Loud Crickets

Democrats engineering a smear on the CIA

2009-07-12T02:11:00.000-07:00

This is the latest disgusting engineered smear on the CIA from Democrats.

This started when Democrats, with an irrational hatred of Bush, started to make rumblings about prosecuting Bush officials for "torture". "Torture" like waterboarding 3 terrorist masterminds who have killed thousands of Americans.

It came out in 2002 that Pelosi was indeed briefed on waterboarding, and again recently. This put a crimp on the full-steam kangaroo trial of Bush officials if Pelosi knew in 2002 about these programs and did nothing.

Here's the intel report that was released that shows Pelosi is full of it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html

So she said on May 14th that the CIA "misleads us all the time" and "routinely misleads Congress" when confronted with this damaging information that she is full of it.

Panetta actually released a statement saying that the CIA does not lie. Now Pelosi looks really bad, because Panetta is a fellow (liberal) Democrat.

What to do? Pelosi looks like a liar, CIA looks like it is forthright, and no prosecution of Bush officials. What to do? Smear the CIA.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2009-07-11-1027085655_x.htm

Panetta makes a HUGE PUBLIC DEAL about the closing of a counterintelligence program that NEVER GOT OFF THE GROUND.
Here are some relevant quotes:
"A former intelligence official, who was familiar with former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's tenure at the CIA, said Hayden never communicated with the president or vice president about the now-canceled program and was under no restrictions from Cheney about congressional briefings."
Hayden never briefed Bush/Cheney on the program, and was free to tell Congress about it (but didn't because it was such a minor program).

"Subsequent CIA directors did not inform Congress because the intelligence-gathering effort had not developed to the point that they believed merited a congressional briefing, said a former intelligence official and another government official familiar with Panetta's June 24 briefing to the House and Senate Intelligence committees."
Tenet didn't tell Congress either because the program never really got going.

"The official characterized it as an embryonic intelligence gathering effort, and only sporadically active. He said it was hoped to yield intelligence that would be used to conduct a secret mission or missions in another country -- that is, a covert operation. But it never matured to that point."
Keywords are embryonic, sporadically active, and "NEVER MATURED". Clearly this is a program that was rarely if ever used, never bore fruit, and considered too minor to even report to Congress by both Tenet and Hayden.

Here are the important sections:

"The former intelligence official familiar with Hayden said Congress has a right to contemporaneous information about all CIA activities. But he said there are so many in such early stages that briefing Congress on every one would be too time consuming for both the CIA and the congressional committees."

"The government official with direct knowledge of the Panetta briefing and the former intelligence official said the CIA has numerous efforts ongoing under its existing authorities that have not yet been briefed to Congress."

So not only are there OTHER ONGOING programs that Panetta has not briefed Congress on, but the reason why programs like this one are not briefed is that in the early stages the programs would be too time-consuming to brief Congress.

Here's the kicker: Given that there are ONGOING programs that Panetta hasn't briefed Congress on, it happens quite frequently, and clearly this was an insignificant program that never got off the ground...WHY would Panetta choose to inform Congress in such a PUBLIC way about this program? Why not just end the program without incident? Panetta KNOWS how insignificant the program is, and he's got OTHER ongoing programs he hasn't notified Congress about because they also are insignificant. So why go public for THIS program?

Well, for politics.

With this action, Democrats are already calling for Panetta to retract his statement to Pelosi and claiming Pelosi is vindicated.

With this PUBLIC release of a "secret", "nefarious" program, Panetta manages to smear the CIA and vindicate Pelosi. You think it's an accident that Eric Holder is considering a torture probe, as we find out today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2009-07-11-399766275_x.htm

Holder saying he is "going solo" without the full consent of Obama is just bunk. Obama wants to prosecute Bush officials to take people's mind about his economic deficiencies, satisfy the liberal base, and probably satisfy his own Bush hatred.

Obama simply wants to prosecute without getting his hands dirty (which will be impossible, but he is will try).

