Disability?

I understand that some segments of society have obsessions to the point where no amount of logic nor facts will change their minds. I believe this is what is called the lunatic fringe. The rest of society sees these people for what they are and ignore them. Some of these people, however, hold positions as professional communicators and are allowed to preach their ideas to the world with no requirement to back what they say. Even that would be tolerable if they were doing so from a street corner, but I have problems when they do this from the pulpit of a licensed broadcasting company.

Example is Chis Matthews who, backed by MSNBC, has again expressed his OPINION as though it were a fact. He states  that the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction and that this information came from Rumfeld’s book, presumably “Known and Unknown”. What book was Matthews reading? It certainly can’t be Rumsfeld’s. If it was, he needed to give page numbers. Since he didn’t, I will. Look on page 433 where the NIE report (October 2002) on Iraq is given. One of the many statements in that report is: “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.” Other countries, such as Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, and Poland, also believed this to be true. French President Jacques Chirac also said so (USA Today, June 15, 2003). Even Saddam himself admitted  that he wanted the world to believe that he had nuclear capability. Can anyone find anywhere in the book that says Rumsfeld KNEW before we went to war that Iraq DID NOT have WMD? How about you, Chris Matthews?

And by the way, Mr. Chris “Panama-Canal-is-in-Egypt” Matthews, an investigation has already been conducted and a report given in 2005 . The unanimous conclusion from that report basically stated that the intelligence information was faulty. A subsequent report came out (Phase II) in 2006 and another in 2008 .

So finally, to all of you who say that Bush lied us into a war: Prove it!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Michelle Bachmann 1,Chis Matthews 0

This is my second post about my criticisms of Chris Matthews, host of Hardball on MSNBC. Since he represents the views of the far left I thought I would focus on him for awhile. As I said in my last post, I have a lot of material here. In an episode aired on January 25  he is trying to find fault with Michelle Bachmann (R-Wisconsin). He seems to believe he has a valid gripe if he can furiously ask a question and immediately interrupt his guest before he or she can give an answer to any question. His guest (opponent) this time was Sal Russo, chairman of the tea party express. I don’t think Mr. Russo could finish two complete sentences during the entire interview.

Ms. Bachmann stated in the video clip shown on the interview that the founding fathers who wrote the documents worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. Matthews then states that that was not what the history of this Nation was founded on and that Ms. Bachmann was a “bubblehead”.

Ms. Bachmann did not say anything that wasn’t true.   The founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Oliver Ellsworth (who attended the constitutional convention although he actually didn’t sign the constitution) spoke out against slavery even though most of them owned slaves at the time.  John Quincy Adams to which Ms. Bachmann referred,  did indeed work tirelessly to abolish slavery . This is found in “Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of his Diary from 1795 to 1848”, Vol. 5, Charles Francis Adams, ed., 1875, pp. 4-12. He also proposed a bill in 1839 to abolish the domestic slave trade.

Matthews then condescendingly asked Russo if he needed to see the video again. Russo should have said yes, but for Matthews’s sake only.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

“Words have Consequences” Doesn’t Apply to Liberals

When I first started this blog with the post “Be Afraid….Be Very Afraid” I wrote about everything I could see wrong with Obama and the Democrats. What could I say after that? I covered it all. To keep this blog active I am told I have to keep posting on a regular basis. When you have covered everything in your first post, what could you possibly cover subsequently? I struggled to come up with material on the last 4 posts that is not simply a repeat of my first post. I am obviously not a column writer who can do this on a weekly basis. Then the answer came to me. Watch msnbc and Chris Matthews. The amount of material there to refute is seemingly endless. The 90+% bias and irresponsible and/or factually baseless statements abound. I have material I can use here for years. Now I have only two problems: (1) finding the time to cover it all; and (2) fighting the nausea brought on by the daily dose of msnbc.

I can first talk about Matthews’ interview on January 12 with David Brock , an obvious “yes” man for msnbc. This interview was certainly conducted before Obama’s speech in Tuscon. Judging from the statements Matthews continuously makes about Palin on this and other interviews and editorials, he seems to be obsessed with discrediting her. One example, and there are many, he tries to find a problem with Palin’s statement: “When we take up our arms, we’re talking about our vote”. How could Matthews have a prominent position as a commentator and not understand that??? His worst criticism is that she (in his opinion) talks too much about guns. Well, I have an opinion about that too. If the far left would stop trying to ban guns from law-abiding citizens, maybe the right would not talk about guns as often. 

