Saturday, October 09, 2004
Friday, October 08, 2004
OpinionJournal - Featured Article
Judging from the current Iraq debate, you might think Saddam Hussein didn't use poison gas on the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. Or that 500,000 American troops hadn't been sent to the Gulf in 1990-91 to reverse his invasion of Kuwait. Or that Saddam hadn't tried to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in 1993, or long harbored one of the bombers who attacked the World Trade Center that year.
It might also be easy to forget that Saddam never came clean about his weapons of mass destruction, resulting in Bill Clinton's Desert Fox bombing of 1998 and the ejection of U.N. inspectors. Or that he necessitated a huge U.S. troop presence in the region, which Osama bin Laden cited in his 1998 fatwa as one of his primary grievances against America.
It's clear why John Kerry doesn't want to talk about these things, having decided for now that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Count us a bit mystified, however, that the incumbent hasn't done a better job putting his Iraq policy in this context. Fortunately for President Bush, Congressional Oil for Food hearings and Charles Duelfer's final weapons inspections report for the CIA have come along this week to remind us all that the "containment" of Saddam was neither as blissful as certain partisans remember it, nor even sustainable.
"By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," Mr. Duelfer writes. "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."
We realize that some of our media friends think the salient news here is the old news: that Saddam did not possess large stockpiles of WMDs when Coalition forces invaded in March 2003. But Mr. Duelfer explicitly rejects the facile conclusion that therefore sanctions were working. Among his other findings, based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and other senior regime figures:
• Saddam believed weapons of mass destruction were essential to the preservation of his power, especially during the Iran-Iraq and 1991 Gulf wars.
• He engaged in strategic deception intended to suggest that he retained WMD.
• He fully intended to resume real WMD production after the expected lifting of U.N. sanctions, and he maintained weapons programs that put him in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions including 1441.
• And he instituted an epic bribery scheme aimed primarily at three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, with the intent of having them help lift those sanctions.
"Saddam personally approved and removed all names of voucher recipients," under the Oil for Food program, Mr. Duelfer writes. Alleged beneficiaries of such bribes include individuals in China, as well as some with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac.
As Congressmen Chris Shays's House International Relations Committee heard in testimony on Tuesday, France, Russia and China did in fact work hard to help Saddam skirt and escape sanctions. One Iraqi intelligence report uncovered by Mr. Duelfer says that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its U.N. veto against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq--as indeed France later threatened to do.
Evidence also continues to mount that U.N. Oil for Food Program director Benon Sevan was among those on Saddam's payroll. (He denies it.) And contrary to earlier claims that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son Kojo severed connections with the Swiss-based firm Cotecna prior to it winning its Oil for Food inspections contract, we now know that Kojo was kept on the company payroll for another year. We eagerly await the promised interim report from the U.N.'s Paul Volcker-led Oil for Food review panel, and hope in the interests of an informed electorate that it can be delivered soon.
But there are already plenty of facts on the table to support one conclusion. To wit: Even if one accepts the desirability of some kind of "global test" before America acts militarily, U.N. Security Council approval can't be it. There was never any chance that this "coalition of the bribed" was going to explicitly endorse regime change, or the presumed alternative of another 12 years of economic sanctions. "Politically," writes Mr. Duelfer, "the Iraqis were losing their stigma" by 2001.
The sanctions-were-working crowd also ignores that Saddam never would have readmitted weapons inspectors without the kind of U.S. troop mobilization that isn't feasible with any frequency. For President Bush to have backed off in 2003 without unambiguous disarmament would have meant the end once and for all of any real threat of force behind "containment."
Senator John McCain summed it up well at the Republican Convention: "Those who criticize that decision [to go to war in Iraq] would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone." Supporters of his Iraq policy are hoping that Mr. Bush finds a similar voice tonight.
It might also be easy to forget that Saddam never came clean about his weapons of mass destruction, resulting in Bill Clinton's Desert Fox bombing of 1998 and the ejection of U.N. inspectors. Or that he necessitated a huge U.S. troop presence in the region, which Osama bin Laden cited in his 1998 fatwa as one of his primary grievances against America.
It's clear why John Kerry doesn't want to talk about these things, having decided for now that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Count us a bit mystified, however, that the incumbent hasn't done a better job putting his Iraq policy in this context. Fortunately for President Bush, Congressional Oil for Food hearings and Charles Duelfer's final weapons inspections report for the CIA have come along this week to remind us all that the "containment" of Saddam was neither as blissful as certain partisans remember it, nor even sustainable.
"By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," Mr. Duelfer writes. "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."
We realize that some of our media friends think the salient news here is the old news: that Saddam did not possess large stockpiles of WMDs when Coalition forces invaded in March 2003. But Mr. Duelfer explicitly rejects the facile conclusion that therefore sanctions were working. Among his other findings, based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and other senior regime figures:
• Saddam believed weapons of mass destruction were essential to the preservation of his power, especially during the Iran-Iraq and 1991 Gulf wars.
• He engaged in strategic deception intended to suggest that he retained WMD.
• He fully intended to resume real WMD production after the expected lifting of U.N. sanctions, and he maintained weapons programs that put him in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions including 1441.
• And he instituted an epic bribery scheme aimed primarily at three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, with the intent of having them help lift those sanctions.
"Saddam personally approved and removed all names of voucher recipients," under the Oil for Food program, Mr. Duelfer writes. Alleged beneficiaries of such bribes include individuals in China, as well as some with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac.
As Congressmen Chris Shays's House International Relations Committee heard in testimony on Tuesday, France, Russia and China did in fact work hard to help Saddam skirt and escape sanctions. One Iraqi intelligence report uncovered by Mr. Duelfer says that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its U.N. veto against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq--as indeed France later threatened to do.
Evidence also continues to mount that U.N. Oil for Food Program director Benon Sevan was among those on Saddam's payroll. (He denies it.) And contrary to earlier claims that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son Kojo severed connections with the Swiss-based firm Cotecna prior to it winning its Oil for Food inspections contract, we now know that Kojo was kept on the company payroll for another year. We eagerly await the promised interim report from the U.N.'s Paul Volcker-led Oil for Food review panel, and hope in the interests of an informed electorate that it can be delivered soon.
But there are already plenty of facts on the table to support one conclusion. To wit: Even if one accepts the desirability of some kind of "global test" before America acts militarily, U.N. Security Council approval can't be it. There was never any chance that this "coalition of the bribed" was going to explicitly endorse regime change, or the presumed alternative of another 12 years of economic sanctions. "Politically," writes Mr. Duelfer, "the Iraqis were losing their stigma" by 2001.
The sanctions-were-working crowd also ignores that Saddam never would have readmitted weapons inspectors without the kind of U.S. troop mobilization that isn't feasible with any frequency. For President Bush to have backed off in 2003 without unambiguous disarmament would have meant the end once and for all of any real threat of force behind "containment."
Senator John McCain summed it up well at the Republican Convention: "Those who criticize that decision [to go to war in Iraq] would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone." Supporters of his Iraq policy are hoping that Mr. Bush finds a similar voice tonight.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Liberals
Reality – meaning the wolves – have never been so far from the door as they are today. So believing in the power of goodwill and friendship, of handshakes and agreement and compromise, of trusting to the good and noble in mankind was easy for me, for the consequences of being wrong in that belief cost me nothing at all. I’d never been robbed, raped, beaten or victimized in any way. That belief in goodwill, compromise, concession and trust grew as a result of being surrounded by decent people in a well-ordered, lawful society, with a long history of compromise and cooperation.
I can remember saying, in college, that if someone broke in to my house and stole my television, well that was fundamentally just, because after all, I was white, male, educated and could make enough money to afford an endless line of televisions.
This view of the world was tempered somewhat, when, a few months later, I awoke to the sound of my window being opened and the sight of the upper torso of a man climbing in over the sill. By the way, it was only later that I realized that it wasn’t my TV he was there to steal. He was there to steal my dad’s TV – he paid for it, not me. Once I had to go to work and earn money to pay for things my mood changed somewhat. I put in forty hours of misery, boredom and early mornings for that TV, and some yayhoo just walks right in and takes it? Screw that! You want a TV? The McDonald’s on 13th and University is hiring.
Folks, some people who steal and rob are not fundamentally bad people. Some of them are desperate, some of them are stupid, and some of them are just plain lazy. Some of them, though, are psychopaths who’d kill you for a nickel and think nothing more about it – they’d trade your life, and the welfare of your spouse and children, for two hours of getting high and it would not bother them in the least.
Nations are governed by people. People are noble and base, honest and corrupt, brutal and gentle and all the adjectives in between. Yes, even Americans! The success of democracy, it seems to me, is that there is always a counterweight to the most mendacious and the most harebrained of human activities. It’s harder to fool all the people all the time.
Dictatorships, on the other hand – well, you’re down to the limits of one man’s sanity, ego, vanity and judgment. And when you consider the kind of person it takes to rule absolutely and totally the lives of millions of others – many of them more intelligent, educated and capable – then what you are left with is a giant, enormous, destructive Iron Giant – a state – with a tiny, desperate, paranoid, perpetually fearful psychopath pulling the levers. Dictatorships put the power of millions, the muscle and capability of entire nations, behind the guy with the gun in that dark alley.
It is a prospect to make sane people shake with fear. Surely we can agree on this much. Surely we can agree, no matter our political persuasion, that there are mean, bad, violent people who care nothing for inflicting violence on the innocent in order to get what they want. And since those people exist, we should also be able to agree that such people can – even in the heart of people as civilized as the Germans – ride to power and employ that hatred and reckless disregard for human happiness multiplied by a hundred million.
That’s reality. It’s undeniable. I wish it were not true…but wishing does not make it so. Paging the Inner Adult…white courtesy telephone, please.
It would be nice to live in a world full of liberals. I say that as a staunch conservative. It would be nice to live in a world that behaved like a Hollywood party or a university campus, filled with kind, educated people with lots to lose, who cherish reason and responsibility and are incapable of brutal, violent acts. If all the world were filled with decent, compassionate, rational people, life would be a bouquet.
But it’s not. There are bad people who do bad things, and there are bad countries run by bad people who do bad things who eat the kind and gentle people for breakfast. There is no denying this. Therefore, liberals are insane. I speak from experience here.
It’s a damn shame, it really is.
I can remember saying, in college, that if someone broke in to my house and stole my television, well that was fundamentally just, because after all, I was white, male, educated and could make enough money to afford an endless line of televisions.
This view of the world was tempered somewhat, when, a few months later, I awoke to the sound of my window being opened and the sight of the upper torso of a man climbing in over the sill. By the way, it was only later that I realized that it wasn’t my TV he was there to steal. He was there to steal my dad’s TV – he paid for it, not me. Once I had to go to work and earn money to pay for things my mood changed somewhat. I put in forty hours of misery, boredom and early mornings for that TV, and some yayhoo just walks right in and takes it? Screw that! You want a TV? The McDonald’s on 13th and University is hiring.
Folks, some people who steal and rob are not fundamentally bad people. Some of them are desperate, some of them are stupid, and some of them are just plain lazy. Some of them, though, are psychopaths who’d kill you for a nickel and think nothing more about it – they’d trade your life, and the welfare of your spouse and children, for two hours of getting high and it would not bother them in the least.
Nations are governed by people. People are noble and base, honest and corrupt, brutal and gentle and all the adjectives in between. Yes, even Americans! The success of democracy, it seems to me, is that there is always a counterweight to the most mendacious and the most harebrained of human activities. It’s harder to fool all the people all the time.
Dictatorships, on the other hand – well, you’re down to the limits of one man’s sanity, ego, vanity and judgment. And when you consider the kind of person it takes to rule absolutely and totally the lives of millions of others – many of them more intelligent, educated and capable – then what you are left with is a giant, enormous, destructive Iron Giant – a state – with a tiny, desperate, paranoid, perpetually fearful psychopath pulling the levers. Dictatorships put the power of millions, the muscle and capability of entire nations, behind the guy with the gun in that dark alley.
It is a prospect to make sane people shake with fear. Surely we can agree on this much. Surely we can agree, no matter our political persuasion, that there are mean, bad, violent people who care nothing for inflicting violence on the innocent in order to get what they want. And since those people exist, we should also be able to agree that such people can – even in the heart of people as civilized as the Germans – ride to power and employ that hatred and reckless disregard for human happiness multiplied by a hundred million.
That’s reality. It’s undeniable. I wish it were not true…but wishing does not make it so. Paging the Inner Adult…white courtesy telephone, please.
It would be nice to live in a world full of liberals. I say that as a staunch conservative. It would be nice to live in a world that behaved like a Hollywood party or a university campus, filled with kind, educated people with lots to lose, who cherish reason and responsibility and are incapable of brutal, violent acts. If all the world were filled with decent, compassionate, rational people, life would be a bouquet.
But it’s not. There are bad people who do bad things, and there are bad countries run by bad people who do bad things who eat the kind and gentle people for breakfast. There is no denying this. Therefore, liberals are insane. I speak from experience here.
It’s a damn shame, it really is.
Rodney Dangerfield's One-Liners
R Dangerfield, born Jacob Cohen on Nov. 22, 1921, on New York's Long Island. Died Oct 6, 2004 Los Angeles. He did get respect!
I was so poor growing up... If I wasn't born a boy... I'd have nothing to play with.
A girl phoned me the other day and said "Come on over, there's nobody home." I went over. Nobody was home.
During sex, my girlfriend always wants to talk to me. Just the other night she called me from a hotel.
One day as I came home early from work... I saw a guy jogging naked. I said to the guy... "Hey buddy, why are you doing that?" He said, "Because you came home early."
Its been a rough day. I got up this morning ... put on a shirt and a button fell off. I picked up my briefcase, and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom.
I was such an ugly kid... When I played in the sandbox the cat kept covering me up.
I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio.
I was such an ugly baby... My mother never breast fed me. She told me that she only liked me as a friend.
I'm so ugly... My father carries around the picture of the kid who came with his wallet.
When I was born... the doctor came out to the waiting room and said to my father... I'm very sorry... We did everything we could... But he pulled through.
I'm so ugly... My mother had morning sickness... AFTER I was born.
I remember the time I was kidnapped and they sent a piece of my finger to my father. He said he wanted more proof.
Once when I was lost... I saw a policeman, and asked him to help me find my parents. I said to him.... "Do you think we'll ever find them? "He said. "I don't know kid... there are so many places they can hide."
My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday.
I'm so ugly... I worked in a pet shop, and people kept asking how big I'd get.
I went to see my doctor. "Doctor, every morning when I get up and look in the mirror... I feel like throwing up; What's wrong with me?" He said "I don't know but your eyesight is perfect."
I went to the doctor because I'd swallowed a bottle of sleeping pills. My doctor told me to have a few drinks and get some rest.
I was so poor growing up... If I wasn't born a boy... I'd have nothing to play with.
A girl phoned me the other day and said "Come on over, there's nobody home." I went over. Nobody was home.
During sex, my girlfriend always wants to talk to me. Just the other night she called me from a hotel.
One day as I came home early from work... I saw a guy jogging naked. I said to the guy... "Hey buddy, why are you doing that?" He said, "Because you came home early."
Its been a rough day. I got up this morning ... put on a shirt and a button fell off. I picked up my briefcase, and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom.
I was such an ugly kid... When I played in the sandbox the cat kept covering me up.
I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio.
I was such an ugly baby... My mother never breast fed me. She told me that she only liked me as a friend.
I'm so ugly... My father carries around the picture of the kid who came with his wallet.
When I was born... the doctor came out to the waiting room and said to my father... I'm very sorry... We did everything we could... But he pulled through.
I'm so ugly... My mother had morning sickness... AFTER I was born.
I remember the time I was kidnapped and they sent a piece of my finger to my father. He said he wanted more proof.
Once when I was lost... I saw a policeman, and asked him to help me find my parents. I said to him.... "Do you think we'll ever find them? "He said. "I don't know kid... there are so many places they can hide."
My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday.
I'm so ugly... I worked in a pet shop, and people kept asking how big I'd get.
I went to see my doctor. "Doctor, every morning when I get up and look in the mirror... I feel like throwing up; What's wrong with me?" He said "I don't know but your eyesight is perfect."
I went to the doctor because I'd swallowed a bottle of sleeping pills. My doctor told me to have a few drinks and get some rest.
Poll smacks, war facts - The Washington Times: Commentary - October 07, 2004
Poll smacks, war facts - The Washington Times: Commentary - October 07, 2004Poll smacks, war facts
By Lawrence Kudlow
Published October 7, 2004
Without question, President Bush's bad-hair night in Miami last week cost him in the polls. His lead is shrinking -- but he still has a lead.
On the reliable pay-to-play Internet polls, Bush stock took a hit. Tradesport.com has Mr. Bush over John Kerry by $60 to $40, down from the predebate $70 to $30. On the Iowa Electronic Market, the lead is 60 cents for Mr. Bush to 44 cents for Mr. Kerry. The predebate Bush price was above 65 cents.
Monday's Gallup poll shows the two candidates tied at 49 percent among likely voters. However, on who would do a better job in Iraq, Mr. Bush still leads 51 to 44 percent. On who would do a better job against terrorism, Mr. Bush is ahead 56 to 39 percent. And as to who is a stronger leader, Mr. Bush is favored by 56 to 37 percent.
According to Scott Rasmussen, Mr. Bush leads Mr. Kerry 49 to 46 percent based on a post-debate survey of 3,000 likely voters. Columnist Michael Barone points out an interesting Rasmussen question: Should we be using more, the same, or less military force in Iraq? Overall, 65 percent (after the debate) want the same or more military force. Among Bush voters the number rises to 88 percent. Among Kerry voters the number drops to 53 percent.
Over the weekend, there was an interesting article by national security columnist Jack Kelly, who writes for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and appears regularly in The Washington Times. Mr. Kelly interviewed a French Arabist named Gilles Kepel who thinks the followers of Osama bin Laden are losing badly. There is no "grand diversion." The radical Islamists failed to achieve their goal of seizing power in Muslim lands. Since September 11, 2001, they have suffered a string of major defeats.
"The Taliban has been ousted in Afghanistan," writes Mr. Kelly. "Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have turned towards the West. Islamists in Sudan and Libya are in retreat.... The Americans are in Baghdad." In other words, the wartime situation is not a "colossal error" as Mr. Kerry would have us believe. In fact, while Osama is holed up in a bunker someplace, estimates are 75 percent of his followers have been killed or captured.
Nor is the Iraq war an "incredible mess." Iraqi and U.S. coalition forces have taken back the Sunni triangle city of Samarra. Attacks on Fallujah are being stepped up. Iraqi troops are doing more of the heavy lifting. In reality, there are no more than 10,000 insurgent troops in Iraq, and maybe as few as 5,000. They will be no match for the U.S. military coalition.
Fifteen of the 18 provinces in Iraq are stabilized and preparing for elections. Local elections are already occurring in the country. Influential Shi'ite cleric Ali Al-Sistani is now 100 percent in favor of holding elections. Ditto for the Kurds.
The gruesome tactics of the terrorists in Iraq -- kidnappings, beheadings, suicide bombings -- are desperate actions aimed at harming Iraqis. These deeds foster deep Iraqi resentment, anger and opposition toward the insurgents. That is one reason there are more volunteers for the Iraqi police, National Guard and army than available training slots.
Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times reports Iraqi telephone subscribers are up to 91 percent of prewar levels, that oil production is ahead of 2.5 million barrels daily, that a draft voter list is compiled and registration will begin soon.
Tomorrow night, in the townhall debate in St. Louis, it is essential that Mr. Bush hammer away at U.S. successes in the global war. He must also emphasize the accomplishments of homeland security. Most important, he must link the two. The U.S. hasn't been attacked in three years. Hundreds of plots around the country have been foiled. New York subways were never closed during the Republican Convention, as Mr. Kerry alleged in Miami. But a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was in fact pre-empted. Actually, a big victory for homeland security was that both the Republican and Democratic conventions were terrorist-free. That's what happens when terrorists are engaged on their turf rather than our turf.
At the next debate, Mr. Bush will have ample opportunity to regroup and hammer all this home. He must emphasize there will be no "global test" on defending America. He should also insist nuclear bunker-busting weapons, which Mr. Kerry opposes, are essential to this war. So is a missile defense system, also opposed by Mr. Kerry.
Presidential leadership is about optimism and there are many hardheaded real-time facts to support a reasonably optimistic view in 2004. If Mr. Bush seizes the moment in St. Louis tomorrow, maybe he can reclaim needlessly lost ground.
Lawrence Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist and is chief executive officer of Kudlow & Co. LLC and CNBC's economics commentator.
By Lawrence Kudlow
Published October 7, 2004
Without question, President Bush's bad-hair night in Miami last week cost him in the polls. His lead is shrinking -- but he still has a lead.
On the reliable pay-to-play Internet polls, Bush stock took a hit. Tradesport.com has Mr. Bush over John Kerry by $60 to $40, down from the predebate $70 to $30. On the Iowa Electronic Market, the lead is 60 cents for Mr. Bush to 44 cents for Mr. Kerry. The predebate Bush price was above 65 cents.
Monday's Gallup poll shows the two candidates tied at 49 percent among likely voters. However, on who would do a better job in Iraq, Mr. Bush still leads 51 to 44 percent. On who would do a better job against terrorism, Mr. Bush is ahead 56 to 39 percent. And as to who is a stronger leader, Mr. Bush is favored by 56 to 37 percent.
According to Scott Rasmussen, Mr. Bush leads Mr. Kerry 49 to 46 percent based on a post-debate survey of 3,000 likely voters. Columnist Michael Barone points out an interesting Rasmussen question: Should we be using more, the same, or less military force in Iraq? Overall, 65 percent (after the debate) want the same or more military force. Among Bush voters the number rises to 88 percent. Among Kerry voters the number drops to 53 percent.
Over the weekend, there was an interesting article by national security columnist Jack Kelly, who writes for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and appears regularly in The Washington Times. Mr. Kelly interviewed a French Arabist named Gilles Kepel who thinks the followers of Osama bin Laden are losing badly. There is no "grand diversion." The radical Islamists failed to achieve their goal of seizing power in Muslim lands. Since September 11, 2001, they have suffered a string of major defeats.
"The Taliban has been ousted in Afghanistan," writes Mr. Kelly. "Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have turned towards the West. Islamists in Sudan and Libya are in retreat.... The Americans are in Baghdad." In other words, the wartime situation is not a "colossal error" as Mr. Kerry would have us believe. In fact, while Osama is holed up in a bunker someplace, estimates are 75 percent of his followers have been killed or captured.
Nor is the Iraq war an "incredible mess." Iraqi and U.S. coalition forces have taken back the Sunni triangle city of Samarra. Attacks on Fallujah are being stepped up. Iraqi troops are doing more of the heavy lifting. In reality, there are no more than 10,000 insurgent troops in Iraq, and maybe as few as 5,000. They will be no match for the U.S. military coalition.
Fifteen of the 18 provinces in Iraq are stabilized and preparing for elections. Local elections are already occurring in the country. Influential Shi'ite cleric Ali Al-Sistani is now 100 percent in favor of holding elections. Ditto for the Kurds.
The gruesome tactics of the terrorists in Iraq -- kidnappings, beheadings, suicide bombings -- are desperate actions aimed at harming Iraqis. These deeds foster deep Iraqi resentment, anger and opposition toward the insurgents. That is one reason there are more volunteers for the Iraqi police, National Guard and army than available training slots.
Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times reports Iraqi telephone subscribers are up to 91 percent of prewar levels, that oil production is ahead of 2.5 million barrels daily, that a draft voter list is compiled and registration will begin soon.
Tomorrow night, in the townhall debate in St. Louis, it is essential that Mr. Bush hammer away at U.S. successes in the global war. He must also emphasize the accomplishments of homeland security. Most important, he must link the two. The U.S. hasn't been attacked in three years. Hundreds of plots around the country have been foiled. New York subways were never closed during the Republican Convention, as Mr. Kerry alleged in Miami. But a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was in fact pre-empted. Actually, a big victory for homeland security was that both the Republican and Democratic conventions were terrorist-free. That's what happens when terrorists are engaged on their turf rather than our turf.
At the next debate, Mr. Bush will have ample opportunity to regroup and hammer all this home. He must emphasize there will be no "global test" on defending America. He should also insist nuclear bunker-busting weapons, which Mr. Kerry opposes, are essential to this war. So is a missile defense system, also opposed by Mr. Kerry.
Presidential leadership is about optimism and there are many hardheaded real-time facts to support a reasonably optimistic view in 2004. If Mr. Bush seizes the moment in St. Louis tomorrow, maybe he can reclaim needlessly lost ground.
Lawrence Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist and is chief executive officer of Kudlow & Co. LLC and CNBC's economics commentator.
Horsefeathers - LETTER TO OUR ENEMIES
Horsefeathers - LETTER TO OUR ENEMIES: "LETTER TO OUR ENEMIES
Horsefeathers received the following letter and has permission of its author to share it with our readers:
I'm an ordinary American. Wife (whom I love and respect), 2 kids (to whom I would give both of my kidneys), 2 cars (ten years old), big mortgage, and a job not always pleasurable.
I've worked hard all my adult life to provide for my family, to be useful, and not go out of my way to injure anyone. Like most Americans, I knew little about arab-muslim culture and believed that the developed nations were partly responsible for the poverty and authoritarian regimes that infest the middle east.
Things changed on 9/11/01 when you ruined the lives of at least 10,000 Americans.
These people instantly became my countrymen and you became my mortal enemy.
Ordinary Americans are arming themselves for war with you. I and many of my friends have closets full of handguns, rifles, shotguns and thousands of cartridges.
If we had enough ammunition and time, we would kill every last one of you.
We completely support our President and our armed forces. We only wish they would destroy you faster, but we are certain that they will.
We no longer listen to the insane words of Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, Clark, and others whom we now see as ideologues who would sacrifice our country and our
lives on the alter of their vanity and desire for power.
We no longer listen to our secular mullahs, our media fools, preaching hatred of America and sapping our will with their lies and deceptions.
We watch your cowardly methods of killing by beheading. We are disgusted. But we are not afraid.
You turn your women and children into walking bombs. We are disgusted. But we are not afraid.
You shoot and rape children. You kill their mothers before their eyes. You burn, hang, and tear apart the bodies of your victims, and then play with body parts. We are disgusted. But we are not afraid.
Why should we fear you? What ARE you to be feared? You are cowards. Your bravado is a clown mask that hides the soul of a ghoul. You are not able even to
manufacture the knives you use to butcher your bound victims.
One day soon, our planes and missiles will begin turning your mosques, your madrasses, your hotels, your government offices, your hideouts, and your
neighborhoods into rubble.
And then our soldiers will enter your cities and begin the work of killing you, roaches, as you crawl from the debris.
As cowards, you will have your hands in the air and you will get on your knees begging for mercy. And we will instead give you justice. Your actions and your
words long ago placed you far from any considerations of mercy. You are not men.
And if you come to this country and harm a child, shoot a mother, hijack a bus, or bomb a mall, we will do what we did in 1775. Millions of us will form militias.
We will burn your mosques.
We will invade the offices of pro-arab-muslim organizations, destroy them, and drag their officers outside.
We will tell the chancellors of universities either to muzzle or remove anti American professors, whose hatred for their own country we have tolerated only
because we place a higher value on freedom of speech. But we will no longer tolerate treason. We will muzzle and remove them.
We will transport arab-muslims to our deserts, where they can pray to scorpions under the blazing sun.
You have fucked with the wrong people.
We will rid the world of your foul breath.
Your caliphate will be your grave.
Posted at 04:22 PM by Stephen"
Horsefeathers received the following letter and has permission of its author to share it with our readers:
I'm an ordinary American. Wife (whom I love and respect), 2 kids (to whom I would give both of my kidneys), 2 cars (ten years old), big mortgage, and a job not always pleasurable.
I've worked hard all my adult life to provide for my family, to be useful, and not go out of my way to injure anyone. Like most Americans, I knew little about arab-muslim culture and believed that the developed nations were partly responsible for the poverty and authoritarian regimes that infest the middle east.
Things changed on 9/11/01 when you ruined the lives of at least 10,000 Americans.
These people instantly became my countrymen and you became my mortal enemy.
Ordinary Americans are arming themselves for war with you. I and many of my friends have closets full of handguns, rifles, shotguns and thousands of cartridges.
If we had enough ammunition and time, we would kill every last one of you.
We completely support our President and our armed forces. We only wish they would destroy you faster, but we are certain that they will.
We no longer listen to the insane words of Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, Clark, and others whom we now see as ideologues who would sacrifice our country and our
lives on the alter of their vanity and desire for power.
We no longer listen to our secular mullahs, our media fools, preaching hatred of America and sapping our will with their lies and deceptions.
We watch your cowardly methods of killing by beheading. We are disgusted. But we are not afraid.
You turn your women and children into walking bombs. We are disgusted. But we are not afraid.
You shoot and rape children. You kill their mothers before their eyes. You burn, hang, and tear apart the bodies of your victims, and then play with body parts. We are disgusted. But we are not afraid.
Why should we fear you? What ARE you to be feared? You are cowards. Your bravado is a clown mask that hides the soul of a ghoul. You are not able even to
manufacture the knives you use to butcher your bound victims.
One day soon, our planes and missiles will begin turning your mosques, your madrasses, your hotels, your government offices, your hideouts, and your
neighborhoods into rubble.
And then our soldiers will enter your cities and begin the work of killing you, roaches, as you crawl from the debris.
As cowards, you will have your hands in the air and you will get on your knees begging for mercy. And we will instead give you justice. Your actions and your
words long ago placed you far from any considerations of mercy. You are not men.
And if you come to this country and harm a child, shoot a mother, hijack a bus, or bomb a mall, we will do what we did in 1775. Millions of us will form militias.
We will burn your mosques.
We will invade the offices of pro-arab-muslim organizations, destroy them, and drag their officers outside.
We will tell the chancellors of universities either to muzzle or remove anti American professors, whose hatred for their own country we have tolerated only
because we place a higher value on freedom of speech. But we will no longer tolerate treason. We will muzzle and remove them.
We will transport arab-muslims to our deserts, where they can pray to scorpions under the blazing sun.
You have fucked with the wrong people.
We will rid the world of your foul breath.
Your caliphate will be your grave.
Posted at 04:22 PM by Stephen"
lgf: Duelfer Report Shows Kerry Doctrine to be a Sham
10/7/2004: Duelfer Report Shows Kerry Doctrine to be a Sham
Here is the Duelfer Report, all 1000+ pages of it.
The report contains a stunning (but not surprising) accusation that the former head of the $60 billion UN oil-for-food program accepted bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam Hussein’s government. (Hat tip: Nancy Block.)
The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems.
The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit.
Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list.
The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business men, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.
The report names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients, for example, and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia.
The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq as well — more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said.
“These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq’s unauthorized oil exports and imports,” it said.
As I wrote yesterday, the really important news in this report is that UN sanctions were disintegrating—and as soon as they did, Saddam Hussein was planning to restart his weapons programs.
How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months.
Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein’s fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran’s current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980’s, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.
The Duelfer Report is a huge vindication for the Bush administration’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein. There can be no more doubt that Saddam was a serious threat to the security of the United States and the world, and that our so-called “allies,” specifically the United Nations, France and Russia, were rotten to the core with corruption and bribery. There’s no mystery why these entities were opposed to our plans. They were getting fat and rich off the misery of the Iraqi people.
The report is also a damning indictment of John Kerry’s appeasement-oriented, willfully blind foreign policy. Kerry knows the UN and our “allies” who refused to help in Iraq were involved in massive corruption and bribery, yet he still insists they deserve to have a more important role in the decisions of the United States.
Mainstream media is universally spinning the Duelfer Report against George Bush, but the report is far more damaging to John Kerry.
posted by Charles at 7:44 AM PST | rss
email this article
Here is the Duelfer Report, all 1000+ pages of it.
The report contains a stunning (but not surprising) accusation that the former head of the $60 billion UN oil-for-food program accepted bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam Hussein’s government. (Hat tip: Nancy Block.)
The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems.
The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit.
Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list.
The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business men, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.
The report names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients, for example, and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia.
The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq as well — more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said.
“These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq’s unauthorized oil exports and imports,” it said.
As I wrote yesterday, the really important news in this report is that UN sanctions were disintegrating—and as soon as they did, Saddam Hussein was planning to restart his weapons programs.
How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months.
Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein’s fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran’s current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980’s, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.
The Duelfer Report is a huge vindication for the Bush administration’s decision to remove Saddam Hussein. There can be no more doubt that Saddam was a serious threat to the security of the United States and the world, and that our so-called “allies,” specifically the United Nations, France and Russia, were rotten to the core with corruption and bribery. There’s no mystery why these entities were opposed to our plans. They were getting fat and rich off the misery of the Iraqi people.
The report is also a damning indictment of John Kerry’s appeasement-oriented, willfully blind foreign policy. Kerry knows the UN and our “allies” who refused to help in Iraq were involved in massive corruption and bribery, yet he still insists they deserve to have a more important role in the decisions of the United States.
Mainstream media is universally spinning the Duelfer Report against George Bush, but the report is far more damaging to John Kerry.
posted by Charles at 7:44 AM PST | rss
email this article
Redstate || Collaborative Republicanism for the Masses
Cheney , John J. Miller, and a D.C. taxi driver By: jannelsen · Section: Election 2004
Took a cab to the Trover Shop on Capitol Hill after work to buy John J. Miller's book about France's treachery.
Oh, the journalist celebrities and politicos abounded at this book fair sponsored by The Hill newspaper. (If you count Bill Press as a celebrity.)
But the taxi driver was by far more interesting. He loves Dick Cheney. Perhaps having been a political prisoner colored his views.
Print This Story
Posted On: Oct 6th, 2004: 18:37:38, Rated: 5.00/1
After chatting about the weather -- a beautiful fall evening -- the driver asked me if I had watched the debate last night. I allowed as I had, told him I was a Republican political appointee, and thought Cheney did great. Cheney had especially reignited optimism among loyalists, disappointed by Bush's debate performance.
He became enthusiastic, saying Cheney was clear, strong and experienced. He placed great emphasis on experience, recalling that back when he still lived in his homeland, Cheney was ....was....
I offered, Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush?
Yes, that's it!
I told him a little more about Cheney's history and then asked him what country he was from.
Ethiopia, of course, like so many other Washington, D.C. taxi drivers.
A biology teacher, he had spent three years in prison for opposing Mengistu Haile Mariam, the monster who oversaw the Red Dirge, the Communist tyranny that killed hundreds of thousands.
The cabbie proceeded to give me the history of Mengistu's rise to power -- Haile Selasse had sent him to Moscow for education -- described the purges and mass murders committed under Mengistu, and railed against his continued sanctuary in Zimbabwe.