Panetta was assuredly ASSAILED by Democrats for "betraying" Queen Pelosi and also derailing their witch hunt of Bush officials. So Panetta finds an unused CIA program, is "shocked, shocked!" that it was never briefed to Congress, and informs Congress in a big spectacle. That is his mea culpa.

This is all a coordinated setup to appease the liberal base calling for the heads of Bush officials that sanctioned torture. By having Panetta publicly release this "secret" program, he effectively casts doubt on the CIA's veracity that they are forthright, and opens up the question "what more are they hiding/lying about". Holder at this point doesn't have to actually prosecute, but this at least casts enough doubt to almost vindicate Pelosi.

The doubt cast on the CIA by Pelosi et al., already reeling from the bad intel from Iraq, will surely damage the national security of the country, potentially for decades. Investigations from Holder will cement that further. Do Democrats care? No, they have their ax to grind.

What happens CO2 keeps rising but the Earth cools?

2009-06-14T22:27:00.001-07:00

The Earth is cooling, and in the next few years it will cool even more. Of course the media will point to hot spots, but never cold spots. Earth cooling? Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
2006 was colder than 2005.
2007 was colder than 2006.
2008 was colder than 2007.
2009 in on track to be colder than 2008.

Yet CO2 emissions are INCREASING every year? How is this possible?

Well, because the Earth's temperature has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

The temperature of the Earth is influenced by the sun. I know, this is news to you. Fluctuations in the solar output mean we have temperature changes on Earth.

The solar output of the sun has been on a hundred-year high for the past 10-15 years or so; this is now subsiding and we are getting the opposite effect: very low sunspots.

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/

The Earth's 2nd hottest decade was NOT the 1990's. It was the 1940's. How did we have a hot 1940's, then a relatively cold 1970's, if CO2 emissions were relatively linearly increasing?

Well, because solar activity was at a relative minimum in the 1970's, and relatively high in the 1940's.

You can see solar output here:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451e28a69e201156f88e1e6970c-pi

And the actual increase of solar energy from the sun:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451e28a69e2011570b57a35970b-pi

And historical temps here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg

Clearly you can see the temps oscillate up and down every 11 years or so with the solar cycle, which is on average every 11 years but is really 9-14 years.

You want a research paper? Read this:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

Their conclusion after researching modern and historical solar output to Earth's temperature:
"[42] In conclusion, if we assume that the latest temperature
and TSI secular reconstructions, WANG2005 and
MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that
solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate
system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a
time constant between 6 and 12 a. This would suggest
that the large-scale computer models of climate could be
significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate
coupling mechanisms."

Gosh, somebody better tell Al Gore that the science might not be closed.

So my question is this: When the Earth cools naturally, yet CO2 increases, what will be the explanation from environmentalists? You can bet that climate change fanatics screaming about Armageddon will be as quiet as Y2K fanatics screaming about Armageddon on 1/2/2000. Or Avian Bird Flu fanatics screaming about Armageddon. Very, very quiet.

I'm sure they will say something like "well, even though we were completely wrong, at least we did get good conservation efforts underway" or something to that effect. There will be no apology from them.

But that doesn't mean WE need to be quiet on how wrong they were, and why efforts like cap-and-trade need to be stopped dead. Thankfully we never signed Kyoto.

What will we learn? Well, perhaps we will learn not to trust liberals/socialists bent on controlling the economy from the green perspective. Alinsky said to use the ruse of the "fight against pollution" to regulate the economy, and that was back in 1971.

The GOP goes both ways...

2009-05-07T20:48:00.000-07:00

And it isn't as fun as it sounds.

There seems to be a contradiction: some on the left (and some Republicans) say that the GOP has become too right-wing and needs to moderate. Conservatives say that the exact OPPOSITE is true, that the GOP has moved to far to the left. Well, which is it?

It is both.

In terms of social issues, the GOP has been solidly on the right. Republican politicians' public positions on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion haven't moved a cat's whisker to the left since at least 2000. Some of these issues were brought to the forefront in elections and gave victory to Republicans. But as social issues giveth, so do they taketh. The position among many fiscal conservatives/social liberals is that the GOP has become too Evangelical and too conservative on social issues.

Conservative social issues win as a generic social issue when presented by a FACELESS ballot. I doubt that most Blue states would vote for gay marriage. California just voted it down.

But that does NOT mean that Republican POLITICIANS can derive victory from these issues. People might have conservative social views but they DO NOT like to be lectured by conservative politicians. Politicians that in many cases turn out to be hypocritical (is that Larry Craig's hand under my chair?). For every Carrie Prejean that legitimately expresses her opinion against gay marriage, there will be nude photos, a DUI, a drug conviction, prostitutes, gay lover, whatever.

You will never find a sinless politician, so Republican politicians calling something sinful will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS expose AT LEAST ONE Republican politician as a hypocrite.

Banning gay marriage always passes in California, yet no social conservative has a shot in he-double toothpicks to win statewide office. The reason is that people by and large think politicians that preach social conservative values are either hypocritical and/or self-righteous. Let's save the preaching to the experts: priests, rabbis, and...preachers.

On the concept of FISCAL issues, where the GOP has moved is at best mixed, and more clearly the GOP has moved to the LEFT since the Gingrich Congress of the mid-1990's. Huge spending increases, even on discretionary spending, have left many fiscal conservatives believing Obama when he said DEMOCRATS were fiscal conservatives. I'm sure they all get a big chuckle thinking now about how Obama punked them (lied to them) and turned out to be the biggest fiscal liberal since FDR; but Obama was only able to MAKE the argument that Democrats were fiscal conservatives...because the GOP was NOT.

The Republicans Party will have success again when they are not so outspoken on conservative issues (yet still remain QUIETLY supportive) and return to fiscal conservativism. That means cutting the budget people. That means not going bankrupt. Americans support not going bankrupt, that's a winning issue.

So, which way has the GOP gone the past few years, to the left or right? They have gone both ways, and it doesn't seem to be something American voters approve of.

Obama/Emanuel bully Israel to mask their weakness

2009-05-05T10:50:00.000-07:00

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710862759&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Emanuel: Thwarting Iran easier with Israeli-Palestinian talks"

"Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. The remarks were reportedly made in a closed-door meeting previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors on Sunday"

Obama via Emanuel is strong-arming Israel like he does all his enemies: media outlets he doesn't like, businesses he doesn't like, politicians he doesn't like. He threatens and cajoles and bullies. This is blackmail, a direct threat TO ISRAEL that says they will NOT help deal with Iran's nukes unless Israel brokers a deal with the Palestinians.

Obama is strong-arming ISRAEL, NOT Iran, NOT Palestinians.

Obama will never do anything militarily vs. Iran, regardless of what Israel agrees to. They are weak leftists and have no desire to attack Iran and would also lose their leftist base. Iran knows that.

So what Obama is now doing it to put the blame on Israel.
If Israel capitulates and trades land for dealing with nukes, they can take credit for the elusive Israeli/Pali peace.

If Israel does not captiulate, then they can say they WOULD HAVE gone after Iran...but shucks, Israel didn't play along.

If Israel attacks Iran they have cover with Muslims. They can say "we tried to broker a deal, but Israel would not have it".

This is merely a ploy to deflect the weakness of Obama on to Israel; blaming them for Iranian nukes. The problem is that it is so transparent. It is transparent to Jews, to Israel, and to any thinking American.

Before the election Obama said Iran nukes were unacceptable. So now Iran nukes ARE acceptable if Israel/Palis don't agree on a deal?

Iran nukes are either acceptable or not, it should be obvious to everyone that if Iranian nukes are unacceptable (which they are), then it doesn't matter WHAT Israel does. Iran nukes are unacceptable means they are unacceptable.

Obama trying to paint ALL conservatives as extremist

2009-05-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," according to Obama.

And Obama and other leftists want to marginalize all conservatives as "hate-filled", "right-wing extremists".