But the real show-stopper in this interview was when David Brock stated: “Glenn Beck is RESPONSIBLE [emphasis added] for three thwarted assassination attempts…”. This is exactly the type of irresponsible statement that started this Tuscon shooting political firestorm. As far as I’m concerned, Brock should be sued not only for libel, but for endangering Beck’s life. Ron Reagan then went on to say in this same interview that words have consequences (referring to Palin). In light of what Brock said, this obviously applies only to Republicans and Sarah Palin and not to msnbc.

We all certainly hope that words have consequences. Campaign speeches count on that. Debates count on that. Also lectures, conversations, etc. count on that. If we were to stifle what we say because a deranged person would take it the wrong way, we would have to say nothing. Even the liberal Michael Kinsley said: “you can’t run a democracy with people biting their tongue for fear of flipping some switch in the brain of a nutcase” . Good job at least on that one Michael.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Shooting of a Congresswoman: Far Left Seizes the Advantage

After Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in Arizona stated that it is likely the violent political rhetoric that instigated the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords , the Left has all but openly accused the Conservatives of being responsible for the Giffords tragedy.  Yet an MSNBC editorial  acts surprised that the Conservatives have pushed back. What did they expect them to do?

I know, I know. I will be told that it is in general the rhetoric and symbolism everyone uses on all sides that might set off a lunatic and so we should ALL be careful what we say and how we say it. That would have been partially tolerable if Olbermann, Krugman, MSNBC, and other leftists had just left it at that point. We could have at least agreed to the general idea. But no. They go on to mention Conservatives by name and give examples of what they have said and done and intimate with no evidence, let alone proof, that these Conservative actions may have somehow contributed to the shooting. And now they’re surprised that the Conservatives have taken offense?

We can look to Keith Olbermann as the personification of everything that is wrong with liberals/far-leftists. While I hate to recommend anyone listen to him or read anything he writes, I will however direct you to his latest article “Violence and threats have no place in democracy” . No one can argue with the title, but it’s downhill from there. He goes on with naming the prominent Conservatives and what they have done to have “possibly” contributed to the Giffords shooting, calling on them to apologize. Later on in his article, in a feeble, unconvincing attempt to show his “open-mindedness”, he apologized for one situation where he himself had usedsome possibly inciteful rhetoric (no detail given). I can tell you, Mr. Olbermann, you have a lot more than that to apologize for. I don’t watch your show often, but I heard you say of Dick Cheney (and I paraphase) “Get out. We don’t want you”. Although I’m not a psychiatrist, I don’t think a homicidal lunatic should be hearing that even though a gun wasn’t mentioned. You should also apologize for the above article, since you have painted a contemptible picture of Republicans (as always) and have set them up as “targets” for violence. No doubt if I listened to you on a regular basis I could come up with countless examples of hateful statements. I would also have to include Pepto-Bismal in my regular diet.

Let me ask this question. If all these so-called suggestive statements and symbols had not been present, should Gabby Giffords feel safe if she were to allow Loughner to spend the night in her house? If the answer is “no”, then one has to admit it doesn’t matter what is said in the course of political debate and placing blame on a particular group of people should be called what it is. A despicable, bottom-feeding attempt to turn this tragedy to one’s own advantage.

In a predictably knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy, Bob Brady is proposing legislation that would prohibit language or symbols which could possibly incite violence against a member of Congress. I suspect this legislation will not pass, but it points to the Liberals’ idea of doing something even if the results are worse than the present situation. The results of such a legislation would be so restrictive of free speech as to prohibit any effective campaigning. However, on the up side it would put Keith Olbermann out of work.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Waterboarding: Should We or Shouldn’t We?

Torture is certainly distasteful. Everyone would admit that. And certainly, torture for torture’s sake is to be totally repudiated. But what about the mass murder of 3000 innocent people? And what if the only means of preventing that would have been from information received by waterboarding? What would you say to that? Is it really that clear to you that pain and/or discomfort inflicted, with no lasting psychological or physical damage, on a murderer is not justified if it is for the greater good? It shouldn’t be. Certainly the saving of countless innocent lives is for the greater good. God himself allowed far worse torture on his own Son for the greater good. Are you going to tell God that He is wrong?

