Tuesday, November 29, 2005

LA Times Running Biased Fearmonger Story

LA Times Running Biased Fearmonger Story. Read this story and look at the way it is written. This is the perfect example of "Red Journalism" all scare tactics no basis in reality and certainly NO balanced perspective, and they wonder why no one reads the papers anymore.

Offering Abortion, Rebirth
Yes, an Arkansas doctor says, he destroys life. But he believes the thousands of women who have relied on him have been 'born again.'By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Dr. William F. Harrison has forgotten how many children the woman had. He remembers she was poor and, most vividly, he remembers her response when a physician diagnosed her distended stomach as pregnancy."Oh, God, doctor," the woman said. "I was hoping it was cancer."
This was in 1967. Harrison was a medical student and his wife was expecting their third child. It had never occurred to him that a woman would be anything but happy to learn she was pregnant.The next year, he trained on a maternity ward. In a 24-hour shift, it was not unusual, he said, for four or five women to come in feverish or hemorrhaging from botched abortions.Harrison opened an obstetrics and gynecology practice, but after the Supreme Court established abortion as a constitutional right in 1973, he decided to take on an additional specialty. Now 70, Harrison estimates he's terminated at least 20,000 pregnancies.His clinic has not been picketed for years, but Harrison feels very much on the front lines these days.Debate over President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., has centered on abortion. Activists on both sides warn — or pray — that if Alito is confirmed, the court may one day reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Canadian Ex-Defence Minister Paul Hellyer is a Genuine KOOK

Not for the fact that he believes in aliens but just for the way he proceeds on his beliefs. He made a speech in Sept that the US was shooting down alien spaceships from the moon, and he wants hearings on how to deal with this problem and the whole Intergalactic Relations problem.

This is nothing new for Mr Hellyer 35 years ago he had the Canadian Government build the first Intergalactic Landing Pad complete with a plaque that reads "All Intergalactic Travlers are Welcome Here In Peace"

At the same time this person who was running a governments Military also was involved with our own Congressman Dennis Kucinich jointly putting legislation in place to keep arms out of space in both the Canadian Parliment and the US House.

Kind of gives ya a warm fuzzy feeling knowing these two are in government don't it.

Ramsey Clark is an ASS

Curtesy A Tangled Web


Ramsay Clark is an ubermoonbat. But IF you read this po-faced profile of him by the BBC, why you might think he was a man of some character, a dedicated seeker of the truth! But here's a few things that the BBC profile "accidentally" omits; Ramsay has been a busy boy over the years, after all he;

Flew to Iran in 1980 during the hostage crisis to participate in a "Crimes in America" symposium.

Supported Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi after Reagan bombed Tripoli in response to Libya's state-sponsored terrorism.

On a pro bono basis, defended the Achille Lauro hijackers who threw a man in a wheelchair into the ocean to die.

Defended former Nazis against extradition.

Defended perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda.

Maintained close ties to the openly Stalinist Workers World Party.

Founded the International Action Center, which is dedicated to undermining US policy and is linked to communist and socialist organizations worldwide.

Denounced US officials as "international outlaws."

After 1991 Gulf War that liberated Kuwait, initiated a tribunal that found George H.W. Bush, Colin Powell, and Norman Schwarzkopf guilty of war crimes.

The always excellent Moonbattery has this wonderful take on him. I would suggest that a man who defends Nazis. Islamofascists, Ba'athist dictators and perpetrators of African genocide is HARDLY the mentally stable political "heavyweight" the BBC pretends. He's a moonbat, pure and simple, but the UK media prefer to believe otherwise!

My Two Cents... Ramsey Clark is a LOON they need to throw a net over this Guy. People like him don't care about how embaressing they are to their country their fighting the nobel cause. No what their fighting for is to stay in the spotlite before they die, and he should be ashamed of himself.


Curtesy A Tangled Web

Let me start by saying that I sincerely hope that kidnapped British retired Professor Norman Kember who was snatched alongside two Canadians and an American in Baghdad on Saturday is returned safe and sound, along with his colleagues. However, what on EARTH was this "avowed anti-Iraq war" peace activist thinking wandering around such a dangerous area of Baghdad? I mean the media are very quick to point out that the Professor had gained his doctorate as a peace monger by attending all the big anti-Iraq war demonstrations in London as if THAT means anything to the Saddamite cut-throats that infest parts of Baghdad!! Don't they understand that the Jihadi will slit any western throat they can get their filthy hands on? I have to be honest and make it clear that in my opinion Professor Kember is a useful fool - a man who vociferously protested as UK troops liberated 25 million Iraqis from the Saddamite scum who now, ironically, hold him as a prisoner. He may want to "build bridges" and "talk peace" - but downtown Baghdad ain't the place for septuagenarian peaceniks!