The campaign for Obama is to portray himself as a moderate/centrist, and everyone that disagrees with him as an "extremist".

Obama and other leftists will do their utmost to do this. Janeane Garofalo's rant against the tea parties on MSNBC was no accident or off the cuff. It was intentional and part of a larger pattern to paint ALL conservatives as extremists. This is a Stalinist technique.

Consider Obama's quote above, trying to paint Rush as an ideologue whose views would be anathema to getting things done.

Consider Janet Napolitano's DHS report about "right-wing extremists", including groups that "oppose abortion or illegal immigration".

Consider Michael Savage being BANNED from the UK (!!!!) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html for his views on immigration and Islam.

Michael Savage has NOTHING to do with the UK. I don't recall any big push for Savage to broadcast in the UK, or to have townhalls there. So why would UK ban him?

Because Gordon Brown, a fellow leftist, is helping Obama paint ALL conservatives as "extremists" by painting the conservative Savage on the same list as committed terrorists. It's a smear tactic against conservatives.

This also helps Brown appease the left and Muslims in his own country.

But what leads one to think this is Obama colluding with Brown to smear conservative critics of Obama?
1 Savage does not broadcast in the UK, no plans to, and no plans to give speeches there.
2 Gordon Brown was elected as PM in June 2007 yet it's now that Savage goes on the list.
3 Savage's comments were made years ago yet now he goes on the banned list.
4 Plenty of leftists and Muslims INSIDE the UK routinely advocate violence yet are not deported

I would not be surprised if there was actual collusion between Obama and Brown to put Savage's name on the UK "banned" list. This, along with other comments and Napolitano's DHS report, helps Obama to demonize critics and conservatives.

It is not an accident, it is not arbitrary that Savage is banned in the UK. This is a full-scale assault to silence and/or marginalize any opposing viewpoints and especially critics of Obama.

This will only continue as time goes on.

These days, won't even buy a cup of coffee

2009-04-20T22:11:00.000-07:00

Hekyll: "I guess we were all wrong about Obama. He really IS a fiscal conservative."

News reports show that Obama is really interested in cutting spending.

He's cutting $100 million! Isn't that a lot?"

Jekyll: "Well, Obama's Federal budget this year is supposed to be over $3.6 TRILLION."

Hekyll: "So? 100 million is a lot of cash."

Jekyll: "How much do you make in a year, Hekyll?"

Hekyll: "About $20,000."

Jekyll: "OK, let's say you plan on making $20,000. Let's also say you have debt of around $100,000 and you plan on SPENDING about $36,000. You with me now?"

Hekyll: "I owe $100K, I make $20,000, and I spend $36,000 in one year?!? I can't do that! I'll go bankrupt!"

Jekyll: "Well let's say someone does lend you the money. Now you and your wife need to figure out how you're going to get out of the hole. OK?"

Hekyll: (panicked) "OK, but I don't know how I would get out of that one."

Jekyll: "Well let's say that after months of trying, that you and your wife crunched all your expenses; all the stuff you guys buy, trying to cut your phone bill, food, car, insurance, movies, everything. You finally figured out how much money you can cut from your expenses for the year. The total you cut for the whole year in your precarious financial situation? $1."

Hekyll: "$1?!?!? What!??! That's ridiculous! That's an insult! $1 is not going make any difference whatsoever in my situation! I can't even buy a cup of coffee for that!"

Jekyll: "That $1 in your situation (spending $36K) is the EXACT same amount that Obama cut from the Federal budget: $100 million out of a budget that is $3,600,000 million!

$1 out of $36000... is the same % as
$100 mil out of $3,600,000 (what Obama is spending).

So do you think if you owed $100,000 on credit cards, and you made $20K, and you spend $36K, that saving $1 would make ANY DIFFERENCE?