As far as waterboarding being illegal, there have been investigations into that very question. The findings have not determined that this action is illegal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Repeal of DADT: Another Proud(??) Accomplishment

DADT has been repealed. Obama and Congress with its dismal 13% approval rating have quickly pushed through yet another disgusting thrust against America before a hopefully more moral congress could take over. Yesterday (12/22) Obama was gloating over his accomplishments. I agree that he has accomplished much in his two years in office. It is precisely these types of accomplishments that I expected from him and it is the reason he is to be feared (see my earlier posts).

Apparently I am in the minority concerning DADT since 67% (Gallup) of the public approves of this repeal. Even 6 Republicans voted for it. I can only believe that this 67% is composed of gays, those who have not been “hit” on by gays, and those who have not served in the military and lived in barracks.

First of all, “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been the standard in the military for 17 years and we have one of the best, if not THE best, military in the world. Now people with essentially little to no morality or ethical principles wish to inject their deviant ideas into the finest organization in the world. They wish to call this “tolerance”, “diversity”, “equal rights”, and any other lofty, righteous description to whitewash what all have to admit is not only abnormal, but distasteful and immoral behavior. Even so, I understand that there are those who cannot help but to have these unnatural feelings. However, they CAN help what they do about them. Should I dare mention “abstinence”? And should a I dare mention they should NOT parade in the streets praising their affliction, adopt and raise children (no, marrying each other does not make that OK), or live in a barracks full of men (or women).

I like to believe I am as tolerant as the next man, but when I either observe their behavior or am approached by any of them, I am physically repulsed. I can’t help it. Everyone I know who have had similar experiences feel the same way. Imagine putting an openly gay person in the barracks. It would be the same as having a woman disguised as a man staring at you in the shower. There would be other distasteful contacts as well. None of this will have a positive effect on teamwork. One must remember, the enlisted personnel are the ones that this action would most affect and it is also this personnel that actually do the fighting and win wars. These are not the people we should be disrespecting by repealing this law.

I believe people realize that any afflictions they may have, mental or physical, would and should prevent them from performing certain duties, while allowing them to freely perform others. This is true for homosexuals as well.

I have written to my congressman and to Senator McCaskill, both of whom I know generally do not care what the people think and will vote their own way. I have expressed my thoughts presented above to Senator McCaskill. Below is her response, and below her response is my response:

“July 19, 2010

Dear Dr. Medary,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on the discharging of gay and lesbian service members from the military. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

The Pentagon’s current policy on gay men and women serving in the military, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), reflects the belief that a service member’s sexual orientation is a private matter. Members of the military are not permitted to ask about another service member’s sexual orientation, and gay service members are not to discuss their sexual orientation. The U.S. military has supported the policy based on concerns for readiness and unit cohesion. The practical effect of DADT is that it prevents gay men and women from serving openly in the military. In fact, as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen has noted, gay and lesbian Americans have been admirably serving for decades in the armed services, but have always risked discharge if their sexual orientation ever became known.

As you may know, during his State of the Union address in January, President Obama called on Congress to repeal the Pentagon’s current DADT policy, which is formalized in Public Law 103-160 (USC § 654). The President’s call for a repeal would put America’s armed forces in alignment with our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners who are fighting side-by-side with our men and women in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Our NATO partners currently allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their militaries. Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, has stated that having openly gay and lesbian service members is “working out quite well.”

On February 2, 2010, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), of which I am a member, held the first hearing on DADT since 1993. During the hearing, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen expressed his personal support for repealing DADT. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the Department of Defense would begin studying how to implement a repeal of DADT. Gates and Mullen join other prominent military leaders in supporting repeal, including General John Shalikashvili (Ret.), General Colin Powell (Ret.) and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The support of these current and former senior military leaders, who formerly supported DADT, is echoed by many other former military leaders and reflects a major shift in views from military leaders from 1993.