My Two Cents... I think its hystericle I can just see them as they planed this trip "were going to show the Iraqies that all westerners aren't evil conservitives" Ha Ha they just found out the terrorists don't care. Left or Right your still an Infidel LOL

Phasers on Stun Gentelman

From Janes Defence Weekly

US Air Force unveils hand-held laser gun
By Michael Sirak
JDW Staff Reporter Washington, DC

The US Air Force has unveiled its first hand-held laser weapon that gives security forces a non-lethal option for controlling crowds and protecting areas like checkpoints, according to service officials. While only in prototype form and years away from fielding, the weapon, known as the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response (PHaSR) system, holds great promise, they said. The PHaSR is about the same size and weight of a fully loaded M60 machine gun - around 9 kg - but shoots a low-power beam of laser light instead of bullets. The light it generates is capable of temporarily impairing an individual's vision, much like the disorienting glare one sees when looking into the sun, said the officials. Upon completion of testing, one prototype will be handed over to the Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) and the second to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ): the law enforcement arm of the US Department of Justice. Both organisations support the programme, with the latter interested in its civil applications.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Congressman Jim Gerlach Pa 6th District Wants you to pay HIGH GAS PRICES

This so called republican wants to keep us dependant on foreign OIL. As a politicly active Republican in Pa. That lives close to this TRAITORS district I will make sure come election time his Stance is well known on the public airways. Reps like him we don't need no Matter how many Veterans Cemetaries he helps Dedicate!

See the Post Below about the 27 that wont support Drilling in Anwar

Sunday, November 27, 2005

This post Comes From Skyes Blog please thank her

The Last Email
Soldier's Last Email

This is the last e-mail sent to the family and friends of Jeffery Toczylowski. He died from injuries suffered from a fall from a helicopter in Anbar, Iraq on November 3, 2005.

Jeff was a career soldier raised in Montgomery County, PA, and serving as a Special Forces detachment commander assigned to First Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group ~ Airborne in Iraq.

Dear friends and family,
If you are getting this email, it means that I have passed away. No, it's not a sick Toz joke, but a letter I wanted to write in case this happened. Please don't be sad for me. It was an honor to serve my country, and I wouldn't change a thing. It was just my time.
Don't ever think that you are defending me by slamming the Global War on Terrorism or the US goals in that war. As far as I am concerned, we can send guys like me to go after them or we can wait for them to come back to us again. I died doing something I believed in and have no regrets except that I couldn't do more.
This will probably be the longest email most of you have ever received from me. More that one of you complained on multiple occasions about my brief emails.
I have requested to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery and would like you to attend, but I understand if you can't make it.
There will also be a party in Vegas with a 100k to help pay for travel, room, and a party. I want you to be happy for the time we had, not the future we won't.
Never regret not calling, writing enough, keeping in touch, or visiting. I was always away and thought of you all as much, if not more, than you thought of me. Time keeps rolling and so should my family and friends. The only thing I ask is that you toast me every so often, because you know I'll be watching and wanting to be with you. Don't spend any time crying for me, because I'll bet you I am having a ball right now wherever I am.
I will look in on all of you and help whenever I can. I love you all!

This story did not make the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer, it was buried somewhere in the county news section. An American hero who died contributing to the betterment of the human condition is blithely ignored by the Inquirer. Casey Sheehan's "mother" had the front page marquee for weeks, yet the real heroes of this war are brushed aside. Is this the liberal meaning of "fair and balanced" reporting?

Posted at 11:02 pm by skyeblue

Thanks Skye

Great Story From Matt Drudge


A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday -- after the operator claimed the 'X' placed over Vice President's Dick Cheney's face was "free speech!" "We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying, Bush and Cheney," the CNN operator said to a caller. "Bring our soldiers home." The caller initially phoned the network to complain about the all-news channel flashing an "X' over Cheney as he gave an address live from Washington. "Was it not freedom of speech? Yes or No?" the CNN operator explained. "If you don't like it, don't watch." Laurie Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Public Relations with CNN, said in a release: "A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views -- behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her. " Developing... -----------------------------------------------------------Filed By Matt DrudgeReports are moved when circumstances warranthttp://www.drudgereport.com for updates(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2005Not for reproduction without permission of the author

These 27 members need to be REPLACED

27 House Republicans Threaten ANWR Drilling
by Myron Ebell
Posted Nov 9, 2005

Twenty-seven anti-energy Republicans are holding the House budget reconciliation package hostage until the provisions to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Outer Continental Shelf areas to oil and gas production are taken out.This is outrageous. Americans by a wide margin think that the biggest economic issue facing the country is high energy prices. The only proposal that has a chance of being enacted this year that would address that concern is the package put together by House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo included in the budget reconciliation bill. What these liberal Republicans are saying really is, "We don't think energy prices are a problem. In fact, we don't think energy prices are high enough." As natural gas and heating oil prices go through the roof this winter, this position may become even more unpopular than it is now. Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.) and the House Republican leadership are trying to save the ANWR provision. I’ve included a list of signers of the letter opposing ANWR below. Please contact them and let them know that you think energy prices are too high and that you support opening ANWR. The Battleground Poll for October 9-12 asked 1,003 registered likely voters, "Which of these issues is the biggest economic issue facing the country? Would you say it is: health care costs, the deficit, taxes, jobs and unemployment, inflation, the stock market, energy and gas prices, or interest rates?”In a similar poll in March, the top concern was health care costs at 35%. In the latest poll, health care costs have dropped to second place with 20%. Energy and gas prices, which weren’t even included in the March poll, came first at 34%. Might there be a connection between this concern and plummeting re-elect numbers for members of one of the parties in Congress?Below are the signers of the November 8 letter to Rep. David Dreier (R.-Calif.) opposing ANWR and threatening to oppose the budget reconciliation bill if it contains ANWR.Clay Shaw, FL-22 Vernon Ehlers, MI-3 Sue Kelly, NY-19 James Walsh, NY-25 Michael Fitzpatrick, PA-8 Jim Gerlach, PA-6 Thomas Petri, WI-6 Mark Kirk, IL-10 Jim Leach, IA-2 Mark Kennedy, MN-6 Jim Ramstad, MN-3 Jeb Bradley, NH-1 Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2 Dave Reichert, WA-8 Nancy L. Johnson, CT-5 Christopher Shays, CT-4 Rob Simmons, CT-2 Mike Castle, DE Tim Johnson, IL-15 Roscoe Bartlett, MD-6 Wayne Gilchrest, MD-1 Joe Schwarz, MI-7 Charles Bass, NH-2 Rodney Frelinghuysen, NJ-11 Jim Saxton, NJ-3 Chris Smith, NJ-4 Sherwood Boehlert, NY-24