Obama's budget deficit is going to be around $1.6 TRILLION this year ALONE! That's like we make $20,000 and spend $36,000. And yes, we owe about $10 TRILLION in debt already, just like you owe $100,000 in credit cards. Obama's cuts, which are just .002% of spending, is an insult? You bet it is. Come on, I'll buy you a cup of coffee. My treat."

'Obama is a moderate' = 'I am the King of England'

2009-04-11T11:42:00.000-07:00

I was wondering when the left would stop pretending that Obama is a moderate/centrist and just admit he's a full-ledged leftist.

During the campaign we heard that Obama was "post-partisan", would bring "a different tone to Washington", and was very "moderate", a "centrist", a "concillitator".

Wow, that seems like such a long time ago.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/12774/the-case-for-trust-and-support
Here Chris Bowers says why leftists should trust Obama:

"To my surprise, I think the trust and support argument is actually very strong. It focuses on five main reasons:

President Obama's progressive background
President Obama's voting record in the Senate
Democratic trifectas are rare
A major shift toward the public sector has occurred in just the first few weeks of President Obama's administration.
The Senate is the real problem anyway."

Check out what he says about Obama's background:
"Because of his background: There are some very progressive aspects to President Obama's background. Two that always stick out in my mind are that he spent time after college as a community organizer and found religion through a church that preached liberation theology. Experiences such as these can only come from a person who is open to left-wing ideas. Obama simply must view progressivism as something to take seriously, rather than as the caricatured fashion it is often portrayed in our national political discourse. There have been times in his life where he has sided with some very, very left-wing ideas."

Everything in Obama's progressive background and voting record was brought up in the campaign and DISMISSED by not only Democrats but by some REPUBLICANS as well.

"No, as President he won't vote like he did with his voting record or lifetime of progressive causes/connections. He'll be moderate."

Now that OpenLeft is saying he's a leftist, can we please put away the "moderate/centrist" argument?

What does this say?
1 Clearly, obviously, Obama is a leftist. HE IS NOT A MODERATE.
2 Obama is a liar
3 Democrats from the media to all pundits will purposely collude and happily lie to get a Democrat elected
4 The left (20% of voters are liberal) will be his bedrock of support

The media will continue to try to purposely collude and represent Obama as a moderate. Why? Most of them are liberal and for years (decades) have been trying to present themselves as moderate/centrist. They see Obama's illusion and their own illusion of centrism as linked. They will try to say that all of Obama's policies are really...centrist/moderate.

What conservatives need to do is EDUCATE people on what conservative and even moderate positions are, and people can clearly see for themselves that what Obama is doing is not moderate or centrist.

And in case you're wondering, I am not in fact the King of England.

Obama living in liberal fantasy land

2009-04-11T10:55:00.000-07:00

Over the past few days 3 things have happened that reinforce Obama's complete lack of understanding of reality. Obama is regressing into foreign policy stances even WEAKER than Clinton's, if you can believe it.

Nuke-free world comments raise alarms
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=94296

Obama Team Mulls Aims Of Somali Extremists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041003734.html?

U.S. navy eyeballs Somali pirates in hostage standoff
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1033510220090411?sp=true

In the case of wanting everyone to just "get along" and give up nukes, "He described the United States' obligation as a "moral responsibility."" A moral responsibility to give up nukes? Ummmm...do you see ANY OTHER COUNTRY chomping at the bit to get rid of their nukes? You think Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea are just excited to GIVE UP their nukes? It's complete FANTASY. Iran is flaunting the Europe, the UN and the US because they CRAVE nukes because of the power it gives. These countries will NEVER willingly give up nukes because there is nothing you could replace them with. What can you give N. Korea that replaces the power thy get with nukes? Money, food, power over their people? No, they can get that WITH their nuclear weapons.

Obama treats nuclear weapons as some sort of GUN CONTROL: if we outlaw guns, nobody will use them. In the real world, gun control just means CRIMINALS would use them because they know nobody else has a gun.

In the nuclear weapons scenario, Obama would have us disarm while the criminal countries of N. Korea and Iran happily use nuclear weapons any way they can.