On May 28, 2010, I voted with my colleagues on the SASC to include a compromise amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) that would repeal DADT. However, the repeal of DADT would occur only after the completion of a comprehensive review to obtain the perspectives of servicemembers and their families on the potential impact of a repeal. Additionally, under the compromise passed by the SASC, the repeal would only be able to take effect after President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress that they have considered the results of or recruiting and retention. I believe these are important safeguards that make sure the voices of our military servicemembers and their families are fully considered before a repeal is put in place and that ensures that both military and civilian leadership jointly certify that a repeal will not negatively impact our armed forces before the repeal is put in place. The DADT compromise provision must now be considered by the full Senate.

As you may know, the House of Representatives passed its FY11 defense policy bill on May 28, 2010, and included in the bill a similar compromise approach to repealing the DADT policy. The House and Senate must both pass their defense policy bills, come together to work out differences in the two bills and then, ultimately, pass an identical bill before it can be sent to the President to be signed into law.

President Obama has stated that it is time to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and I agree with him. We must recognize that thousands of brave, gay Americans have served — and are currently serving — in our military. I look forward to the completion of the review the military is conducting of how to implement a repeal and to seeing the many gay and lesbian men and women heroically serving in our military today, including in combat, being able to serve with greater integrity by not having to hide or lie about who they are.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.




Claire McCaskill
United States Senator”

Here is my response to her letter:

“Dear Sen. McCaskill

Thank you for your response (shown below) to my letter. I, in turn, wish to respond to yours. With all due respect I have to say your arguments are not convincing and I’ll tell you why.

As far as gays serving admirably in the military, I ‘m sure that some of them do, as I’m equally sure that some of them don’t (being gay does not make them Supermen). It is the deterioration of the TEAM that is in jeopardy.

You mentioned that several high ranking Government officials, Generals and Admirals support the repeal of DADT, but I submit to you that the enlisted fighting force which are ultimately responsible for winning battles far outnumber the high ranking officers and are the ones that should be consulted on this matter. I understand Secretary Gates is submitting a questionnaire to this group. I would hope this would be filled out anonymously and by non-gay individuals. If the questions on the questionnaire are direct and not skewed for the sake of political correctness, these results and these alone should dictate the final decision no matter how many high-ranking officers disagree. Our very lives depend on this fighting force.

Although the NATO fighting forces may indeed allow gays to serve in their militaries, I submit that compared one-on-one with any one of their militaries, our military is superior. I believe you and military heads would agree. Why should a superior military revert to policies of an inferior military? It is extremely unadvisable to submit a highly succussful, critically needed organization to a social experiment for the purpose of appeasing a small segment of society.

Finally, sodomy is immoral. To inject immorality into our National fighting force is inexcusable.”

Most of our senators and representatives in congress do not represent the will of the people. They have an umpire-like mentality thinking they are always right and attend town hall meetings not to follow their constituents’ wishes, but to instruct these poor, ignorant people how things should be done and will be done.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Midterm Elections: Are We Safe Now?

As you might have guessed, my answer to the title question is NO! Due to the results of the midterm elections the dangers I have described in my earlier blog (Be Afraid…) have been decreased for at least two years. After two years, however, then what?

I would like to think that the Republican takeover in Congress was the result of the people paying more attention to what Obama is really about and registering their disapproval. Unfortunately, according to one source , 80% of the voters were voting because of dissatisfaction with the economy. What happened to the outrage against health care seen at the town hall meetings; or the concerns of Obama’s socialistic agenda; or the out-of-control increase in the deficit; or the fact that representatives are not voting according to the clear will of the people? Apparently, only about 20% of the voters were concerned over those issues on November 2. As before, the people voted based on the size of their own paycheck.

Please don’t misunderstand! The economy IS important! Very important! However, I have seen no universal agreement among economists as to how to improve it. I’m convinced that the economy will improve regardless of who is in office since we have always pulled out of recessions and depressions in the past. But for all the problems with Obama and the Democrats, I believe they both are sincere in trying the get this country out of its recession. After all, it would be to their advantage to so. The sad part is, if this inevitable recovery had occurred during the past two years, the people would have given this administration credit, however unjustified that may have been, and all the incumbents would have been reelected. In short, the more serious danger I described earlier would have still existed.

To sum up, until the American citizens see Obama for what he is the observed march toward becoming a banana republic has not been stopped; only delayed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment