Kucinich Questions Bush's Mental Health
Remember these comments are coming from a man that saw a UFO as he was standing on a porch with his childs God Mother Shirly McClain, Gee I wonder if they were chaneling Lenins Ghost....LOL
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush's mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III.
"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board on Tuesday. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact."
Kucinich, known for his liberal views, trails far behind the leading candidates in most Democratic polls. He was in Philadelphia for a debate at Drexel University.
Bush made the remarks at a news conference earlier this month.
He said: "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Kucinich said he doesn't believe his comments about the president's mental health are irresponsible, according to a story posted on the newspaper's Web site.
"You cannot be a president of the United States who's wanton in his expression of violence," Kucinich said. "There's a lot of people who need care. He might be one of them. If there isn't something wrong with him, then there's something wrong with us. This, to me, is a very serious question."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Pervert Politician Attacks Romney
Craig: Romney 'threw me under ... bus'
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 15 (UPI) -- Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has harsh words for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in an upcoming NBC News interview, The San Francisco Examiner reported.
The newspaper said Sunday it has obtained excerpts of the interview, conducted by NBC's Matt Lauer, with Craig and his wife, Suzanne. The interview is scheduled to air Tuesday night.
Craig -- who has announced he will serve out his Senate term despite a guilty plea in connection with his arrest at a Minneapolis airport men's room -- was one of two Senate liaisons for Romney's campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Craig resigned the position after his arrest became public, and Romney later said Craig had "disappointed the American people."
During the NBC interview, Craig slammed Romney.
"I was very proud of my association with Mitt Romney," Craig said. "I'd worked hard for him here in the state. I was a co-chair of his campaign on Capitol Hill. And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."
Craig
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 15 (UPI) -- Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has harsh words for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in an upcoming NBC News interview, The San Francisco Examiner reported.
The newspaper said Sunday it has obtained excerpts of the interview, conducted by NBC's Matt Lauer, with Craig and his wife, Suzanne. The interview is scheduled to air Tuesday night.
Craig -- who has announced he will serve out his Senate term despite a guilty plea in connection with his arrest at a Minneapolis airport men's room -- was one of two Senate liaisons for Romney's campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Craig resigned the position after his arrest became public, and Romney later said Craig had "disappointed the American people."
During the NBC interview, Craig slammed Romney.
"I was very proud of my association with Mitt Romney," Craig said. "I'd worked hard for him here in the state. I was a co-chair of his campaign on Capitol Hill. And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."
Craig
What Hillary Care will Bring to America
English 'pull own teeth' as dental service decays
Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.
Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.
Others have used superglue to stick crowns back on, rather than stumping up for private treatment, said the study. One person spoke of carrying out 14 separate extractions on himself with pliers.
More typically, a lack of publicly-funded dentists means that growing numbers go private: 78 percent of private patients said they were there because they could not find a National Health Service (NHS) dentist, and only 15 percent because of better treatment.
"This is an uncomfortable read for all of us, and poses serious questions to politicians from patients," said Sharon Grant of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.
Overall, six percent of patients had resorted to self-treatment, according to the survey of 5,000 patients in England, which found that one in five had decided against dental work because of the cost.
One researcher involved in compiling the study -- carried out by members of England's Patient and Public Involvement Forums -- came across three people in one morning who had pulled out teeth themselves.
Dentists are also concerned about the trend.
Fifty-eight percent said new dentists' contracts introduced last year had made the quality of care worse, while 84 percent thought they had failed to make it easier for patients to find care.
Almost half of all dentists -- 45 percent -- said they no longer take NHS patients, while 41 percent said they had an "excessive" workload. Twenty-nine percent said their clinic had problems recruiting or retaining dentists.
"These findings indicate that the NHS dental system is letting many patients down very badly," said Grant.
"It appears many are being forced to go private because they don't want to lose their current trusted and respected dentist or because they just can't find a local NHS dentist."
Clinton
Healthcare
Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.
Falling numbers of state dentists in England has led to some people taking extreme measures, including extracting their own teeth, according to a new study released Monday.
Others have used superglue to stick crowns back on, rather than stumping up for private treatment, said the study. One person spoke of carrying out 14 separate extractions on himself with pliers.
More typically, a lack of publicly-funded dentists means that growing numbers go private: 78 percent of private patients said they were there because they could not find a National Health Service (NHS) dentist, and only 15 percent because of better treatment.
"This is an uncomfortable read for all of us, and poses serious questions to politicians from patients," said Sharon Grant of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.
Overall, six percent of patients had resorted to self-treatment, according to the survey of 5,000 patients in England, which found that one in five had decided against dental work because of the cost.
One researcher involved in compiling the study -- carried out by members of England's Patient and Public Involvement Forums -- came across three people in one morning who had pulled out teeth themselves.
Dentists are also concerned about the trend.
Fifty-eight percent said new dentists' contracts introduced last year had made the quality of care worse, while 84 percent thought they had failed to make it easier for patients to find care.
Almost half of all dentists -- 45 percent -- said they no longer take NHS patients, while 41 percent said they had an "excessive" workload. Twenty-nine percent said their clinic had problems recruiting or retaining dentists.
"These findings indicate that the NHS dental system is letting many patients down very badly," said Grant.
"It appears many are being forced to go private because they don't want to lose their current trusted and respected dentist or because they just can't find a local NHS dentist."
Clinton
Healthcare
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Pathetic Jimmy Carter or as I like to call him Gritz for Brains
Jimmy Carter calls Cheney a "disaster" for U.S
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a "disaster" for the country and a "militant" who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy. (this coming from the President who's political decisions on Iran turned it from ally to an enemy. Carter is the sole person that can be blamed for the handing over of Iran to the Islamofacists and starting the war we are now fighting in the Middle East)
Cheney has been on the wrong side of the debate on many issues, including an internal White House discussion over Syria in which the vice president is thought to be pushing a tough approach, Carter said. (Yes Jimmy Gritz thinks Assad is a good guy to deal with, so what if he blows up politicians in neighboring countries)
"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday. (Yeah Jimmy it would be much better to allow our Embassies to be over run and our diplomats held hostage like you allowed)
"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed." (yes Cheyney the Boogie Man pulling the strings in the Back ground.... what a maroon)
Asked to comment on Carter's remarks, Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Republican vice president, said, "We're not going to engage in this type of rhetoric." (Why bandy words with a loon)
Carter, a Democrat who was president from 1977 to 1981 and won the 2002 Nobel Peace prize for his charitable work, is a strong critic of the Iraq war and has often been outspoken in his criticism of President George W. Bush. (ahhh The Nobel Peace Prize, a joke award for a joke of a man) (Alfred Nobel invented Dynomite, to sway critisism that he was getting rich from one of the most efficient weapons. As a joke he didicated 1% of the profits to a Peace Prize. The Joke is still playing out to this day)
In a newspaper interview in May, Carter called the Bush administration the "worst in history" in international relations. (His Alzheimers doesn't allow him to remember his own)
Carter did have kind words in the BBC interview for U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to (Cheney) which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush," Carter said, referring to Rice's former role as White House national security adviser.
"Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails," Carter added. (makes ya want to start worrying about Condi)
Bush allows torture: Carter
US President George W. Bush's administration tortures detainees in defiance of international law, former US president Jimmy Carter charged Wednesday.
"I don't think it, I know it, certainly," Carter told CNN television when asked if he believed the US administration allowed the use of torture. (How do you know it Jimmy? Did one of those little grey men in that UFO you saw tell you?)
Carter rejected Bush's statement last week that the United States does not torture terror suspects.
"That's not an accurate statement, if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated," Carter said in the interview.
"But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, 'we don't violate them.' And ... you can make your own definition of torture and say 'we don't violate it,'" said the former Democratic president and Nobel laureate.
Asked if Bush was lying, Carter said: "The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes."
Those who commit torture were violating international law, Carter said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a "disaster" for the country and a "militant" who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy. (this coming from the President who's political decisions on Iran turned it from ally to an enemy. Carter is the sole person that can be blamed for the handing over of Iran to the Islamofacists and starting the war we are now fighting in the Middle East)
Cheney has been on the wrong side of the debate on many issues, including an internal White House discussion over Syria in which the vice president is thought to be pushing a tough approach, Carter said. (Yes Jimmy Gritz thinks Assad is a good guy to deal with, so what if he blows up politicians in neighboring countries)
"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday. (Yeah Jimmy it would be much better to allow our Embassies to be over run and our diplomats held hostage like you allowed)
"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed." (yes Cheyney the Boogie Man pulling the strings in the Back ground.... what a maroon)
Asked to comment on Carter's remarks, Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Republican vice president, said, "We're not going to engage in this type of rhetoric." (Why bandy words with a loon)
Carter, a Democrat who was president from 1977 to 1981 and won the 2002 Nobel Peace prize for his charitable work, is a strong critic of the Iraq war and has often been outspoken in his criticism of President George W. Bush. (ahhh The Nobel Peace Prize, a joke award for a joke of a man) (Alfred Nobel invented Dynomite, to sway critisism that he was getting rich from one of the most efficient weapons. As a joke he didicated 1% of the profits to a Peace Prize. The Joke is still playing out to this day)
In a newspaper interview in May, Carter called the Bush administration the "worst in history" in international relations. (His Alzheimers doesn't allow him to remember his own)
Carter did have kind words in the BBC interview for U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to (Cheney) which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush," Carter said, referring to Rice's former role as White House national security adviser.
"Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails," Carter added. (makes ya want to start worrying about Condi)
Bush allows torture: Carter
US President George W. Bush's administration tortures detainees in defiance of international law, former US president Jimmy Carter charged Wednesday.
"I don't think it, I know it, certainly," Carter told CNN television when asked if he believed the US administration allowed the use of torture. (How do you know it Jimmy? Did one of those little grey men in that UFO you saw tell you?)
Carter rejected Bush's statement last week that the United States does not torture terror suspects.
"That's not an accurate statement, if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated," Carter said in the interview.
"But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, 'we don't violate them.' And ... you can make your own definition of torture and say 'we don't violate it,'" said the former Democratic president and Nobel laureate.
Asked if Bush was lying, Carter said: "The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes."
Those who commit torture were violating international law, Carter said.
(This Bafoon needs to get back on his Meds, At least when Reagan went insane his family and friends kept him out of the public eye. Carters family and handlers are giving us all the joy of watching what was always a feeble mind become totaly unraveled)
The White House rejected Carter's comments and reiterated that the administration does not condone torture.
"The United States does not torture," spokeswoman Dana Perino told AFP in an e-mail.
"The president has not authorized it, nor will he. Our interrogation methods are tough, safe, necessary and legal. And our country is being protected," Perino said.
On Sunday, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the United States appears to be torturing terror suspects. (another Feeble mind obbsessed with the lust for power, who has no shame in latching on to the bablings of a senial old man if it adds to her agenda)
Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Pelosi said reported interrogation tactics such as simulated drowning, head slapping and exposure to extreme temperatures all amounted to banned torture. (Sounds like the years I spent in High School)
The New York Times reported last week on a 2005 memo by the Justice Department that allegedly authorized harsh techniques in interrogations of "war on terror" suspects -- in the same year that Congress explicitly banned the use of torture.
Carter: I regret nothing
The presidency is okay, I guess…
Talk about finding a silver lining…
Speaking with XM Radio's Bob Edwards on Tuesday, former President Jimmy Carter (you know, the guy who gave the "malaise" speech) told the radio host that he "would not want to have changed anything" during his presidency. (Our Diplomats held hostage, double digit inflation, food and gas rationing, Ahhh the joys of Gritz presidency)
Well, okay, maybe one thing. Referring to the Iran hostage crisis, Carter said, "I have a specific regret in not having one more helicopter when I wanted to rescue our hostages. If I had had one more helicopter, they would have been rescued. I might have been reelected president." (what do they call it when old people get delusional?)
But presidency, schmesidency, says Carter, who thinks that the Oval Office isn't nearly as sweet a gig as his own humanitarian efforts at The Carter Center. IAfter all, f he had had that extra helicopter, which would have rescued the hostages (wildly presuming, of course, that the Delta Force commanders were able to pull of a daring rescue of the more than 50 U.S. citizens being held in Tehran) and, thus, helped re-elect him president, Carter said "in that case I probably wouldn't have had the Carter Center, so in balance I would not want to have changed anything." (Like I said what a Maroon, this mans oars long ago stopped hitting the water, other than the comic relief that he supplies the sane amongst us. The only thing this man should be allowed to provide an example for is a partial view of what another Clinton administration would be like. Hillary believes what this idiot says and her policies will make the economy under Cater look like the Golden Age)
The White House rejected Carter's comments and reiterated that the administration does not condone torture.
"The United States does not torture," spokeswoman Dana Perino told AFP in an e-mail.
"The president has not authorized it, nor will he. Our interrogation methods are tough, safe, necessary and legal. And our country is being protected," Perino said.
On Sunday, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the United States appears to be torturing terror suspects. (another Feeble mind obbsessed with the lust for power, who has no shame in latching on to the bablings of a senial old man if it adds to her agenda)
Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Pelosi said reported interrogation tactics such as simulated drowning, head slapping and exposure to extreme temperatures all amounted to banned torture. (Sounds like the years I spent in High School)
The New York Times reported last week on a 2005 memo by the Justice Department that allegedly authorized harsh techniques in interrogations of "war on terror" suspects -- in the same year that Congress explicitly banned the use of torture.
Carter: I regret nothing
The presidency is okay, I guess…
Talk about finding a silver lining…
Speaking with XM Radio's Bob Edwards on Tuesday, former President Jimmy Carter (you know, the guy who gave the "malaise" speech) told the radio host that he "would not want to have changed anything" during his presidency. (Our Diplomats held hostage, double digit inflation, food and gas rationing, Ahhh the joys of Gritz presidency)
Well, okay, maybe one thing. Referring to the Iran hostage crisis, Carter said, "I have a specific regret in not having one more helicopter when I wanted to rescue our hostages. If I had had one more helicopter, they would have been rescued. I might have been reelected president." (what do they call it when old people get delusional?)
But presidency, schmesidency, says Carter, who thinks that the Oval Office isn't nearly as sweet a gig as his own humanitarian efforts at The Carter Center. IAfter all, f he had had that extra helicopter, which would have rescued the hostages (wildly presuming, of course, that the Delta Force commanders were able to pull of a daring rescue of the more than 50 U.S. citizens being held in Tehran) and, thus, helped re-elect him president, Carter said "in that case I probably wouldn't have had the Carter Center, so in balance I would not want to have changed anything." (Like I said what a Maroon, this mans oars long ago stopped hitting the water, other than the comic relief that he supplies the sane amongst us. The only thing this man should be allowed to provide an example for is a partial view of what another Clinton administration would be like. Hillary believes what this idiot says and her policies will make the economy under Cater look like the Golden Age)
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Listening to the Sunday Shows.... What a Joke
As I sit at work doing reports, inventories, menus, and specs, I have C-Span Radio playing in the background on my computer. On Sunday they replay all the Morning Political shows.
If you watch or listen to these shows you should be required to either be on Meds or be ready to take some. No where else will you get to witness a better cavalcade of freaks, wackjobs, and con artists than on the Sunday Morning talking head shows.
The overall consensus is that the Republican party is headlong diving into permanent minority status, and the only thing that is preventing Hillary from being President is that the hanging chads have yet to be counted.
George Bush refuses to stop killing Iraqi's for his oil buddies and he wants American children to DIE from lack of Health care.
How did we ever reach the point where we are governed by these fools. The American public are the real fools because we allow these people to be presented to us as our only choices. We need to open up the Ballot, but that's a rant for another day.
The ONLY two subjects that matter at this point in time are the War, and the upcoming Presidential elections.
As for the War. No matter what the Democrats tell you or believe we can't win a war by retreating, and that's what they want to do. The Public is NOT weary of war, the public haven't even gotten invested in the war. Unless you have a family member that serves the war has not effected you one bit. The Democrats in Congress have made their platform the Peace, Love and Bobby Sherman, tune in, drop out, smoke dope, free love of the early 70s. Well guess what, it ain't the 70s and this ain't Vietnam.
We are at war with Islamofacism, They attacked us they have been attacking us since 1979. The power behind all Islamic Terrorism is Iran. They support and fund both Shia and Sunni, as long as you want to kill Jews and Americans they will give you what ever you need. They will continue to plot and kill Americans. Whether we are fighting them in the middle east, or if we are fighting them on main street USA. THEY WILL STILL ATTACK US.
There are people and nations in the world that aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the World BURN. That's what we are fighting in this war, and it is beyond the ability of the socialist left to comprehend.
Pulling out of Iraq before we attack Iran will only lead to one thing. Car Bombs in the streets of America.
Now lets look at the Presidential race. OOOH what fun right now there is really nobody that I want to vote for. There is however several I would vote AGAINST.
The Main Stream Media should all be taken out and flogged. Not one of them will ask any of the candidates a real substantive question with a real follow up.
This election is probably the most important election we have faced since the 40s. The issue at stake in this election is not about the war. The war is a side issue that is being used as a distraction. The real issue in this Election is Socialism.
An Election that gives us a Democrat President is an election that drives the stake of communism into the capitalistic heart of the US.
In the name of the CHILDREN they will seize control of the health care system and with that control will dictate every aspect of our lives. Not to mention the amount of our earnings they will have to seize to even pretend to pay for it.
No matter how much they raise taxes it will not be enough to pay for socialized medicine. It has not been enough anywhere in the world where they have had it. It has collapsed economies all over Europe. Long before the economy collapses though rationing begins. If you smoke you are not entitled to any health care, if you eat trans fat you can't get heart medicine, if you drink your disqualified from any heart, liver, or intestinal care.
It is not well you'll have to pay more for this or more for that. It will be a simple NO. You smoke therefore you CHOSE to void your health care. You eat at McDonald's oops oh well your not covered. Hey the Government can't waste it's Health care Dollars on idiots that don't live the way they tell you to.
That's what this election is about.
If you watch or listen to these shows you should be required to either be on Meds or be ready to take some. No where else will you get to witness a better cavalcade of freaks, wackjobs, and con artists than on the Sunday Morning talking head shows.
The overall consensus is that the Republican party is headlong diving into permanent minority status, and the only thing that is preventing Hillary from being President is that the hanging chads have yet to be counted.
George Bush refuses to stop killing Iraqi's for his oil buddies and he wants American children to DIE from lack of Health care.
How did we ever reach the point where we are governed by these fools. The American public are the real fools because we allow these people to be presented to us as our only choices. We need to open up the Ballot, but that's a rant for another day.
The ONLY two subjects that matter at this point in time are the War, and the upcoming Presidential elections.
As for the War. No matter what the Democrats tell you or believe we can't win a war by retreating, and that's what they want to do. The Public is NOT weary of war, the public haven't even gotten invested in the war. Unless you have a family member that serves the war has not effected you one bit. The Democrats in Congress have made their platform the Peace, Love and Bobby Sherman, tune in, drop out, smoke dope, free love of the early 70s. Well guess what, it ain't the 70s and this ain't Vietnam.
We are at war with Islamofacism, They attacked us they have been attacking us since 1979. The power behind all Islamic Terrorism is Iran. They support and fund both Shia and Sunni, as long as you want to kill Jews and Americans they will give you what ever you need. They will continue to plot and kill Americans. Whether we are fighting them in the middle east, or if we are fighting them on main street USA. THEY WILL STILL ATTACK US.
There are people and nations in the world that aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the World BURN. That's what we are fighting in this war, and it is beyond the ability of the socialist left to comprehend.
Pulling out of Iraq before we attack Iran will only lead to one thing. Car Bombs in the streets of America.
Now lets look at the Presidential race. OOOH what fun right now there is really nobody that I want to vote for. There is however several I would vote AGAINST.
The Main Stream Media should all be taken out and flogged. Not one of them will ask any of the candidates a real substantive question with a real follow up.
This election is probably the most important election we have faced since the 40s. The issue at stake in this election is not about the war. The war is a side issue that is being used as a distraction. The real issue in this Election is Socialism.
An Election that gives us a Democrat President is an election that drives the stake of communism into the capitalistic heart of the US.
In the name of the CHILDREN they will seize control of the health care system and with that control will dictate every aspect of our lives. Not to mention the amount of our earnings they will have to seize to even pretend to pay for it.
No matter how much they raise taxes it will not be enough to pay for socialized medicine. It has not been enough anywhere in the world where they have had it. It has collapsed economies all over Europe. Long before the economy collapses though rationing begins. If you smoke you are not entitled to any health care, if you eat trans fat you can't get heart medicine, if you drink your disqualified from any heart, liver, or intestinal care.
It is not well you'll have to pay more for this or more for that. It will be a simple NO. You smoke therefore you CHOSE to void your health care. You eat at McDonald's oops oh well your not covered. Hey the Government can't waste it's Health care Dollars on idiots that don't live the way they tell you to.
That's what this election is about.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Blackwater the Lefts New Haliburton
Blackwater (RWC)
The Sept. 16 failed ambush of a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad’s Mansour district that resulted in the death of some Iraqis has also resulted in a firestorm of politically inspired and one-sided attacks on one of the best of the world’s military contractors: Blackwater, a company run and staffed by former special operations warriors who have been so efficient and skilled, so reliable and professional and aggressive in their protection of American diplomats and contractors in Iraq that not one of those Americans has ever been kidnapped or killed.
US intelligence reports say that al-Qaeda in Iraq has targeted US diplomats and CIA officers for priority assassination because of their headline value. Existing tensions between the State Department and the US military were exacerbated by last Sunday’s firefight. Those tensions were fueled by the sometimes unreliable and deeply corrupt Iraqi Ministry of Interior (MOI), more about which later. The US Department of Defense is now complaining that State doesn’t sufficiently “control” their personal security details (PSD’s), though DOD also employs Blackwater on dangerous missions.
The incident last Sunday began around noon when Blackwater’s PSD Team 4 was protecting a US diplomat at the Izdihar financial compound. A bomb planted in a nearby vehicle exploded. None of the Americans was injured and the diplomat was hustled away with help from Blackwater Tactical Support Team 22 (TST). A second force of Blackwater operatives (TST 23) raced from the nearby Green Zone to assist and, according to a “sensitive” report filed by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security that day, when they arrived nearby they came under fire from an “estimated 8-10 persons (who) fired from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi Police uniforms .” (My emphasis. The Iraqi police, and their uniforms, are under control of the MOI.)
The State Department report goes on: “The team returned defensive fire and attempted to drive out of the initial ambush site; however the team’s command Bearcat vehicle was disabled during the attack and could not continue.” Enemy gunfire was so furious that bullets striking the engine block of the armored vehicle caused it to fail.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the Iraqi MOI demanded that Blackwater be booted from the country and froze their activities without any investigation, immobilizing CIA officers and diplomats within the Green Zone. According to the journalist Richard Minter, writing on Pajamas Media, the CIA station was “all but motionless –as meetings with informants and the Iraqi government” were hastily cancelled. Blackwater also protects US reconstruction efforts across Iraq, the building of clinics, schools, etc., and so according to Minter these too were all but shut down.
Some Iraqi witnesses, a number of whom work for the Ministry of the Interior, told reporters that Blackwater began shooting civilians without provocation, a ludicrous scenario and one the Americans deny. The Blackwater contractors and the U.S. diplomats are saying the same thing: that the Blackwater men reacted lawfully after being provoked by the bomb blast and then defended themselves from a coordinated attack by men, some wearing police uniforms, firing automatic weapons. After a few days of serious paralysis, Blackwater went back to work in Iraq but the drumbeat to make them leave the country continues,
The New York Times says Blackwater men fire their weapons more often than any other contractor in Iraq. (That bullet count includes warning shots). It is true that the Blackwater operators are famously aggressive. They were precisely trained for survival and they work daily in the most lethal areas of Iraq, protecting Americans the insurgents want to kill.
Nonetheless, critics on the Left in the US, some of them in Congress, have rushed to side of the Iraqi witnesses to condemn Blackwater, however contrived the Iraqi statements may appear. Some of them are calling for repeal of Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17, the decree that, they claim, puts foreign security contractors beyond the reach of Iraqi law.
But Order 17 only excuses contractors from Iraqi laws when the action in question is required to fulfill a contract. In other words, despite several news articles stating otherwise, crimes like rape, murder, and theft can be tried under Iraqi law. Private security contractors like Blackwater are bound by a number of U.S. statutes, international treaties, federal acquisition laws, and defense and trade controls regulations (the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, the War Crimes Act, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, the Anti-Torture Statute, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.) If the military contractor is working for the US Department of Defense, as some Blackwater men are, they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Military contractors not in violation of any of the above are not bound by Iraqi law, nor are members of the US military. Iraq is still a mess and government corruption is as common as roadside bombs and starving dogs. Any decision to revoke Order 17 would effectively shut down private security companies, which is likely the real goal of many on the Left who have rushed this case to judgment, and another 50,000 or more US military troops would have to take their place. Not good. Fact is, private security firms are essential to solving the long term problems of Iraq.
Congressman Henry Waxman, the liberal Democrat from Los Angeles, held hearings this week whose purpose was as political as it was investigatory. Waxman is chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Waxman and some of his fellow Democrats are blaming the State Department for failing to “restrain” Blackwater in Iraq, though the evidence is that Blackwater has actually policed itself in what is a very tou9gh, unpredictable business. Blackwater has about 1,000 employees highly trained employees in Iraq there and the company has fired or dismissed more than 100 for various infractions or misbehaviors under the State Department contract.
Blackwater is a company that has become strikingly successful over the past few years. That success is infuriating to the organized Left which loathes everything about the company that others have thought was cool: its cryptic, dangerous-sounding name, its private air force, its huge North Carolina training base, its bear paw logo. (In Paris, shops sell women’s panties and bras with Blackwater and its logo on them). Blackwater’s lantern-jawed, close-cropped, sky-diving, special Ops patriotic American image makes the extreme Left even crazier.
The Nation magazine crowd has worked themselves into a spitting fit over Blackwater, demonizing it through a media campaign that started about a year ago with a young, weasely, left-wing polemicist in the lead. First came repeated personal attacks on Blackwater’s “right-wing Christian” founder, a decent, and honest ex-Navy SEAL named Erik Prince. Even NPR, on a story about Blackwater referred to its founder as "a Christian”.
The polemical assaults were launched on anti-American blogs and Marxist/socialist websites (Workers World, for example,) and dumb, pompous, left-wing radio shows like “Democracy Now” and by the proselytizing of liberals of the Huffington Post/ Jon Stewart variety, who had succumbed to McCarthyite Bushophobia some time ago. The left has successfully moved its corporate objectification from the evil of Haliburton to the evil of Blackwater.
Posted by Richard Carlson
The Sept. 16 failed ambush of a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad’s Mansour district that resulted in the death of some Iraqis has also resulted in a firestorm of politically inspired and one-sided attacks on one of the best of the world’s military contractors: Blackwater, a company run and staffed by former special operations warriors who have been so efficient and skilled, so reliable and professional and aggressive in their protection of American diplomats and contractors in Iraq that not one of those Americans has ever been kidnapped or killed.
US intelligence reports say that al-Qaeda in Iraq has targeted US diplomats and CIA officers for priority assassination because of their headline value. Existing tensions between the State Department and the US military were exacerbated by last Sunday’s firefight. Those tensions were fueled by the sometimes unreliable and deeply corrupt Iraqi Ministry of Interior (MOI), more about which later. The US Department of Defense is now complaining that State doesn’t sufficiently “control” their personal security details (PSD’s), though DOD also employs Blackwater on dangerous missions.
The incident last Sunday began around noon when Blackwater’s PSD Team 4 was protecting a US diplomat at the Izdihar financial compound. A bomb planted in a nearby vehicle exploded. None of the Americans was injured and the diplomat was hustled away with help from Blackwater Tactical Support Team 22 (TST). A second force of Blackwater operatives (TST 23) raced from the nearby Green Zone to assist and, according to a “sensitive” report filed by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security that day, when they arrived nearby they came under fire from an “estimated 8-10 persons (who) fired from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi Police uniforms .” (My emphasis. The Iraqi police, and their uniforms, are under control of the MOI.)
The State Department report goes on: “The team returned defensive fire and attempted to drive out of the initial ambush site; however the team’s command Bearcat vehicle was disabled during the attack and could not continue.” Enemy gunfire was so furious that bullets striking the engine block of the armored vehicle caused it to fail.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the Iraqi MOI demanded that Blackwater be booted from the country and froze their activities without any investigation, immobilizing CIA officers and diplomats within the Green Zone. According to the journalist Richard Minter, writing on Pajamas Media, the CIA station was “all but motionless –as meetings with informants and the Iraqi government” were hastily cancelled. Blackwater also protects US reconstruction efforts across Iraq, the building of clinics, schools, etc., and so according to Minter these too were all but shut down.
Some Iraqi witnesses, a number of whom work for the Ministry of the Interior, told reporters that Blackwater began shooting civilians without provocation, a ludicrous scenario and one the Americans deny. The Blackwater contractors and the U.S. diplomats are saying the same thing: that the Blackwater men reacted lawfully after being provoked by the bomb blast and then defended themselves from a coordinated attack by men, some wearing police uniforms, firing automatic weapons. After a few days of serious paralysis, Blackwater went back to work in Iraq but the drumbeat to make them leave the country continues,
The New York Times says Blackwater men fire their weapons more often than any other contractor in Iraq. (That bullet count includes warning shots). It is true that the Blackwater operators are famously aggressive. They were precisely trained for survival and they work daily in the most lethal areas of Iraq, protecting Americans the insurgents want to kill.
Nonetheless, critics on the Left in the US, some of them in Congress, have rushed to side of the Iraqi witnesses to condemn Blackwater, however contrived the Iraqi statements may appear. Some of them are calling for repeal of Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17, the decree that, they claim, puts foreign security contractors beyond the reach of Iraqi law.
But Order 17 only excuses contractors from Iraqi laws when the action in question is required to fulfill a contract. In other words, despite several news articles stating otherwise, crimes like rape, murder, and theft can be tried under Iraqi law. Private security contractors like Blackwater are bound by a number of U.S. statutes, international treaties, federal acquisition laws, and defense and trade controls regulations (the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, the War Crimes Act, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, the Anti-Torture Statute, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.) If the military contractor is working for the US Department of Defense, as some Blackwater men are, they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Military contractors not in violation of any of the above are not bound by Iraqi law, nor are members of the US military. Iraq is still a mess and government corruption is as common as roadside bombs and starving dogs. Any decision to revoke Order 17 would effectively shut down private security companies, which is likely the real goal of many on the Left who have rushed this case to judgment, and another 50,000 or more US military troops would have to take their place. Not good. Fact is, private security firms are essential to solving the long term problems of Iraq.
Congressman Henry Waxman, the liberal Democrat from Los Angeles, held hearings this week whose purpose was as political as it was investigatory. Waxman is chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Waxman and some of his fellow Democrats are blaming the State Department for failing to “restrain” Blackwater in Iraq, though the evidence is that Blackwater has actually policed itself in what is a very tou9gh, unpredictable business. Blackwater has about 1,000 employees highly trained employees in Iraq there and the company has fired or dismissed more than 100 for various infractions or misbehaviors under the State Department contract.
Blackwater is a company that has become strikingly successful over the past few years. That success is infuriating to the organized Left which loathes everything about the company that others have thought was cool: its cryptic, dangerous-sounding name, its private air force, its huge North Carolina training base, its bear paw logo. (In Paris, shops sell women’s panties and bras with Blackwater and its logo on them). Blackwater’s lantern-jawed, close-cropped, sky-diving, special Ops patriotic American image makes the extreme Left even crazier.
The Nation magazine crowd has worked themselves into a spitting fit over Blackwater, demonizing it through a media campaign that started about a year ago with a young, weasely, left-wing polemicist in the lead. First came repeated personal attacks on Blackwater’s “right-wing Christian” founder, a decent, and honest ex-Navy SEAL named Erik Prince. Even NPR, on a story about Blackwater referred to its founder as "a Christian”.
The polemical assaults were launched on anti-American blogs and Marxist/socialist websites (Workers World, for example,) and dumb, pompous, left-wing radio shows like “Democracy Now” and by the proselytizing of liberals of the Huffington Post/ Jon Stewart variety, who had succumbed to McCarthyite Bushophobia some time ago. The left has successfully moved its corporate objectification from the evil of Haliburton to the evil of Blackwater.
Posted by Richard Carlson
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Mad Dog Murtha should testify.
Article from Politico is Wrong...
The following article was written by John Bresnahan from the Politico blog. He doesn't support Mad Dog in the post but does provide him cover by getting the issue completely wrong.
Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case
A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.
Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' during the Haditha incident. Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy over his comments.
According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident.
From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?'' Collyer said, adding later, ''How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"
Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.
Therefore, this case should have been dismissed, and I hope it will be. It's not that I agree with what Murtha said. I don't know enough about the incident to have an opinion whether Wuterich or the other Marines did anything improper or illegal. But Murtha has a right to say what he did under the Speech or Debate Clause, even if he was wrong about what happened. When we start restricting what members and senators can say in the performance of their jobs, then we are really in trouble as a country.
Update: There is a lot of confusion on the Speech or Debate Clause among Crypt readers, lawmakers, lawyers, public officials and the world at large, so I will try to explain it a little bit.
The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect members, senators or staff from arrest for a crime, and I am not suggesting that it does. If a member of Congress were to rob a bank or steal a car, he or she can be arrested and prosecuted for that crime. They have no constitutional privilege shielding them from the law on that front.
In addition, a lawmaker could libel someone if he or she were acting as a private citizen. That is entirely possible. Say I am a car dealer who sells Congressman X a new car, but he is unhappy about his purchase. Congressman X holds a press conference to announce to the world that I am "a damned crook who steals from everyone I sell cars to or have any other dealings with," including my own mother. It is obvious that I can sue Congressman X for libel based on the fact that our interaction had nothing to do with his official duties as a member of Congress, but rather as Private Citizen X. He has no constitutional privilege there.
But what Murtha did was comment on an incident involving Wuterich and other Marines at a press conference and in a follow-up TV interview. These interviews were related to his opposition to the Iraq war. The courts have found that such press-related activities are a normal part of the duties of a member of Congress, and are therefore covered by the Speech or Debate Clause. Murtha did not have to be on the floor of the House making a speech in order to enjoy the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. My apologies to the commenters who believe otherwise, but you are incorrect on that front. Read up on the case of former Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) and his comments about a mosque near his home, and you'll see what I'm saying.
Update 2 - To those who commented that the Ballenger was dismissed on grounds other than Speech or Debate, you are right. I cited the Ballenger case as an example of how courts have ruled that a member giving a press conference or answering questions in a TV interview is considered within the scope of official duties of a lawmaker, not as an example of the Speech or Debate Clause. I should have made that clearer in my earlier comments.
In addition, Murtha said what he said about Haditha using information he received from Defense Dept. officials as the then ranking member of the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. This information was gleaned from his contacts inside the Pentagon, contacts he has made as a member of Congress for the last 35 years (Murtha was elected to the House in 1972).
Therefore. his comments are covered by the Speech or Debate Clause, and he cannot be charged with defaming Wuterich or anyone else. I am not saying Murtha is correct in what he said about Wuterich and his fellow Marines. I do not know whether his statement was accurate or not, and it would probably have been better if he'd never made ir. But Murtha clearly had the right to say it, and hopefully this decision will be overturned on appeal.
One final note -- Wuterich may end up standing trial soon over his role in the death of 17 Iraqi civilians in the Nov. 19, 2005, incident in Haditha. If he were to go on trial and be found guilty of some crime in that case, then this lawsuit against Murtha would go away as well. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel, as any first year law or journalism student knows. I am not saying it will happen, and Wuterich is innocent of any wrongdoing as far as I know. But if it does happen, his legal action against Murtha would disappear. And my guess is that Wuterich's fate will likely be decided before this lawsuit is resolved.
So, to restate what I said before, this is a very bad ruling by a judge who is clearly unfamiliar with how the Speech or Debate Clause works. I hope the decision is appealed by the Justice Dept. (which has represented Murtha in this lawsuit) or the House general counsel's office and overturned. It is a legally unsound precedent and should be reversed as soon as possible.
By John Bresnahan 05:53 PM
Here is the Clause in question as it appears in that Bothersome Document the Constitution.
Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Mad Dog Murtha was NOT on the Floor of the House when his comments were made. This clause in NO WAY gives any member of Congress freedom from prosecution for liable or defamation of a soldier. He was in NO WAY performing ANY of his duties as a member of the House, unless we are willing to admit that a duty of a member of congress is to use raw privileged (probably classified) data to make a purely political attack on ANYONE that represents an opposing view of your party.
If anything this clause spells out exactly a reason to prosecute Murtha. Mad Dog with his statements and actions regarding the Marines involved in the Haditha incident is in Violation of "Breach of the Peace". Not only are his statements prosecutable but they very well could have incited attacks on those Marines and were used by the enemy to incite attacks on our other Military personnel.
Murtha should be tried and brought up on articles of impeachment for violating the very clause that he uses as his defense. Soldiers were attacked and died because of Mad Dog Murthas statements. Al-Qaeda used his words for recruitment. Murtha was also both Trying and Convicting these Marines in the court of public opinion, inciting his base to attack our soldiers as they did Vietnam Vets. That's a Breach of the Peace!
The following article was written by John Bresnahan from the Politico blog. He doesn't support Mad Dog in the post but does provide him cover by getting the issue completely wrong.
Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case
A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.
Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' during the Haditha incident. Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy over his comments.
According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident.
From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?'' Collyer said, adding later, ''How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"
Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.
Therefore, this case should have been dismissed, and I hope it will be. It's not that I agree with what Murtha said. I don't know enough about the incident to have an opinion whether Wuterich or the other Marines did anything improper or illegal. But Murtha has a right to say what he did under the Speech or Debate Clause, even if he was wrong about what happened. When we start restricting what members and senators can say in the performance of their jobs, then we are really in trouble as a country.
Update: There is a lot of confusion on the Speech or Debate Clause among Crypt readers, lawmakers, lawyers, public officials and the world at large, so I will try to explain it a little bit.
The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect members, senators or staff from arrest for a crime, and I am not suggesting that it does. If a member of Congress were to rob a bank or steal a car, he or she can be arrested and prosecuted for that crime. They have no constitutional privilege shielding them from the law on that front.
In addition, a lawmaker could libel someone if he or she were acting as a private citizen. That is entirely possible. Say I am a car dealer who sells Congressman X a new car, but he is unhappy about his purchase. Congressman X holds a press conference to announce to the world that I am "a damned crook who steals from everyone I sell cars to or have any other dealings with," including my own mother. It is obvious that I can sue Congressman X for libel based on the fact that our interaction had nothing to do with his official duties as a member of Congress, but rather as Private Citizen X. He has no constitutional privilege there.
But what Murtha did was comment on an incident involving Wuterich and other Marines at a press conference and in a follow-up TV interview. These interviews were related to his opposition to the Iraq war. The courts have found that such press-related activities are a normal part of the duties of a member of Congress, and are therefore covered by the Speech or Debate Clause. Murtha did not have to be on the floor of the House making a speech in order to enjoy the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. My apologies to the commenters who believe otherwise, but you are incorrect on that front. Read up on the case of former Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) and his comments about a mosque near his home, and you'll see what I'm saying.
Update 2 - To those who commented that the Ballenger was dismissed on grounds other than Speech or Debate, you are right. I cited the Ballenger case as an example of how courts have ruled that a member giving a press conference or answering questions in a TV interview is considered within the scope of official duties of a lawmaker, not as an example of the Speech or Debate Clause. I should have made that clearer in my earlier comments.
In addition, Murtha said what he said about Haditha using information he received from Defense Dept. officials as the then ranking member of the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. This information was gleaned from his contacts inside the Pentagon, contacts he has made as a member of Congress for the last 35 years (Murtha was elected to the House in 1972).
Therefore. his comments are covered by the Speech or Debate Clause, and he cannot be charged with defaming Wuterich or anyone else. I am not saying Murtha is correct in what he said about Wuterich and his fellow Marines. I do not know whether his statement was accurate or not, and it would probably have been better if he'd never made ir. But Murtha clearly had the right to say it, and hopefully this decision will be overturned on appeal.
One final note -- Wuterich may end up standing trial soon over his role in the death of 17 Iraqi civilians in the Nov. 19, 2005, incident in Haditha. If he were to go on trial and be found guilty of some crime in that case, then this lawsuit against Murtha would go away as well. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel, as any first year law or journalism student knows. I am not saying it will happen, and Wuterich is innocent of any wrongdoing as far as I know. But if it does happen, his legal action against Murtha would disappear. And my guess is that Wuterich's fate will likely be decided before this lawsuit is resolved.
So, to restate what I said before, this is a very bad ruling by a judge who is clearly unfamiliar with how the Speech or Debate Clause works. I hope the decision is appealed by the Justice Dept. (which has represented Murtha in this lawsuit) or the House general counsel's office and overturned. It is a legally unsound precedent and should be reversed as soon as possible.
By John Bresnahan 05:53 PM
Here is the Clause in question as it appears in that Bothersome Document the Constitution.
Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Mad Dog Murtha was NOT on the Floor of the House when his comments were made. This clause in NO WAY gives any member of Congress freedom from prosecution for liable or defamation of a soldier. He was in NO WAY performing ANY of his duties as a member of the House, unless we are willing to admit that a duty of a member of congress is to use raw privileged (probably classified) data to make a purely political attack on ANYONE that represents an opposing view of your party.
If anything this clause spells out exactly a reason to prosecute Murtha. Mad Dog with his statements and actions regarding the Marines involved in the Haditha incident is in Violation of "Breach of the Peace". Not only are his statements prosecutable but they very well could have incited attacks on those Marines and were used by the enemy to incite attacks on our other Military personnel.
Murtha should be tried and brought up on articles of impeachment for violating the very clause that he uses as his defense. Soldiers were attacked and died because of Mad Dog Murthas statements. Al-Qaeda used his words for recruitment. Murtha was also both Trying and Convicting these Marines in the court of public opinion, inciting his base to attack our soldiers as they did Vietnam Vets. That's a Breach of the Peace!
Monday, September 24, 2007
PEARLS BEFORE SWINE
PARTY CRASHER
By NEWT GINGRICH
September 23, 2007 -- The decision of the leading Republican candidates for president to skip the debate being organized by African-American talk show host Tavis Smiley this week is shortsighted, not just for the party but for the country.
Contrary to what candidates in either party may think, the political dividing line in America doesn’t run between the GOP and minorities. For most Americans, it’s not even found between Republicans and Democrats, or the red-versus-blue-state invention of the media.
The real division is between hardworking, tax-paying Americans - of both parties and all races - and an entrenched, permanent governing system in Washington and state capitals designed to serve its own needs and not the needs of the American people.
Over the 42 years since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the increasing power of public employee unions, the growth of the bureaucracies, the rise of lawyers, the development of complex regulatory legalism, and the entrenchment of an elite establishment that imposes political correctness have combined to create this permanent governing class system.
And the values of this permanent government are not those of the Americans who pay the taxes and the union dues that support it. Its bureaucracies value process more than achievement; its lawyers value rules over results; and its politically correct elite value avoiding embarrassment more than telling the truth about failure.
In stark contrast, the American people, regardless of race and party affiliation, are overwhelmingly united on key values and on the need for real change in the way America governs itself.
American Solutions for Winning the Future is a new, nonpartisan organization I created that is built around three goals: to defend America and our allies and defeat our enemies, to strengthen and revitalize America’s core values and principles, and to move the government into the 21st century. Our research found that 86 percent of Americans agree that there are key values such as family, freedom, faith and work ethic that unite a large majority of us. And this support for basic American principles is true across the board. Among African-Americans, 78 percent agree, as do 79 percent of Hispanic Americans, that we have such unifying values.
Ninety-two percent of Americans believe that we need to provide long-term solutions instead of short-term fixes.
Eighty-four percent - including 81 percent of African-Americans and 78 percent of Hispanics - believe the scale of change we need is bigger than the presidency and has to involve citizens and public officials at all levels of government.
And a full 74 percent of Americans support changing the way government works by bringing in ideas successfully used in the private sector.
PERMANENT PROBLEMS
Democracies fail when the values of the voters are so clearly at odds with the values of the permanent governing establishment who control the nation’s and the states’ capitals. How did we get to this point?
We’ve witnessed failure after failure of the permanent government: failure to secure the border; failure to adequately respond to Hurricane Katrina; failures in implementation in Iraq and Afghanistan; failure to control the grotesque explosion of congressional pork; failure to make our urban school systems produce educated children; failure to make English the official language of government; failure to balance the federal budget; failure to fix our healthcare delivery system; and failure to reform - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
These failures of the permanent government are clearly unacceptable to most Americans. But for the permanent government and its interest group allies, the system works just fine because it serves their needs.
For example, from the standpoint of the bureaucracy, the Detroit public schools are a great success, which they prove every time they issue a check. To think the bureaucracy would be horrified over its catastrophically low graduation rate that destroys young lives would assume that their most important metric is how well they serve the students.
Changing Detroit’s dismal performance will not be possible without citizen intervention and their insistence for accountability and the leverage needed to ensure accountability. Detroit parents must be given immediate recourse for underperforming or failing schools beyond waiting for the next election.
One idea for fundamental change would be to give parents the leverage they need by allowing them to take their child out of a failing school and put them into a performing school. The money to educate that child would go with the child to the new school thus giving the parents the leverage and the schools the incentive to perform. Without both leverage and incentives, no change is possible. But the fact is that neither exist today in the Detroit public school system.
This system of self-reinforcing power can never be reformed from within. Change, if it is to come, must come from without.
HEALTH-CARE FOLLIES
The problem is that our current political system is tragically ill-equipped to bring about fundamental change and not just in Detroit but throughout America’s aging and increasingly ineffective bureaucracies.
The model for our bureaucracies were invented in the later 19th century and codified into law during the 1930s. While they worked marginally well in the agrarian and industrial ages, they are increasingly inadequate for the information age.
Health care provides one of the most vivid examples. In health care, there exist few, if any, of the required elements for well-served consumers: products and services of higher quality with more choices, at the lowest cost and with the greatest convenience. Yet, at the moment we need to innovate and transform health care, we have proposals from presidential candidates based upon this now failed model and moves instead toward a Washington bureaucratic-controlled healthcare system.
We need to go in the opposite direction by putting citizens in the driver’s seat by making the price and quality of health-care services transparent so that they can make informed choices.
Florida has already posted pharmacy drug prices online so consumers can compare prices. They have also posted hospital medical procedure prices and their outcomes.
There are many solutions to both improve health care and lower the cost. Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are a good start. But even more price-lowering, quality-improving competitive elements are needed like cross-state insurance purchasing so that health consumers can choose a policy from anywhere in the country that makes sense for them. Getting as many people insured as possible would have enormous benefits to health-care price and quality, and we could insure a substantial number of today’s uninsured by providing a refundable tax credits so the poor can purchase health insurance.
A NEW WAY
In all areas that challenge our nation, we need collaborative, citizen-based solutions, but our political process is designed to give us consultant-led partisan warfare.
We need dramatically new ideas, but the system is designed to give us safe, poll-tested sound bites.
We need a genuine dialogue that transcends party and race, but the system gives us bitterly partisan, highly choreographed political theater and calls it “debate.”
And when someone dares to depart even slightly from the current debate formula - as Tavis Smiley did when he invited Republican candidates to an African-American-organized debate - the front-runners discover that they have “scheduling conflicts.”
For their part, the Democrats are no better. The major Democratic candidates would rather the people not hear their views than attend a debate sponsored by the Fox News Network. Like the Republicans, they’d rather play it safe than risk a genuine conversation about our future.
What America needs in 2008 is the opposite of modern political campaigning.
This requires the creation and sustaining of a citizens movement that reaches out beyond the presidency to the more than 500,000 elected officials at every level of government, from school boards to the White House. To begin the process of creating such a movement, my organization, American Solutions, will hold a series of nationwide workshops on the challenges facing America this Thursday and Saturday, the 13th anniversary of the Contract with America (americansolutions.com).
In substance, this requires reclaiming our country from the permanent governing elite and some difficult choices for both parties.
For Democrats, it means taking positions that may alienate key interest groups but will appeal to a majority of Americans. For instance, the Democratic Party cannot support the overwhelmingly popular positions like controlling the border, English as the official language of government, consumer-based health care, and providing parents who have kids in failing schools with an education coupon redeemable for a good education at another school because their leftist interest groups will not allow them to.
For Republicans, it means offering a clean break from the status quo. The model for the GOP comes from - of all places - France. There, newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy demonstrated that it is possible to produce a decisive election victory in favor of more conservative reform. His most “radical” proposal was to let workers be able to work overtime tax free. This allowed him to stake out a positive position to entice workers who traditionally looked to the Socialist Party to support their interests.
It remains to be seen which political party can create the next governing majority. The time is right for bold leadership that recognizes that in order for America to succeed, the entrenched, permanent government in Washington and our state capitals can and must be defeated. If it sounds like a tall order, that’s because it is. But here’s a modest start: Democrats agree to debate on Fox News, and Republicans agree to debate with Tavis Smiley.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is the chairman of American Solutions and author of “Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8” (St. Martins Press)
By NEWT GINGRICH
September 23, 2007 -- The decision of the leading Republican candidates for president to skip the debate being organized by African-American talk show host Tavis Smiley this week is shortsighted, not just for the party but for the country.
Contrary to what candidates in either party may think, the political dividing line in America doesn’t run between the GOP and minorities. For most Americans, it’s not even found between Republicans and Democrats, or the red-versus-blue-state invention of the media.
The real division is between hardworking, tax-paying Americans - of both parties and all races - and an entrenched, permanent governing system in Washington and state capitals designed to serve its own needs and not the needs of the American people.
Over the 42 years since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the increasing power of public employee unions, the growth of the bureaucracies, the rise of lawyers, the development of complex regulatory legalism, and the entrenchment of an elite establishment that imposes political correctness have combined to create this permanent governing class system.
And the values of this permanent government are not those of the Americans who pay the taxes and the union dues that support it. Its bureaucracies value process more than achievement; its lawyers value rules over results; and its politically correct elite value avoiding embarrassment more than telling the truth about failure.
In stark contrast, the American people, regardless of race and party affiliation, are overwhelmingly united on key values and on the need for real change in the way America governs itself.
American Solutions for Winning the Future is a new, nonpartisan organization I created that is built around three goals: to defend America and our allies and defeat our enemies, to strengthen and revitalize America’s core values and principles, and to move the government into the 21st century. Our research found that 86 percent of Americans agree that there are key values such as family, freedom, faith and work ethic that unite a large majority of us. And this support for basic American principles is true across the board. Among African-Americans, 78 percent agree, as do 79 percent of Hispanic Americans, that we have such unifying values.