The talk then turned to politics. The driver said he wasn't a Democrat or Republican, but he supported Bush, because America needs a strong leader in dangerous times (paraphrasing). But the real candidate should be Cheney, he said with conviction.
Well, lots of Republicans say that, I admitted.
Anyway, the conversation reminded me so much of the commentary from Eastern European leaders who lived through Cold War oppression and paid tribute to Reagan for helping end it.
To many victims of Communism -- the leaders and the common man -- freedom and Republicanism are inherently linked.
As they should be.
As for the book fair, what an odd scene. Trover is a small, two-story book store on Pennsylvania Avenue, and as noted, it was crowded with celebrity authors, politicians and journalists, mostly. Only thing it wasn't crowded with -- crowds.
Miller was sitting next to Cokie Roberts at a table, with no one waiting in line. I told Miller I was an obsessive Corner reader, and we chatted briefly about the Coors-Salazar race (he has a piece about Colorado in the latest National Review). I said Coors was going to fail, which I believe to be the unfortunate truth, Roberts agreed, contending Coors had a terrible campaign, and Miller expressed surprise.
No, there was not a personal bonding going on, but it was fun to have access to folks in a brief, informal setting. You can't push it, because you then look like a goof or a groupie. Which I am, but you don't want to look like one.
I did ask what the French version of "perfidious Albion" was. Miller said he'd think on it.
Then downstairs to Dennis Hastert, whose only crowd was his security detail. He was sitting next to Robert Byrd, who stood awaiting the adoring multitude of constitutional scholars, isolationists and people wanting to dedicate a building to him.
The multitudes did not manifest themselves.
Anyway, Hastert was quite pleasant, signed my book, and off we went, assiduously avoiding Bill Press and Eleanor Clift.
In the end, I'm glad I went. Not to see Miller or Hastert or Roberts. But to have had an opportunity to speak to a former political prisoner of Communist tyranny. Who reminded me why I'm a Republican.
< Back When He Made Sense (0 comments) | Edwards Not Ready For Prime Time (1 comments) >
Cheney , John J. Miller, and a D.C. taxi driver | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
perfect example By: still thinking
I am always amazed by the stereotypes that are foisted on Republicans. The one that most irritates me is that we are a bunch of zenophobes.
I was teaching an Ancient History class today, and one of my students, of Egyptian decent, but born in Riverside, California, spoke up about an experience he had last night. He was in the lobby of our local hospital (Grandpa was upstairs in ICU). He was watching the debates on the TV, and a typical group of people were watching it as well.
He is not exactly a shy young man, and very quickly he made his preference for GWB apparent. What followed was an exchange between he and several of the other viewers who first wanted to know his nationality, and when finding him to be from Egypt, then wanted to know how he could support the Republicans.
He said that it was pretty eye opening for him. He had never seen anything strange about the combination. Of course he doesn't realize that everyday at home he has witnessed the American Dream. His Dad started a business years ago, has worked hard, and prospered. When they left Egypt they did so at least partially to get away from religious persecution (they were Christians).
Most of us will never really understand the Dream the way his family does.
Thank you for relating your story. Especially the details of DC. I really need to check out that bookstore on my next vist. I take the 8th grade class there every year, and I have fallen in love with the city.
Comment Rated: (none / 0) (User Info) (#1)
Cheney , John J. Miller, and a D.C. taxi driver
Took a cab to the Trover Shop on Capitol Hill after work to buy John J. Miller's book about France's treachery.
Oh, the journalist celebrities and politicos abounded at this book fair sponsored by The Hill newspaper. (If you count Bill Press as a celebrity.)
But the taxi driver was by far more interesting. He loves Dick Cheney. Perhaps having been a political prisoner colored his views.
Print This Story
Posted On: Oct 6th, 2004: 18:37:38, Rated: 5.00/1
After chatting about the weather -- a beautiful fall evening -- the driver asked me if I had watched the debate last night. I allowed as I had, told him I was a Republican political appointee, and thought Cheney did great. Cheney had especially reignited optimism among loyalists, disappointed by Bush's debate performance.
He became enthusiastic, saying Cheney was clear, strong and experienced. He placed great emphasis on experience, recalling that back when he still lived in his homeland, Cheney was ....was....
I offered, Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush?
Yes, that's it!
I told him a little more about Cheney's history and then asked him what country he was from.
Ethiopia, of course, like so many other Washington, D.C. taxi drivers.
A biology teacher, he had spent three years in prison for opposing Mengistu Haile Mariam, the monster who oversaw the Red Dirge, the Communist tyranny that killed hundreds of thousands.
The cabbie proceeded to give me the history of Mengistu's rise to power -- Haile Selasse had sent him to Moscow for education -- described the purges and mass murders committed under Mengistu, and railed against his continued sanctuary in Zimbabwe.
The talk then turned to politics. The driver said he wasn't a Democrat or Republican, but he supported Bush, because America needs a strong leader in dangerous times (paraphrasing). But the real candidate should be Cheney, he said with conviction.
Well, lots of Republicans say that, I admitted.
Anyway, the conversation reminded me so much of the commentary from Eastern European leaders who lived through Cold War oppression and paid tribute to Reagan for helping end it.
To many victims of Communism -- the leaders and the common man -- freedom and Republicanism are inherently linked.
As they should be.
As for the book fair, what an odd scene. Trover is a small, two-story book store on Pennsylvania Avenue, and as noted, it was crowded with celebrity authors, politicians and journalists, mostly. Only thing it wasn't crowded with -- crowds.
Miller was sitting next to Cokie Roberts at a table, with no one waiting in line. I told Miller I was an obsessive Corner reader, and we chatted briefly about the Coors-Salazar race (he has a piece about Colorado in the latest National Review). I said Coors was going to fail, which I believe to be the unfortunate truth, Roberts agreed, contending Coors had a terrible campaign, and Miller expressed surprise.
No, there was not a personal bonding going on, but it was fun to have access to folks in a brief, informal setting. You can't push it, because you then look like a goof or a groupie. Which I am, but you don't want to look like one.
I did ask what the French version of "perfidious Albion" was. Miller said he'd think on it.
Then downstairs to Dennis Hastert, whose only crowd was his security detail. He was sitting next to Robert Byrd, who stood awaiting the adoring multitude of constitutional scholars, isolationists and people wanting to dedicate a building to him.
The multitudes did not manifest themselves.
Anyway, Hastert was quite pleasant, signed my book, and off we went, assiduously avoiding Bill Press and Eleanor Clift.
In the end, I'm glad I went. Not to see Miller or Hastert or Roberts. But to have had an opportunity to speak to a former political prisoner of Communist tyranny. Who reminded me why I'm a Republican.
< Back When He Made Sense (0 comments) | Edwards Not Ready For Prime Time (1 comments) >
Cheney , John J. Miller, and a D.C. taxi driver | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
perfect example By: still thinking
I am always amazed by the stereotypes that are foisted on Republicans. The one that most irritates me is that we are a bunch of zenophobes.
I was teaching an Ancient History class today, and one of my students, of Egyptian decent, but born in Riverside, California, spoke up about an experience he had last night. He was in the lobby of our local hospital (Grandpa was upstairs in ICU). He was watching the debates on the TV, and a typical group of people were watching it as well.