Cox & Forkum

From FoxNews: Iranian President: Bush Should Be Tried for War Crimes.
Iran has been under intense international pressure to curb its nuclear program, which the United States claims is part of an effort to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies such claims and says its program is aimed at generating electricity.
Iran insists that it has the right to fully develop the program, including enrichment of nuclear fuel -- a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or atomic bombs.
On Thursday, the European Union accused Iran of having documents that show how to make nuclear warheads and joined the United States in warning Tehran it could be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Iran has temporarily stopped its enrichment program, but negotiations with Britain, France and Germany broke off in August after Tehran restarted another part of its program: the conversion of raw uranium into the gas that is used as the feeder stock in enrichment.
Iran also has rejected European calls to halt work at its uranium conversion facility near the central city of Isfahan.
Ahmadinejad dismissed Western concerns over his country's nuclear program.
"They say Iran has to stop its peaceful nuclear activity since there is a probability of diversion while we are sure that they are developing and testing (nuclear weapons) every day," Ahmadinejad said. ...
Meanwhile in the Islamic Republic of Iran:Ansar Hezbollah: 'We must do battle with America in Iraq''Israel must be wiped off the map' is an appropriate motto and promotes Imam's tenetsIranian Animated Film for Children Promotes Suicide Attacks

Great Post from David Vance of A Tangled Web

November 27, 2005

Ever since 9/11, the political left and their allies in the MSM have been on their own "crusade" and that is to "prove" that Bush "lied" about the WMD and that the entire post 9/11 strategy has been an unmitigated disaster.

The "It's a quagmire, get me out of here" narrative pursued assididously by the likes of CNN and BBC is a modern day version of "The Big Lie" strategy favoured by the likes of Goebbels. Say it often enough and say it loud and people will swallow your big lie. Well, not on ATW and scores of other PRO-War sites!

Militant Islam declared war against us at least a decade ago - one could argue militant Islam has ALWAYS been at war with us. The difference is that under President Bush - and having lost thousands of lives - we finally woke up to the threat and have thankfully despatched thousands of the Jihad boys to paradise and the 72 virgins that their sexy religion teaches awaits them.
But look .. the WMD's haven't turned up so the reason given for invasion/liberation was spurious. Rubbish, and here's why!

"When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War."

Based on this the logical conclusion is....Bush lied? I also would like to agree with the argument that
"Whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war."

Now...the situation is much better than the MSM pretend; Think about all these big wins...
Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead.
We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad.
The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year.
Women have been given the vote!
Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month.
The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets. Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction.
Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and even the Palestinians are holding elections.
So, whilst the MSM waffle on about the imaginary quagmire, and whilst the British and US left drone on about how "BUSH/BLAIR LIED" - the benefits of the Bush policy continue to mount up.

The only problem that I see is that years of carping criticisms from the Left and the incessant "quagmire" refrain from the MSM have forced Bush to be far too timid. We need to crush the self detonating Jihadists in Iraq by ensuring that their Iranian and Syrian exporters also suffer regime change. We need to show the Arab world that being our enemy carries real and severe consequences. The likes of Saudi Arabia fall into this category. US State is continually working against US interests and either Condi sorts it or she ships out.

We are winning in Iraq but the MSM have no interest in that story. They want Republicans out of power and the appeasement minded Dems back in. That's their bottom line. They want to try understand our enemies, to sit down and work out the complicated reasons why they hate us so and why they want to kill us. What they all fail to comprehend is IF we left Iraq tomorrow, the Jihadi would follow us..back to our cities. The best battleground is where we have our brave and successful troops - and that's where we need to keep them.
Posted by DV on November 27, 2005 at 03:49 PM

Thanks A Tangled Web

Friday, November 25, 2005

I Just Love David Horowitz

This man rights some of the best stuff. If you never have please go check out Frontpagemag.com This is just a post from his blog but his whole site is a neccesary read for everyone.

Your name is Bill Clinton - Monday, November 21, 2005 10:20 PM
Printable Send to a friend Comments Linkable Location.
Your country is at war. It is fighting to defend a democracy in the heartland of Islamic terror. You are a former president and you are speaking in Dubai in the Arab Muslim Middle East, the war zone where young American men and women are dying in battles for freedom.
But instead of words of praise for their heroism and gratitude for their sacrifice, you tell them the war they are fighting is a mistake. It is a mistake for them to be risking their lives in the service of their country. It is a mistake for them to be fighting for Iraqis' freedom. It is a mistake for them to be defending innocent people against terrorists who behead the innocent, who declare democracy to be evil and who have sworn to kill every Iraqi citizen who has had the audacity to vote.
You insinuate that their commander-in-chief is a liar who tricked them into this war and that their cause is unjust. With these words, you have plunged a knife into the backs of the brave men and women who are defending your country. You have betrayed them and the Iraqi people. You have betrayed the cause of freedom and with it your country's soul. Your name is Bill Clinton and you are a national disgrace.