Ninety-two percent of Americans believe that we need to provide long-term solutions instead of short-term fixes.
Eighty-four percent - including 81 percent of African-Americans and 78 percent of Hispanics - believe the scale of change we need is bigger than the presidency and has to involve citizens and public officials at all levels of government.
And a full 74 percent of Americans support changing the way government works by bringing in ideas successfully used in the private sector.
PERMANENT PROBLEMS
Democracies fail when the values of the voters are so clearly at odds with the values of the permanent governing establishment who control the nation’s and the states’ capitals. How did we get to this point?
We’ve witnessed failure after failure of the permanent government: failure to secure the border; failure to adequately respond to Hurricane Katrina; failures in implementation in Iraq and Afghanistan; failure to control the grotesque explosion of congressional pork; failure to make our urban school systems produce educated children; failure to make English the official language of government; failure to balance the federal budget; failure to fix our healthcare delivery system; and failure to reform - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
These failures of the permanent government are clearly unacceptable to most Americans. But for the permanent government and its interest group allies, the system works just fine because it serves their needs.
For example, from the standpoint of the bureaucracy, the Detroit public schools are a great success, which they prove every time they issue a check. To think the bureaucracy would be horrified over its catastrophically low graduation rate that destroys young lives would assume that their most important metric is how well they serve the students.
Changing Detroit’s dismal performance will not be possible without citizen intervention and their insistence for accountability and the leverage needed to ensure accountability. Detroit parents must be given immediate recourse for underperforming or failing schools beyond waiting for the next election.
One idea for fundamental change would be to give parents the leverage they need by allowing them to take their child out of a failing school and put them into a performing school. The money to educate that child would go with the child to the new school thus giving the parents the leverage and the schools the incentive to perform. Without both leverage and incentives, no change is possible. But the fact is that neither exist today in the Detroit public school system.
This system of self-reinforcing power can never be reformed from within. Change, if it is to come, must come from without.
HEALTH-CARE FOLLIES
The problem is that our current political system is tragically ill-equipped to bring about fundamental change and not just in Detroit but throughout America’s aging and increasingly ineffective bureaucracies.
The model for our bureaucracies were invented in the later 19th century and codified into law during the 1930s. While they worked marginally well in the agrarian and industrial ages, they are increasingly inadequate for the information age.
Health care provides one of the most vivid examples. In health care, there exist few, if any, of the required elements for well-served consumers: products and services of higher quality with more choices, at the lowest cost and with the greatest convenience. Yet, at the moment we need to innovate and transform health care, we have proposals from presidential candidates based upon this now failed model and moves instead toward a Washington bureaucratic-controlled healthcare system.
We need to go in the opposite direction by putting citizens in the driver’s seat by making the price and quality of health-care services transparent so that they can make informed choices.
Florida has already posted pharmacy drug prices online so consumers can compare prices. They have also posted hospital medical procedure prices and their outcomes.
There are many solutions to both improve health care and lower the cost. Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are a good start. But even more price-lowering, quality-improving competitive elements are needed like cross-state insurance purchasing so that health consumers can choose a policy from anywhere in the country that makes sense for them. Getting as many people insured as possible would have enormous benefits to health-care price and quality, and we could insure a substantial number of today’s uninsured by providing a refundable tax credits so the poor can purchase health insurance.
A NEW WAY
In all areas that challenge our nation, we need collaborative, citizen-based solutions, but our political process is designed to give us consultant-led partisan warfare.
We need dramatically new ideas, but the system is designed to give us safe, poll-tested sound bites.
We need a genuine dialogue that transcends party and race, but the system gives us bitterly partisan, highly choreographed political theater and calls it “debate.”
And when someone dares to depart even slightly from the current debate formula - as Tavis Smiley did when he invited Republican candidates to an African-American-organized debate - the front-runners discover that they have “scheduling conflicts.”
For their part, the Democrats are no better. The major Democratic candidates would rather the people not hear their views than attend a debate sponsored by the Fox News Network. Like the Republicans, they’d rather play it safe than risk a genuine conversation about our future.
What America needs in 2008 is the opposite of modern political campaigning.
This requires the creation and sustaining of a citizens movement that reaches out beyond the presidency to the more than 500,000 elected officials at every level of government, from school boards to the White House. To begin the process of creating such a movement, my organization, American Solutions, will hold a series of nationwide workshops on the challenges facing America this Thursday and Saturday, the 13th anniversary of the Contract with America (americansolutions.com).
In substance, this requires reclaiming our country from the permanent governing elite and some difficult choices for both parties.
For Democrats, it means taking positions that may alienate key interest groups but will appeal to a majority of Americans. For instance, the Democratic Party cannot support the overwhelmingly popular positions like controlling the border, English as the official language of government, consumer-based health care, and providing parents who have kids in failing schools with an education coupon redeemable for a good education at another school because their leftist interest groups will not allow them to.
For Republicans, it means offering a clean break from the status quo. The model for the GOP comes from - of all places - France. There, newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy demonstrated that it is possible to produce a decisive election victory in favor of more conservative reform. His most “radical” proposal was to let workers be able to work overtime tax free. This allowed him to stake out a positive position to entice workers who traditionally looked to the Socialist Party to support their interests.
It remains to be seen which political party can create the next governing majority. The time is right for bold leadership that recognizes that in order for America to succeed, the entrenched, permanent government in Washington and our state capitals can and must be defeated. If it sounds like a tall order, that’s because it is. But here’s a modest start: Democrats agree to debate on Fox News, and Republicans agree to debate with Tavis Smiley.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is the chairman of American Solutions and author of “Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8” (St. Martins Press)
Sunday, September 23, 2007
DEATH TO AMERICA....
Iran's Ahmadinejad issues new threats against Israel, U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY ADAM NICHOLS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, September 23rd 2007, 4:00 AM
On the eve of his trip to New York City, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood before a banner blaring "Death to America," showed off his military might and declared his extremist regime will not bow to Western pressure.
"Those who think, that by using such decayed tools as psychological warfare and economic sanctions, they can stop the Iranian nation's progress are making a mistake," Ahmadinejad said yesterday outside of Tehran.
As the hatemonger spoke, a parade of anti-aircraft guns, missiles and military hardware moved before him. Three jet fighters flew overhead.
In a menacing move, Ahmadinejad's military henchmen said the medium-range missiles could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf.
Ahmadinejad, who is coming to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly, is expected to land at Kennedy Airport today.
The White House and U.S. military leaders have accused Iran of supplying training and weapons to terrorists who are attacking and killing U.S. troops in Iraq.
Large protests will greet Ahmadinejad - an accused terrorist, Holocaust denier and member of the Axis of Evil - when he speaks at Columbia University on Monday and when he addresses the UN Tuesday.
Ahmadinejad sparked outrage last week by requesting an official tour of Ground Zero. The proposed visit, which was promptly rejected by the NYPD, sickened victims' relatives and U.S. leaders.
Ahmadinejad said he was "amazed" by the negative reaction. But he has said he will abandon his plans to lay a wreath on the hallowed ground where nearly 3,000 people were killed by terrorists - an attack he has suggested was an inside job carried out by U.S. intelligence agents.
Columbia has refused to cancel Ahmadinejad's appearance at its School of International and Public Affairs. University President Lee Bollinger has vowed to challenge Ahmadinejad on his denial of the Holocaust, his alleged sponsorship of terrorism, his pursuit of nuclear weapons and the imprisonment of journalists and scholars in Iran.
But several political leaders and religious groups have slammed Columbia for inviting the madman to mouth off.
"Anyone who supports terror, pledges to destroy a sovereign nation [Israel], punishes by death anyone who 'insults' religion ... denies the Holocaust and thumbs his nose at the international community has no legitimate role to play at a university," Catholic League President Bill Donohue said.
The State Department has issued Ahmadinejad an extremely restrictive C-2 visa. It lasts 29 days and the holder must remain within a 25-mile radius of Columbus Circle.
The NYPD and a Secret Service detail will accompany Ahmadinejad during his visit - and protect him despite his repeated threats against the U.S.
At the military parade in Iran yesterday, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said Western powers would regret it if they attacked the Islamic republic over Tehran's nuclear activities.
"They will regret it, as they are regretting it in Iraq," Jafari said.
Asked how Iran would respond if a neighboring country let its territory be used to launch attacks, Jafari said, "You have seen the missiles - just pull the trigger and shoot."
anichols@nydailynews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY ADAM NICHOLS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, September 23rd 2007, 4:00 AM
On the eve of his trip to New York City, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood before a banner blaring "Death to America," showed off his military might and declared his extremist regime will not bow to Western pressure.