He is not exactly a shy young man, and very quickly he made his preference for GWB apparent. What followed was an exchange between he and several of the other viewers who first wanted to know his nationality, and when finding him to be from Egypt, then wanted to know how he could support the Republicans.
He said that it was pretty eye opening for him. He had never seen anything strange about the combination. Of course he doesn't realize that everyday at home he has witnessed the American Dream. His Dad started a business years ago, has worked hard, and prospered. When they left Egypt they did so at least partially to get away from religious persecution (they were Christians).
Most of us will never really understand the Dream the way his family does.
Thank you for relating your story. Especially the details of DC. I really need to check out that bookstore on my next vist. I take the 8th grade class there every year, and I have fallen in love with the city.
Comment Rated: (none / 0) (User Info) (#1)
Cheney , John J. Miller, and a D.C. taxi driver
Power Line: Our Readers Correct the Times
Mr. Edwards's statement that millionaires who receive stock dividends pay "a lower tax rate
My Way - News
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Central Intelligence Agency has published hundreds of names of people, firms, political parties and government officials Saddam Hussein purportedly tried to buy off to get U.N. sanctions lifted.
Saddam paid off French leaders -- The Washington Times
Saddam Hussein used a U.N. humanitarian program to pay $1.78 billion to French government officials, businessmen and journalists in a bid to have sanctions removed and U.S. policies opposed, according to a CIA report made public yesterday.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
News from Iraq
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Iraqis in Al Amil district where the massacre against Iraqi children took place light candles for the 2nd day after the sun set prayers in a silent protest against terrorism in Iraq. This was a spontaneous move that was not organized by any party in which Iraqis mourned their children and showed there rejection for terrorism and violence following the worst crime in Iraq since the end of the war; the suicide attack that killed dozens of children civilians and American soldiers. Tens of candles were lit in the streets and near the walls of the water treatment plant which the people were celebrating it's opening when the crime happened.
From New Sabah
Iraqis in Al Amil district where the massacre against Iraqi children took place light candles for the 2nd day after the sun set prayers in a silent protest against terrorism in Iraq. This was a spontaneous move that was not organized by any party in which Iraqis mourned their children and showed there rejection for terrorism and violence following the worst crime in Iraq since the end of the war; the suicide attack that killed dozens of children civilians and American soldiers. Tens of candles were lit in the streets and near the walls of the water treatment plant which the people were celebrating it's opening when the crime happened.
From New Sabah
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties -- 10/04/2004
Iraqi intelligence documents show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda
A fellow who speaks his mind!!! (Vietnam/Kerry)
'Johnny Bad', href="http://badexample.mu.nu" posted the following: I have reduced the rough language just to make it a little more acceptable to some, but the point is: THIS IS WHAT THE VETS AND THE SWIFTIES ARE MAD ABOUT!
"I've seen and heard some of the mainstream press reaction to the Swift Boat Vets ads. The big DNC talking point being parroted is that the Vets are part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Attack Machine.
Way off.
This is personal."
Paul of Wizbang has a post with a link to the third Swift Boat Vets ad, this one debunking Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" claim. In the comments, a Viet Nam vet named Peter explains to a troll named Randy what REALLY motivates the vets. I'm leaving in the salty language out of courtesy to a man who has earned the right to use it:
Yes, go ahead and vote for a man that took an oath, then took the extra pay and privileges of a commissioned officer. Then after whatever exploits were actually real, came back and ran for office as a war hero and lost. Got his enlistment cut short, too.
Having failed to attain office that route he changed directions, surrounded himself with 'veterans' many of whom never spent one single day in uniform, others of whom had not ever set foot in a combat zone, all of whom refused to testify under oath, even when offered full immunity (that pesky perjury exception to immunity, you know) and slimed the names of every swinging dick that ever wore Uncle's suit. Slimed the good name of every man who came home in a shiny aluminum box with lies. Lies about alleged crimes that were never committed. For as long as that long black wall in Washington, DC has stood, John Kerry has been rubbing human feces on to those names.
I don't know what that c--------- did in Viet Nam, I was thirty f------ months in another AO, Randy, one without movie cameras, hell, instamatics were too heavy to carry on a hump through the bush after one's first patrol. I don't know what the sonofabitch did over there, I only know what he did here. And what he did here was lie about men whose sweaty jockstraps he is not fit to carry. What he did here was to deliberately slander 58,000 men who aren't around to answer because the medals they got were posthumus.
A------- like you, Randy, think this is about George Bush because you don't know any of those names on the Wall. It's not about George Bush, it's about an overpriveliged Yankee blueblood who may as well have walked into 58,000 American homes and pissed on every one of those neatly folded flags.
Now, thirty-three years later he has the gall to return to those same homes and steal those flags to parade himself around, wrapped in the flags that covered the bodies of my friends. That's what this is about, not George Bush. John Kerry slimed the names and the honor of every young man that stood with his buddies while this Hee-row pulled strings to come home early.
There are a whole bunch of really pissed off veterans, some of us gave limbs, all of us gave our youth and we want to restore the honor to those names on the wall. For thirty-three years we've had to listen to you little fucks, Randy because we had no way to make our voices heard. It's over. This is where it stops. John Kerry has dug up the bodies of our brothers to stand on in a desperate attempt to give himself a little stature.
Pretty funny, this big brave War Hee-row with a chest full of medals has to go crying to daddy George Bush to make those mean old veterans stop picking on meeee!
Most of us stop running to mommy and daddy when we are about seven or eight. Most of us fight our own fights. Like this one. The fight is on, stay out of the way. It's not for you, Randy, this fight is for the men.
Peter is currently blogless, as far as I can tell, but I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing him start.
"I've seen and heard some of the mainstream press reaction to the Swift Boat Vets ads. The big DNC talking point being parroted is that the Vets are part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Attack Machine.
Way off.
This is personal."
Paul of Wizbang has a post with a link to the third Swift Boat Vets ad, this one debunking Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" claim. In the comments, a Viet Nam vet named Peter explains to a troll named Randy what REALLY motivates the vets. I'm leaving in the salty language out of courtesy to a man who has earned the right to use it:
Yes, go ahead and vote for a man that took an oath, then took the extra pay and privileges of a commissioned officer. Then after whatever exploits were actually real, came back and ran for office as a war hero and lost. Got his enlistment cut short, too.
Having failed to attain office that route he changed directions, surrounded himself with 'veterans' many of whom never spent one single day in uniform, others of whom had not ever set foot in a combat zone, all of whom refused to testify under oath, even when offered full immunity (that pesky perjury exception to immunity, you know) and slimed the names of every swinging dick that ever wore Uncle's suit. Slimed the good name of every man who came home in a shiny aluminum box with lies. Lies about alleged crimes that were never committed. For as long as that long black wall in Washington, DC has stood, John Kerry has been rubbing human feces on to those names.
I don't know what that c--------- did in Viet Nam, I was thirty f------ months in another AO, Randy, one without movie cameras, hell, instamatics were too heavy to carry on a hump through the bush after one's first patrol. I don't know what the sonofabitch did over there, I only know what he did here. And what he did here was lie about men whose sweaty jockstraps he is not fit to carry. What he did here was to deliberately slander 58,000 men who aren't around to answer because the medals they got were posthumus.