Congressman Delahunt of Ma. Needs to be investigated.

As a member of the International Relations Committee, Delahunt serves on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, where he has worked to promote democracy and economic opportunity throughout Latin American. He is the Ranking Democratic Member on the newly-created Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee and will help create an agenda that includes understanding the impact of US policy on economic interests.

Why is this Congressman making DEALS with a self proclaimed ENEMY of the United States? This represntative of our government is doing propaganda and PR work for a man who has declared himself as our enemy. If the Congressman wants to help the people of his district with fuel oil prices he should work on waiving the Government taxes on fuel oil rather than allowing himself to be exploited by our enemies.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered to ship 285,000 barrels of oil to Massachusetts and sell it at a 40 percent discount. The deal was arranged by U.S. Congressman William Delahunt, the Venezuelan gas company Citgo and a Massachusetts nonprofit called Citizens Energy. Nationwide home heating oil prices are expected to increase by as much as 50 percent this winter because of rising oil prices.

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said his government would press ahead with the purchase of Spanish military aircraft and naval vessels even as he accused the U.S. government of pressuring Madrid to halt the transaction.
Chavez, closely allied to U.S. foe Cuba, has stepped up military spending this year with a slew of deals for Russian automatic rifles and helicopters, Brazilian aircraft and Spanish patrol ships and aircraft.
U.S. officials, who brand the leftist leader a threat to the region's stability, say they are worried some of the Venezuelan weapons could fall into the hands of Marxist Colombian rebels who are called terrorists by Washington.

Great Post by Ann Coulter on Frontpagemag

New Idea for the Antiwar Party: Aid the Enemy
By Ann CoulterFrontPageMagazine.com
November 25, 2005

In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaeda and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger.

Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong.

The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.

Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24x7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his Weapons of Mass Destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.

(Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)

The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam).

What is known as a "hawk" in today's Democratic Party looks at what our military has accomplished and – during the war, while our troops are in harm's way – demands that we withdraw our troops.

In an upbeat speech now being aired repeatedly on al-Jazeera, last week Rep. John Murtha said U.S. troops "cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Claiming the war is "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said the "American public is way ahead of us."

Fed up with being endlessly told "the American people" have turned against the war in Iraq, Republicans asked the Democrats to show what they had in their hand and vote on a resolution to withdraw the troops.

By a vote of 403-3, the House of Representatives wasn't willing to bet that "the American people" want to pull out of Iraq. (This vote also marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats did not respond to getting their butts kicked by demanding a recount.)

The vote is all the more shocking because of what it says about the Democrats' motives in attacking the war – as well as alerting us to three members of Congress we really need to keep an eye on.

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal – or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish – will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Antiwar protests in the United States during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from plain common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in the Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

What are we to make of the fact that – as we now know – the Democrats don't even want to withdraw troops from Iraq? By their own account, there is no merit to their demands. Before the vote, Democrats could at least defend themselves from sedition by pleading stupidity. Now we know they don't believe what they are saying about the war. (Thanks to that vote, the Islamo-fascists know it, too.)

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.
They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Another Good Cox & Forkum

This cartoon is from September 2004 and is in our book Black & White World II.
From FoxNews: Bomber Kills 30 in Iraq.
A homicide bomber blew up his car outside a hospital south of Baghdad on Thursday while U.S. troops handed out candy and food to children, killing 30 people and wounding about 40, including four Americans.
As U.S. troops spent another Thanksgiving at war, two soldiers died in another bombing near the capital, and the U.S. command said four American deaths occurred Wednesday.
Elsewhere, 11 Iraqis were killed and 17 injured Thursday when a car bomb exploded near a crowded soft drink stand in Hillah, a mostly Shiite Muslim city 60 miles south of Baghdad. More than 200 people — mostly Shiites — have died from suicide attacks and car bombs since Friday.
Posted by Forkum at 09:22 AM / Permalink

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Happy ThanksGiving To the Troops Thank YOU and God Bless

Good Hunting Gentelmen

One More For our Boys and Girls That Serve
It takes a minute to load but it's worth cliking the link
One more for The VETS

Your in our Hearts and in our Prayers
And we give Thanks to YOU

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Another Great Post from Iraq The Model

To all those who come here I highly recomend that you take the time to check out Iraq The Model it is a great Iraqi Blog. See the conflict from the eyes of someone that lives there.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Are we going to see a timetable?
Iraqi leaders, politicians and Sunni clerics agreed on asking the US to define a timetable for pulling the troops, this is all over the news websites so I’m not going to add further details here but I’d like to discuss the development with you.No government in this world acts 100% independently and there are always internal and/or external factors and pressures that affect the decisions of any given government.That’s why I think that Iraqi officials wouldn’t have agreed to the opposition’s demands if not for pressure from the US administration and I have a strong feeling that the US will announce a timetable for withdrawing the troops soon.I think the US administration kind of drove the Sunni insurgency leaders to ask for this in a way that allowed the Iraqi and US government the chance to win a good deal of time while they can reach a reasonable progress in building Iraq’s army and police forces. Everyone wants to see an end for violence but this violence comes from more than one group of fighters; one (al-Qaeda) can be dealt with only by military means but what about the other two? The local Islamic extremists, tribal fighters and former Ba’athists are also tired of fighting and they do want the power they lost (at least some of it) back and they had realized that there’s no way to do that with violence but they kept carrying out attacks as a way to voice their demands and to pressurize the US and Iraqi government to respond positively.On the other hand, Iraqi and American governments kept saying that putting a timetable for pulling the troops (let alone an immediate step) would empower the terrorists and thus was considered a redline for a long time but now things have changed; Sunni insurgents and the factions that support them are saying that they are going to join the political process and they’re ready to stop targeting Iraqis if a timetable was defined and if their right to “resist” was recognized.

Jack Idema Hero ? Mercenary ? or Fool?

This is about a man who was a retired member of the special forces. It is very interesting. I think the man is a great american and a Hero. The radio interview is an hour long but well worth the listen. I would like to thank Alison of "Making Headlines" for the meat of this post.

An Afghan Holiday
I think the best way to really get an idea of the full story behind Jack Idema is to listen to the radio interview below which is about 15 minutes long. A NY station interviews Jack from his cell in Afghanistan.It covers 9/11 in a way ive probably never been exposed to or really understood fully and frankly is a pretty scary story. You cant really dismiss the story when you get to grips with where Jack is and why he is there. Quite simply.Then there is the fact that this guy is stuck in a part of the world the BBC tried hard this evening to publicise as the next big thing in tourism. 30 years ago im sure the odd hippy probably liked to follow some magic trail around the bleak landscape but right now it's a hole and this guys is stuck in it.Jack Idema's story is covered atRottweiler Puppy
Rottweiler Puppy
who cover more than dog stories!
Free Jack Blogburst, updates and regular posts at Caos blog
Radio interview link you should take time out to listen to
Radio Interview
posted by Alison @ 9:16 PM 0 comments

Thanks Ali

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Great Post on Frontpagemag.com

It's pathetic you don't here about this in the MSM, According to them were the torturers

Baghdad’s Real Torturers

By Heather MacDonald
November 22, 2005

The U.S. military recently uncovered alleged evidence of torture in Iraqi-run Baghdad prisons, including what appeared to be a torture chamber in an Iraqi Ministry of Interior detention facility. The Sunni reaction to these discoveries poses a considerable problem for proponents of the anti-American “torture narrative”: The Sunnis are calling on the U.S. military to correct the situation! “I wish the Americans would go to [the prisons] and find out about it,” former detainee Sadiq Abdul Razzaq Samarrai told the New York Times.
This is bizarre behavior indeed. According to Andrew Sullivan, Seymour Hersh, and other proponents of the “torture narrative,” Americans are the leading sadists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba. For the Sunnis to ask the Americans to protect them against alleged Shiite abuse would seem to them as delusional as a Jewish prisoner in Auschwitz appealing to Hitler for salvation.
But the Iraqi reaction to the recent torture allegations defies the conventional “torture” wisdom in more ways than one. It turns out that the safest prisons in Iraq are those enjoying regular American oversight. Another former detainee, Amar Sami Samarrai (cousin of Sadiq Abdul), credits his safe treatment to the fact that the Americans had gone through his detention center near Baghdad four times during his 38-day stay, according to the New York Times

Proof that What the Democrats are doing is Effecting us Throughout The WORLD

East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China

Here is a nice little story that demonstrates how democrats "were losing the War speech" is undermining US relations around the World.

Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea.

And for those koolaid drinkers out there that say that their opinion isn't coming from what's being said by the left over here read this quote.

The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.

I guess that the 2000 number is just one he pulled out of the air. You liberals are endangering the lives of all of us here in the US. If are allies feel this way because of your rhetoric, what do you think are ENEMIES believe?

Monday, November 21, 2005


Sombody needs to put a stop to this man. Senator John McCain is a traitor to the American People.

Bad enough he rammed through the only bill in american history that limits freespeech. Now this SCUMBAG is attaching an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that defines TORTURE as anything that DEGRADES someone. What a nice present for the Military.

Thanks, You ASS

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Cindy Shehan Seeking MORE PROFIT from her sons DEATH

'Peace Mom' Sheehan to Release Book
By ANGELA K. BROWNThe Associated PressSaturday, November 19, 2005; 6:28 PM
FORT WORTH, Texas -- After spending scorching August days with hundreds of war protesters at her makeshift camp near President Bush's Crawford ranch, Cindy Sheehan slipped away each night to her tent or RV for a few quiet moments on her laptop.
The words came easily as she opined about the war, U.S. leaders, her critics, her supporters. And the tears started to flow no matter how many times she wrote about her 24-year-old soldier son Casey, who died in Iraq last year.

"I never wrote anything more than a note to excuse my kids from school before Casey was killed, so to see something I wrote in print with my name on it is amazing," Sheehan told The Associated Press by phone from her home in Berkeley, Calif.

This woman is a DISGRACE

Iran Votes to Block Nuclear Inspections

Associated Press Writer

Parliament approved a bill Sunday requiring the government to block international inspections of its atomic facilities if the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency refers Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions.
The bill was approved by 183 of the 197 lawmakers present at the session, which was broadcast live on state-run radio. The vote came four days before the International Atomic Energy Agency board meets to consider referring Tehran for violating a nuclear arms control treaty.
When the bill becomes law, as is expected, it will strengthen the government's hand in resisting international pressure to abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to produce fuel for nuclear reactors or an atomic bomb.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon. Iran says its program is for generating electricity.

Yeah Right

curtesy Drudge

Friday, November 18, 2005

What are you going to do now, Mr. Bush?

I Just love it The Russians and the Democrats are both saying the same thing. What does that tell ya

We used to have one reactionary dictator. Now we have tens of them springing up"

The Bush regime's policy in Iraq is an abject failure. Two years after the lies which gave a false pretext for the illegal invasion of Iraq, after 30,000 civilians have been murdered by US armed forces, after a hundred thousand people have lost their lives directly or indirectly because of this invasion, after Iraq's civilian infra-structures were selected as military targets, after the war crimes, the use of chemical weapons, the cases of torture, who can say that the policy was a success?
The Americans have lost control over Iraq
The US Forces have lost control of the situation. Eye witnesses have informed Pravda.Ru that the troops are rarely to be seen on the streets - they spend their time avoiding the population in huge convoys travelling back and forth on the outskirts of the cities and the ones who exert direct control are the gangs of armed men on practically every street corner.
Life much worse for the population

curtesy Pravda

What a Shock


Give me My HAMMER and My Tankard of ALE

To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Great Headliner On Drudge



"As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate.

But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that’s been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone –

but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history. We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them.

And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.

Rollye James always worth a listen


The quickest way to balkanize a country is by removing a common language. History proves it repeatedly. Yet forces in America want to English to share center stage with Spanish for starters. Are they misguided fools, or enemies of the state intent on reducing the country's power and influence? There isn't much middle ground. The CEO of US English will speak to that-- in English tonight at 10.

Rollye is one of the best free-thinkers on the air ways. Strap on your helmet and take her along for the ride, straight from the lunatic fringe!

This is a BAD Idea

Found this story at OSM this is a Bad Bill where are the provisions for Drilling? Where are the new refineries? The PROBLEM isn't the vehichles it's the environmentalists not allowing us to use a renewable fuel source that we have plenty of "OIL"

Today's 'Fuel Choices' Bill Could Curb U.S. Oil Habit,
But Only With Full Funding, Implementation, Says Alliance to Save Energy
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16, 2005 (Business Wire) --The "Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Actof 2005" could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil -but only if it were fully funded and implemented by Congress and theadministration, the Alliance to Save Energy said today."The bill introduced today by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), SamBrownback (R-Kans.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), and others couldachieve a significant reduction in U.S. oil consumption - up to 25percent - if enacted into law," said Alliance President KateriCallahan. "But without full funding by Congress and strict enforcementof the oil-saving provisions by the Bush Administration, it would belike getting a prescription but not taking the medication," she added.The bill calls for specific oil-saving targets to reduce U.S. oildependence: 2.5 million barrels of oil per day within 10 years,increasing to 7.5 million barrels per day by 2026 to ramp up thesavings from 10 percent to more than 25 percent of projected U.S. oildemand.Other elements of the bill include financial assistance for automanufacturers and suppliers that decide to retool factories to buildmore efficient vehicles; a program to move fuel-efficient tires intothe marketplace; standards for heavy-truck efficiency; school busidling reduction; and research into advanced vehicles technologiessuch as plug-in hybrids and light-weight materials.The bill also includes policies encouraging use of alternativefuels instead of oil and a national energy security public educationcampaign to be run by the Secretary of Energy.The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business,government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote theefficient and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, theenvironment, economy, and national security.Newstex ID: 6414007

Serbia pushes Russia aside despite long-standing friendship, turns to EU

From Pravda

11/16/2005 15:47
Serbia believes that it is the European Union, which is to play the leading role in the regulation of the Balkan conflict

President of Serbia Boris Tadic arrived in Moscow with an official visit. The Serbian leader discussed a wide range of questions with Vladimir Putin: from the regulation of the Soviet debt to the former Yugoslavia to bilateral relations between Russia and Serbia in case the latter joins the European Union. The key subject of the talks between the Serbian and the Russian president was devoted to the situation in Kosovo and Russia's role in the regulation of Balkan conflicts.

Serbia criticized Russia during and after the NATO-led bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 claiming that Russia had taken an indistinct and inactive position. "Russia's role in the regulation of the conflict is immense. Russia is supposed to identify its position clearly, in the UN Security Council, first and foremost," Boris Tadic said at the press conference after the end of the official meeting in the Kremlin.

Vladimir Putin strongly excluded the use of double standards policy pertaining to the expulsion of 200,000 Serbs from Kosovo. "About 200,000 Serbs have to leave Kosovo now, but everyone keeps silence about it," the president of Russia said. Putin stressed out that Western officials referred to the exodus of 30,000 Albanians from Kosovo as a humanitarian catastrophe. Putin assured his Serbian colleague that Russia shared his opinion about Kosovo being the inseparable part of Serbia, even if it enjoys the status of an autonomy.

My Home Town Philly

Philly Kindergartner Found With Heroin
Nov 16 1:25 PM US/Eastern Email this story

A kindergarten teacher found eight bags of heroin in a 5-year-old student's pocket, police said.
The matter was under investigation and the boy's mother could be charged, police Inspector William Colarulo said.
The heroin was discovered Oct. 25. On Tuesday, the school sent a letter home to parents. The letter did not explain why the school waited three weeks to tell parents. It was sent home after a story about the incident aired on WCAU-TV.
Neither the child nor his classmates at Richmond Elementary School were harmed, a schools spokesman said.
"We are shocked and saddened, outraged" that a parent or parents could place a child in such danger, said spokesman Fernando Galliard.
The boy and his three siblings have been turned over to the city's Department of Human Services and placed in temporary custody, spokesman Ted Qualli said. The agency was looking for relatives who could eventually take care of the children.

curtesy Drudge

New Orleans Back To Business

New Orleans Has First Post-Katrina Slaying
Associated Press
Nov 16 9:58 AM US/Eastern
Email this story


A woman was stabbed to death in what police say is the first slaying in the city since Hurricane Katrina.

Police said they found the woman dead inside the home of New Orleans poet Jon Newlin, 56. Newlin had been beaten, they said, and was in critical condition at a hospital.

Friends told authorities they discovered the two Tuesday when they went to Newlin's home. Newlin hadn't shown up for a breakfast date with a friend or work at a French Quarter bookstore that day.

One or both of the victims may have known their attacker, police spokesman Juan Barnes said. The woman's name was not released.

The killing is the 205th for the city this year, compared with 225 by the same time last year, police said. The previous killing in New Orleans was on Aug. 27, two days before the hurricane struck.

curtesy Drudge

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Great Video

Check out this "MOONBATS ON PARADE"
check it out, It takes a momment to load...

The Arab With The British Accent!!

Abdullah II
I Love Hearing This Guy Talk. Hearing that accent comming from an Arab just cracks me up. It's also nice to Hear one Condeming a Suicide Bombing All in All very Refreshing

Palestinians get a BLAST of their own Medicine

A Palestinisn Wedding was the Target of Terror Attack!!

What was the reaction? Oh surprise, surprise their having fits in the streets. Protests breaking out all over Jordan in anger against Al-Queda. Aww lets feel sorry for them, the Pallistinians have been blowing up Israelies for Decades. Now they get to know the JOY of that type of political commentary.

Listen to the comments of the Groom:

"The world has to know that this has nothing to do with Islam," said Ashraf al-Akhras, who lost several family members when one of the bombs went off during his wedding.
A later Web posting attributed to al Qaeda in Iraq seemed to respond to the outrage sparked by Wednesday's bombings, The Associated Press reported. Purporting too explain why "holy warriors targeted these dens," the posting states that the hotels were favorite haunts of Americans and Israelis.
"Let all know that we have struck only after becoming confident that they are centers for launching war on Islam and support the crusaders' presence in Iraq and the Arab peninsula and the presence of the Jews on the land of Palestine," the posting states, promising "catastrophic" assaults in the future that would dwarf the hotel bombings, the AP reported.
CNN could not verify if the Web postings were authentic, but U.S. intelligence officials called the claim "credible." Pentagon officials added that before the explosions a former hostage revealed that his captors had discussed such attacks on Western targets.

Now don't get me wrong I am outraged that a family on what should have been one of the Happiest Days turned into a day of Horror.
This is the same Horror however that Palistinians have been dishing out to others for Decades

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Could Iran be Selling Nuclear Bombs to Cuba

What would these two countries have for each other except the hate of a mutual enemy. Cuba has already proven it's willingness to point Nukes at us in the past. Could Castro be planing to Nuke Miami before he dies. Think about the advantages for Iran we get nuked and they don't get blamed.

Iran, Cuba review expansion of mutual relations, int'l developments Tehran, Nov 13, IRNA

Visiting Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque conferred here Sunday with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on expansion of mutual relations between the two countries.

Underlining the deeply-rooted ties between the two nations, Ahmadinejad said, "We hope that given new wave of revolutionary moves inspired by freedom-seeking as well as justice-seeking spirit of world nations along with the intellectuals of some South American countries, we will witness further coordination and convergence in rescuing the countries from hegemonic powers in those region."
According to the Press Bureau of the Presidential office, the president referred to administration of justice as among the only solution to alleviate humans sufferings and said through joint cooperation and taking advantage of the vast potentials of the international fora and the Non-Aligned Movement in particular as well as expansion of cooperation among member states, it would be possible to swiftly change the current hegemonic system to the benefit of nations around the world.

Appreciating the revolutionary and modern stance adopted by Cuba on Iran's peaceful application of nuclear technology, he called the country to continue negotiations to encourage other South American countries to vote in favor of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities.

Ahmadinejad called for further expansion of political, economic, cultural and social relations between Iran and Cuba.

The Cuban foreign minister, for his part, declared his country's definite support of Iran's international policies mainly on peaceful application of nuclear technology and called for expansion of all-out relations between Tehran and Havana.

Iran's defense of her legitimate rights in taking advantage of nuclear technology in fact is regarded as defending the rights of all countries who seek peaceful application of such energy in the future, he concluded.

Or they could send a nuke from Cuba to our other buddy Chavez hell just drive one to Miami in a Cuban Car/Boat

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Who Is Lying About Iraq

Great Post also Linked on Mikes America & Frontpagemag
This post is the second longest one I've ever posted but its worth the space.

Who Is Lying About Iraq?
Norman Podhoretz
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.
This entire scenario of purported deceit has been given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had “outed” Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Wilson for having “debunked” (in his words) “the lies that led to war.”
Now, as it happens, Libby was not charged with having outed Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that
[t]his indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person—a person, Mr. Libby—lied or not.
No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host of other opponents of the war in insisting that
[t]his case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President.
Yet even stipulating—which I do only for the sake of argument—that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
Blix now claims that he was only being “cautious” here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration “misled itself” in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.
So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:
I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.
Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:
People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.
In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about
Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson,
The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, “the consensus of the intelligence community,” as Wilkerson puts it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. “In the late spring of 2002,” Pollack has written,
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with “high confidence” was that
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.1
But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
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.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President
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.
Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
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.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:
There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
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, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Gore again, in that same year:
Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.2
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that
without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was
hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.
So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that
[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3
All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?
Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it
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.
The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding
no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.
Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as “imminent.” But this, too, is false: Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war.4 Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Bush declared that he would “not wait on events while dangers gather” and that he would “not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.” Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.” And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word “imminent” itself precisely in order to repudiate it:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
What of the related charge that it was still another “lie” to suggest, as Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee’s report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.”5
Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.
The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted—after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department—into Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
This is the “lie” Wilson bragged of having “debunked” after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President’s idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that “Cheney apparently didn’t know that Wilson had been dispatched.” (By the time Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever “said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.”) And as for his wife’s supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:
My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . , both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.
More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.
In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Wilson’s latest iteration of it) “lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq,” eventually acknowledged that the President’s statement “did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address.” As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary—for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the sixteen words at issue was true.
That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore—and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited—Britain’s independent Butler commission concluded that it was “well-founded.” The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.
As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was “debriefed” on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing6), actually strengthened the CIA’s belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:
He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.
And again:
The report on [Wilson’s] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.
This passage goes on to note that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research—which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons—found support in Wilson’s report for its “assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it—which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words.
The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam’s efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report,
[t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].7
More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:
[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, “among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.
To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Wilson “confirmed” for a credulous New Republic reporter, “the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President’s office,” thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff “knew the Niger story was a flatout lie.” Yet—the mind reels—if Cheney had actually been briefed on Wilson’s oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.
So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book whose title alone—The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity—has set a new record for chutzpah.
But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Wilson—who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated—is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution.
And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.
—November 7, 2005
NORMAN PODHORETZ is the editor-at-large of COMMENTARY and the author of ten books. The most recent, The Norman Podhoretz Reader, edited by Thomas L. Jeffers, appeared in 2004. His essays on the Bush Doctrine and Iraq, including “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win” (September 2004) and “The War Against World War IV” (February 2005), can be found by clicking here.
1 Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: “I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.”
2 Fuller versions of these and similar statements can be found at http://www.theconversationcafe.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3134.htmland. Another source is http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php.
3 These and numerous other such quotations were assembled by Robert Kagan in a piece published in the Washington Post on October 25, 2005.
4 Whereas both John Edwards, later to become John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, and Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, actually did use the word in describing the threat posed by Saddam.
5 In early November, the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who last year gave their unanimous assent to its report, were suddenly mounting a last-ditch effort to take it back on this issue (and others). But to judge from the material they had already begun leaking by November 7, when this article was going to press, the newest “Bush lied” case is as empty and dishonest as the one they themselves previously rejected.
6 Here is how he put it in a piece in the Los Angeles Times written in late October of this year to celebrate the indictment of Libby: “I knew that the statement in Bush’s speech . . . was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa. . . . And I knew that the White House knew it.”
7 More extensive citations of the relevant passages from the Butler report can be found in postings by Daniel McKivergan at http://www.worldwidestandard.com/. I have also drawn throughout on materials cited by the invaluable Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard.
back to top
America's premier monthly journal of opinion.
Subscribe now.
Take advantage of our SPECIAL OFFER: with aone-year subscription to COMMENTARY, you will receive free,unlimited access to the last six years of the magazine in theCOMMENTARY Digital Archive—that’s every article from everyissue since 1999!
The total value of this package is close to $100. Save up to 80%.
Act Now.

Did the Italians Learn Anything from WWII

I guess not. As they coddled and allowed the facists of Musalinis time to gain power they are now allowing the sympathizers and collaborators of Terror to gain power in Italy now. This article is a sample of just a symptom of the basic flaw in Italian thinking.

Italy prosecutors seek extradition of CIA agents
Nov 11, 2:57 PM (ET)

Italian Justice Minister Roberto Castelli speaks during an interview at his office in Rome in this...Full Image

By Phil Stewart
ROME (Reuters) -

Prosecutors have requested Italy seek the extradition of 22 suspected CIA agents
over the kidnapping of a terrorism suspect, grabbed off a street in 2003 and
taken abroad, a judicial source in Italy said on Friday.
The request was
delivered to Justice Minister Roberto Castelli.
The minister just returned
from Washington, where he discussed the issue with U.S. Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales, a U.S. justice department official in Washington D.C. said.