In the 2nd article, regarding Somali extremists, the article states that "The organization's rapid expansion, ties between its leaders and al-Qaeda, and the presence of Americans and Europeans in its camps have raised the question of whether a preemptive strike is warranted. Yet the group's objectives have thus far been domestic, and officials say that U.S. intelligence has no evidence it is planning attacks outside Somalia. "

OK, so there are a bunch of Somali extremists, with ties to Al Queda, who have carried out attacks, but it's ok because they are only attacking Somalia. WHAT?!? Obama won't attack them because they're only domestic Islamic terrorists?

Why don't we substitute some other countries then. If a group of Islamic militants with ties with Al Queda was ONLY attacking Egypt, or Phillipines, or Thailand, or Saudi Arabia, or...the UK... DOMESTICALLY, then it wouldn't be a concern? Hey, the Taliban is only domestically attacking inside AFGHANISTAN, are they OK too???

And what happens when these trained, funded, and willing terrorists...decide to cross the border?

And lastly, the Somali pirates. I hope that the standoff is ended peacefully, but Obama's lack of decision and not even commenting about it for 3 days belies his overall indecision and weakness in regards to foreigners. If he is too strong he risks those in Africa/Middle East starting not to like him. And gosh, he wants EVERYONE to like him. Clearly the Somali pirates are not afraid of the American Navy (as they have stated); not because they have superioir firepower, but because they have superior WILL.

All in all, Obama's foreign policy picture is one of weakness and abdication of responsibility, reflecting a complete absence of understanding the real world. Really, did we expect anything different?

GOP needs to go "nucular" on Obama amnesty

2009-04-09T11:53:00.000-07:00

Republicans absolutely need to come out STRONGLY against Obama’s amnesty bill. Not just strongly, WITH MAXIMUM EFFORT!!! The wishy-washy approach of McCain and Bush is completely unacceptable.

I know why the GOP is doing it: they fear Hispanic backlash, backlash against the GOP for being “racist”, and backlash from business owners that want cheap labor. This is pandering and not leading.

It should not be very difficult to be against amnesty for illegal immigrants and not be racist: in fact most people fall into this group.

The way it should be handled for Republicans is:
1 Acknowledge we are a nation of immigrants
2 Acknowledge immigrants, and especially Hispanics’ contribution to society
3 Say we ALREADY HAVE a legal immigration process with Mexico and other Latin American countries. For Mexico alone we let in over 110,000 people LEGALLY to this country (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2008.pdf).
4 It’s not FAIR to Hispanics living in Mexico to wait LONGER because illegal immigrants CUT IN LINE; those that CUT IN LINE should not get rewarded. Those 110,000 had to wait, why can’t these people here illegally?
5 Need to be tough on EMPLOYERS that hire illegals
6 We already TRIED Amnesty in 1986 and it didn’t solve immigration. Why? The day after amnesty was signed NEW illegal immigrants crossed the border. Until we seal the border and/or Latin America becomes as wealthy as America, Amnesty will only “solve” illegal immigration for a few minutes/hours until the next illegal immigrant crosses the border.
7 Illegals lower wages and take jobs from Americans. This has been proved in numerous studies.
8 Illegals also cost much more in taxes than they produce.
9 If an illegal immigrant has a child that is an American citizen, no one wants to split up the family. The mother and father should be proper parents and raise their child in their home country. When the child is older they can make the decision where they want to live. GOP should ask a rhetorical question: if you had to move to a poorer state, would you leave your child behind or raise them with love wherever you were?
10 Applies to illegal immigrants from EVERYEHERE, not just Latin America. Europe, Canada, Africa, Asia.