A------- like you, Randy, think this is about George Bush because you don't know any of those names on the Wall. It's not about George Bush, it's about an overpriveliged Yankee blueblood who may as well have walked into 58,000 American homes and pissed on every one of those neatly folded flags.
Now, thirty-three years later he has the gall to return to those same homes and steal those flags to parade himself around, wrapped in the flags that covered the bodies of my friends. That's what this is about, not George Bush. John Kerry slimed the names and the honor of every young man that stood with his buddies while this Hee-row pulled strings to come home early.
There are a whole bunch of really pissed off veterans, some of us gave limbs, all of us gave our youth and we want to restore the honor to those names on the wall. For thirty-three years we've had to listen to you little fucks, Randy because we had no way to make our voices heard. It's over. This is where it stops. John Kerry has dug up the bodies of our brothers to stand on in a desperate attempt to give himself a little stature.
Pretty funny, this big brave War Hee-row with a chest full of medals has to go crying to daddy George Bush to make those mean old veterans stop picking on meeee!
Most of us stop running to mommy and daddy when we are about seven or eight. Most of us fight our own fights. Like this one. The fight is on, stay out of the way. It's not for you, Randy, this fight is for the men.
Peter is currently blogless, as far as I can tell, but I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing him start.
Betsy's Page
Teresa Heinz Kerry is a gift??? that overflows. Should Hubby John answer for some of her antics?
lgf: French Bribery Watch
French Bribery Watch
These are the highly-principled allies whose “respect” John Kerry wants to “earn.” Maybe he should bribing them instead? Total Officials in Bribes Probe.
These are the highly-principled allies whose “respect” John Kerry wants to “earn.” Maybe he should bribing them instead? Total Officials in Bribes Probe.
Lowell Sun Online - Today's Headlines
John Kerry's hometown paper endorses George W. Bush for President
Remember how the lamestream media played it up when the Crawford TX paper, which may reach almost a thousand daily readers, endorsed John Kerry for president? Don't hold your breath waiting for C-BS to tell you about this.
Here's just a taste.
Remember how the lamestream media played it up when the Crawford TX paper, which may reach almost a thousand daily readers, endorsed John Kerry for president? Don't hold your breath waiting for C-BS to tell you about this.
Here's just a taste.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Payoff to France
October 03, 2004
Official Report Says Saddam Bribed France, Russia
Some months ago, preliminary information was disclosed about government agencies and individuals, including journalists, who received bribes from Saddam Hussein through the U.N.'s "oil for food" program. In the meantime, the Iraqi government has been conducting an official investigation. The report resulting from that investigation has been leaked, and the resulting bombshell is reported on by the London Times:
The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.
A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.
[The report] details a catalogue of alleged bribery and corruption perpetrated by Saddam under the UN programme, revealing how the regime lined its pockets and those of influential politicians, journalists and UN officials.
The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.”
Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received 9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a profit of £670,000. Sevan has always denied any improper conduct.
A former senior aide to Putin allegedly organised the sale of almost 4m barrels of oil at a profit of more than £330,000. At the time the oil was sold, Russia was blocking the UN from supporting America’s demands to attack Iraq. According to the report, the aide, who worked in the presidential office, received 3.9m barrels of oil between May and December 2002.
A French oil company teamed up with the regime to bribe a UN-appointed inspector monitoring exports of Iraqi oil. The inspector, a Portuguese national working for Saybolt, a Dutch firm, was paid a total of £58,000 in cash to forge export documents.
The French firm is linked to a close associate of Jacques Chirac, the country’s president. A spokesman for Saybolt said it would be investigating the allegations.
The report claims that Russians had a prominent role. They received “unprecedented priority” and were allocated a third of all Iraqi oil — most of which was resold to other nations. Besides Putin’s private office, those named as having received oil include political parties, Russian oil firms and the foreign ministry.
A section of the report on Russian involvement says Saddam and his henchmen furthered “their political and propagandist cause through companies, individuals and political parties that have no relation to the oil industry. Through their activities, they have gained the indebtedness of the Russian Federation and with that, its weight and leadership on the world stage as well as its permanent membership of the UN Security Council”.
Last week Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an Iraqi government adviser who worked on the investigation, confirmed the report as genuine. “The records demonstrate that the UN oil-for-food programme provided Saddam with a vehicle to buy support internationally by bribing political parties, companies, journalists and other individuals,” he said. “This shows the need for a complete review of the UN.”
This is an interim report based on only a partial review of "oil for food" transactions. Thus, more revelations are likely to come out in the future.
Thanks to reader Barry Johnson, who pointed out this story and also noted it on his own blog, The Hopeful Cynic.
Posted by Hindrocket at 09:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Official Report Says Saddam Bribed France, Russia
Some months ago, preliminary information was disclosed about government agencies and individuals, including journalists, who received bribes from Saddam Hussein through the U.N.'s "oil for food" program. In the meantime, the Iraqi government has been conducting an official investigation. The report resulting from that investigation has been leaked, and the resulting bombshell is reported on by the London Times:
The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.
A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.
[The report] details a catalogue of alleged bribery and corruption perpetrated by Saddam under the UN programme, revealing how the regime lined its pockets and those of influential politicians, journalists and UN officials.
The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.”
Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received 9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a profit of £670,000. Sevan has always denied any improper conduct.
A former senior aide to Putin allegedly organised the sale of almost 4m barrels of oil at a profit of more than £330,000. At the time the oil was sold, Russia was blocking the UN from supporting America’s demands to attack Iraq. According to the report, the aide, who worked in the presidential office, received 3.9m barrels of oil between May and December 2002.
A French oil company teamed up with the regime to bribe a UN-appointed inspector monitoring exports of Iraqi oil. The inspector, a Portuguese national working for Saybolt, a Dutch firm, was paid a total of £58,000 in cash to forge export documents.
The French firm is linked to a close associate of Jacques Chirac, the country’s president. A spokesman for Saybolt said it would be investigating the allegations.
The report claims that Russians had a prominent role. They received “unprecedented priority” and were allocated a third of all Iraqi oil — most of which was resold to other nations. Besides Putin’s private office, those named as having received oil include political parties, Russian oil firms and the foreign ministry.
A section of the report on Russian involvement says Saddam and his henchmen furthered “their political and propagandist cause through companies, individuals and political parties that have no relation to the oil industry. Through their activities, they have gained the indebtedness of the Russian Federation and with that, its weight and leadership on the world stage as well as its permanent membership of the UN Security Council”.
Last week Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an Iraqi government adviser who worked on the investigation, confirmed the report as genuine. “The records demonstrate that the UN oil-for-food programme provided Saddam with a vehicle to buy support internationally by bribing political parties, companies, journalists and other individuals,” he said. “This shows the need for a complete review of the UN.”
This is an interim report based on only a partial review of "oil for food" transactions. Thus, more revelations are likely to come out in the future.
Thanks to reader Barry Johnson, who pointed out this story and also noted it on his own blog, The Hopeful Cynic.
Posted by Hindrocket at 09:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