"Those who think, that by using such decayed tools as psychological warfare and economic sanctions, they can stop the Iranian nation's progress are making a mistake," Ahmadinejad said yesterday outside of Tehran.
As the hatemonger spoke, a parade of anti-aircraft guns, missiles and military hardware moved before him. Three jet fighters flew overhead.
In a menacing move, Ahmadinejad's military henchmen said the medium-range missiles could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf.
Ahmadinejad, who is coming to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly, is expected to land at Kennedy Airport today.
The White House and U.S. military leaders have accused Iran of supplying training and weapons to terrorists who are attacking and killing U.S. troops in Iraq.
Large protests will greet Ahmadinejad - an accused terrorist, Holocaust denier and member of the Axis of Evil - when he speaks at Columbia University on Monday and when he addresses the UN Tuesday.
Ahmadinejad sparked outrage last week by requesting an official tour of Ground Zero. The proposed visit, which was promptly rejected by the NYPD, sickened victims' relatives and U.S. leaders.
Ahmadinejad said he was "amazed" by the negative reaction. But he has said he will abandon his plans to lay a wreath on the hallowed ground where nearly 3,000 people were killed by terrorists - an attack he has suggested was an inside job carried out by U.S. intelligence agents.
Columbia has refused to cancel Ahmadinejad's appearance at its School of International and Public Affairs. University President Lee Bollinger has vowed to challenge Ahmadinejad on his denial of the Holocaust, his alleged sponsorship of terrorism, his pursuit of nuclear weapons and the imprisonment of journalists and scholars in Iran.
But several political leaders and religious groups have slammed Columbia for inviting the madman to mouth off.
"Anyone who supports terror, pledges to destroy a sovereign nation [Israel], punishes by death anyone who 'insults' religion ... denies the Holocaust and thumbs his nose at the international community has no legitimate role to play at a university," Catholic League President Bill Donohue said.
The State Department has issued Ahmadinejad an extremely restrictive C-2 visa. It lasts 29 days and the holder must remain within a 25-mile radius of Columbus Circle.
The NYPD and a Secret Service detail will accompany Ahmadinejad during his visit - and protect him despite his repeated threats against the U.S.
At the military parade in Iran yesterday, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said Western powers would regret it if they attacked the Islamic republic over Tehran's nuclear activities.
"They will regret it, as they are regretting it in Iraq," Jafari said.
Asked how Iran would respond if a neighboring country let its territory be used to launch attacks, Jafari said, "You have seen the missiles - just pull the trigger and shoot."
anichols@nydailynews.com
Report: IDF raid seized nuclear material before Syria air strike
By Haaretz Service
Israel Defense Forces commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a raid on a secret military site in Syria before the Israel Air Force allegedly bombed it this month, British newspaper The Sunday Times reported Sunday.
The report, based on what the newspaper called "informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem," said the air strike was carried out with United States approval after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related.
The paper quoted Israeli sources as saying Israeli special forces had been gathering intelligence for several months in Syria, and had located the nuclear material at a compound in the country's north.
In another report, Newsweek quoted Uzi Arad, a former senior Mossad official and ex-policy advisor to then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as saying of the reported operation: I do know what happened, and when it comes out, it will stun everyone."
Netanyahu stirred anger among aides to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week when he appeared to confirm reports of the operation - about which Israeli officials have maintained a rare silence - during an interview with Israel Channel One Television.
The Sunday Times reported that diplomats in North Korea and China believe a number of North Koreans were killed in the strike, based on reports reaching Asian governments about conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials. The officials noted that ballistic missile technicians and military scientists had been working for some time with the Syrians.
According to the report, the Bush Administration was given Israeli intelligence suggesting North Korean personnel and nuclear-related material were at the Syrian site over the summer, but the administration demanded "clear evidence of nuclear-related activities before giving the operation its blessing."
As a result, the newspaper said, IDF commandos "almost certainly dressed in Syrian uniforms" seized samples of the nuclear material and took them back to Israel for testing. The sources confirmed that the samples were identified as being from North Korea.
According to the Sunday Times, the site - near Dayr az-Zawr - now lies in ruins following the IAF strike.
The report said the operation was personally directed by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who according to The Sunday Times is said to have been largely preoccupied with it since taking up his post on June 18. The newspaper quoted military experts as saying that the operation probably could not have taken place under former defense minister Amir Peretz.
Syria has said IAF planes violated its airspace and fired missiles at targets on the ground, but both Damascus and Pyongyang have vehemently denied the reports of nuclear cooperation.
The Sunday Times also quoted an Israeli intelligence expert as saying, "Syria has retaliated in the past for much smaller humiliations, but they will choose the place, the time and the target."
The IAF dispatched several fighter jets toward Syria Saturday, after a Syrian airplane disappeared from the Israeli radar screens, army sources said.
The jets returned to base after they ascertained that the Syrian plane had crashed.
Barak: Israel must operate as though war is around the corner
Israel must act as though the next war is right around the corner, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Sunday at the state's official commemoration of soldiers killed in the Yom Kippur War.
Barak said that the lesson from the 1973 war is that "on security matters, we cannot be deceived by apparent and imagined calm. We need self-control, vigilance, and an experienced and stable hand at the helm."
The defense minister also said that "on matters pertaining to our national security, the strength of Israel must be alert and fit at all times. We must always cultivate and enhance the decisive and quality advantage of this strength, along with the warrior spirit and the tools of war."
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday morning during a cabinet meeting that the "security establishment operates incessantly in all sectors and brings the most successful of achievements.
"Many times, these achievements are not exposed to the public, but this doesn't mean that successful operations are not carried out."
Israel Defense Forces commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a raid on a secret military site in Syria before the Israel Air Force allegedly bombed it this month, British newspaper The Sunday Times reported Sunday.
The report, based on what the newspaper called "informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem," said the air strike was carried out with United States approval after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related.
The paper quoted Israeli sources as saying Israeli special forces had been gathering intelligence for several months in Syria, and had located the nuclear material at a compound in the country's north.
In another report, Newsweek quoted Uzi Arad, a former senior Mossad official and ex-policy advisor to then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as saying of the reported operation: I do know what happened, and when it comes out, it will stun everyone."
Netanyahu stirred anger among aides to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week when he appeared to confirm reports of the operation - about which Israeli officials have maintained a rare silence - during an interview with Israel Channel One Television.
The Sunday Times reported that diplomats in North Korea and China believe a number of North Koreans were killed in the strike, based on reports reaching Asian governments about conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials. The officials noted that ballistic missile technicians and military scientists had been working for some time with the Syrians.
According to the report, the Bush Administration was given Israeli intelligence suggesting North Korean personnel and nuclear-related material were at the Syrian site over the summer, but the administration demanded "clear evidence of nuclear-related activities before giving the operation its blessing."
As a result, the newspaper said, IDF commandos "almost certainly dressed in Syrian uniforms" seized samples of the nuclear material and took them back to Israel for testing. The sources confirmed that the samples were identified as being from North Korea.
According to the Sunday Times, the site - near Dayr az-Zawr - now lies in ruins following the IAF strike.
The report said the operation was personally directed by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who according to The Sunday Times is said to have been largely preoccupied with it since taking up his post on June 18. The newspaper quoted military experts as saying that the operation probably could not have taken place under former defense minister Amir Peretz.
Syria has said IAF planes violated its airspace and fired missiles at targets on the ground, but both Damascus and Pyongyang have vehemently denied the reports of nuclear cooperation.
The Sunday Times also quoted an Israeli intelligence expert as saying, "Syria has retaliated in the past for much smaller humiliations, but they will choose the place, the time and the target."
The IAF dispatched several fighter jets toward Syria Saturday, after a Syrian airplane disappeared from the Israeli radar screens, army sources said.
The jets returned to base after they ascertained that the Syrian plane had crashed.
Barak: Israel must operate as though war is around the corner
Israel must act as though the next war is right around the corner, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Sunday at the state's official commemoration of soldiers killed in the Yom Kippur War.
Barak said that the lesson from the 1973 war is that "on security matters, we cannot be deceived by apparent and imagined calm. We need self-control, vigilance, and an experienced and stable hand at the helm."
The defense minister also said that "on matters pertaining to our national security, the strength of Israel must be alert and fit at all times. We must always cultivate and enhance the decisive and quality advantage of this strength, along with the warrior spirit and the tools of war."
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday morning during a cabinet meeting that the "security establishment operates incessantly in all sectors and brings the most successful of achievements.
"Many times, these achievements are not exposed to the public, but this doesn't mean that successful operations are not carried out."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)