I’m not in marketing, but the “message” that should be repeated over and over, using key words like “CUT IN LINE”, “RESPECT”, “FAIRNESS”, “AMERICAN JOBS”, “FOREIGNERS”, “WAGES”, and “EUROPEANS” :
1 FARINESS. Fairness to American workers and fairness to Hispanics living in Latin America who do the right thing and don’t CUT IN LINE and immigrate legally. Who likes people that CUT IN LINE?
2 AMERICAN JOBS. Let’s raise wages and give jobs to Americans, not citizens of FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Hey, actually raise an issue working people care about.
3 TRIED AMNESTY AND IT DIDN’T WORK.
4 RESPECT for Hispanics and LEGAL immigrants
5 Applies to ALL illegal immigrants, including EUROPEANS and Asians. Mention European countries BY NAME and not just focus on Mexico.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that...

2009-04-08T15:31:00.000-07:00

The blog post title is from the Declaration of Indpendence. But what if the ENTIRE Declaration of Indpendence was just that sentence?

Here are some excerpts from famous American speeches/writings:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the "

"Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately "

"AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new"

"WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the"

"And, Reverend Clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional delegation, and all of you: I can't "

How do those short "excerpts" resonate with you? Do they move you, do they make you think? I'm sure you know where many of these excerpts come from (and you can cheat and look at the bottom for answers). If you had never heard those speeches or read those words in their entirety, would this small little excerpt have ANY impact on you by only reading this short sentence above?

What do they all have in common? They are all less than 140 characters, which is the maximum number of characters of a Twitter post.

Twitter is a fun website, and it's great for posting announcements quickly to a lot of different people.

I admire Michael Leahy’s drive, ambition, and ability to organize conservatives on TCOT and with the various tea parties across the country. I see quite a lot of conservatives see Obama using social networking in his campaign, and so conservatives try to use Twitter to spread the conservative message.

But the time for conservatives now (and forever) is not the ability to do quick announcements; what we need is for the populace to be EDUCATED. Do you think a 20-year old will be able to glean the crux of the Federalist Papers from reading it 140 characters at a time? How can we present IDEAS like freedom, education about history and economics, about Democrats repeating failed policies, 140 characters at a time? Sure, we can send messages to EXISTING conservatives using Twitter, but how many NEW ONES can we expect to get?

Of course, you can post links (URLs) to Twitter with pages that have unlimited content, but it’s actually more cumbersome to click each individual link, and with only 140 characters it’s not even clear what the link is from the abbreviated description.

Twitter is actually more conducive to quick, emotional outbursts than reasoned debate or argument.

And this dovetails with the tea parties as well, organized by Michael Leahy of TCOT fame. What is the purpose of the tea parties? Is it that conservatives are unhappy with Obama? High taxes? Spending? Government control? All of the above?

It seems that the tea parties are making a lot of noise, and letting people vent; it’s also showing that conservatives in general CAN organize. These are all good things.

The danger is that the actual MESSAGE of what conservative tea parties are standing for is muddled and most people don’t understand what conservatives are talking about.

Everyone knows that the pro-immigration rallies were about getting amnesty.
Everyone knows that the G20 rallies iun London were anti-capitalist/banker/globalization.
Everyone knows that the anti-war ralliers were…anti-war.

If an apolitical/moderate voter sees a tea party on TV, will they know what conservatives are protesting? If not, then whomever is commenting on the news story will freely TELL the viewer what they are protesting.

Sadly, many voters don’t know what the issue with spending is because: 1) we haven’t seen negative effects of deficit spending after so many years of it, and 2) Bush/Republicans also had deficits. They have no idea how big Obama’s deficits really are in relation to any of Bush’s deficits, about inevitable inflation (and what that even is), about Obama’s power grabs.

Without educating voters as to the REASONS why Obama’s spending and Obama’s policies are harmful, conservatives can easily be painted as “obstructionist”, trying to prevent Obama who “got dealt a bad hand” and is “just trying to help out”.

Do I think conservatives should use Twitter? ABSOLUTELY! Is TCOT a great way of communicating to fellow conservatives? Yes. Are tea parties a good chance for conservatives to get their voices heard? Yes.

But let’s not substitute noise for reason, abbreviated Twitter posts for well-thought out arguments.

Just in case you're wondering, here are where the excerpts are from:
Gettysburg Address
FDR Dec 8 1941
Federalist Papers #1
Federalist Papers #2
Reagan "Evil Empire" speech 1983

ABBA-Another Bank Bailout Assessment

2009-03-25T21:17:00.000-07:00

Here's my idea for the bank bailout...

1 Banks need to open up their books and Fed/FDIC evaluates assets (and identifies what can't be evaluated). I'm sure these assets can be accurately priced, which will be below the bank's marked value. Some banks like Citi are insolvent.
2 Fed rates all banks from weakest to strongest.
3 Fed then creates a timetable when the banks will be "released" to sink or swim; this will be staggered every 3-6 months or so, with the weakest banks getting "released" first. Once released, banks either then exist by getting private funds on their own or go bankrupt. Investors can pony up more of their $ if they think the bank is solid.
4 Fed props up ALL banks in the meantime w/Federal $ to pay for operating expenses.
5 If a bank is released and is insolvent, then the FDIC takes them over in receivership. Good assets are sold to highest bidder, bad assets are kept by FDIC and sold over a period of time (years). Stronger banks buy the good assets of the failed banks, making all of them stronger because they have a higher % of good assets.
6 Repeat the process over a period of 12-24 months until all banks exist on their own or are bankrupt.

Banks that sink:
CEOs get FIRED
Shareholders get NOTHING
Bondholders get NOTHING

Staggering the "releases" will make sure the system isn't overwhelmed with good assets: only 1 bank's "good assets" will be sold at any one time (if they fail), lowering the prices too much.

This also gives time for banks on the list to get their house in order, and everyone can see where each bank is on the list.

We can sell these bad assets for whatever we want, whereas the banks can't lower the prices to actual value lest they be declared insolvent. So they stubbornly cling to high prices for these bad assets, and hope that taxpayers will OVERPAY for them? If we're going to own these bad assets regardless, we'll take them over in a receivership like the FDIC does ALL THE TIME, and sell them when we want at the price we want. We can even wait years to sell these assets when they are more valuable, whereas the banks don't have that kind of time.

If we say this idea is impossible, what we are saying is that 100% of our large banks are INSOLVENT and even combined with all good assets from ALL the other banks, NO AMERICAN BANK would survive. If that is the case, what is the point of banks auctioning their bad assets in Tim Geithner's new PPIP? If there aren't enough good assets to make ONE bank solvent, then Geithner's plan will fail because even after selling off their bad assets, these banks will STILL fail. Right?

If we don't do this plan, what will prevent banks from doing the EXACT SAME THING 10-15 years from now? Let's see, make tens of billions creating an asset bubble, then let the taxpayer pay for the bad assets when the bubble pops: that's a situation banks can get behind. All banks will do is get themselves in a position where they are "too big to fail" and do the same thing: run up an asset bubble and rake in the $ before it pops. They will say this in 2019 after the next asset bubble pops: "sure, we did this same thing 10 years ago in 2009, but this time we REALLY thought we were buying good assets, and did we mention we're too big to fail?"

My plan costs the Government less (taxpayers will own the bank's bad assets regardless, why pay extra for them in an auction?), bankers/investors suffer for making bad decisions, and everyone inside the banks and out knows what the timeframes are.

Jim Cramer, take the next step...

2009-03-12T17:15:00.000-07:00

Mr. Cramer,

You just recently stated that you are a supporter of Mr. Obama's economic plans, just not right now:
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-takes-white-house-frank-rich-and-jon-stewart

You support cap-and-trade, healthcare "reform", etc. and you do favor "almost all of Obama's agenda".

You don't want Obama to pass those now because we're in a horrible recession, and those things will cause a Depression":
"But all the initiatives he wants to rush, like tax hikes, changes in health care, tinkering with the mortgage deduction -- good grief, right now in the midst of the worst housing downturn ever -- and the tough cap-and-trade rules, will derail any chance we have of turning this economy around. Instead, they put the Second Great Depression smack on the nation's table."

OK, if you don't want them passed now because they'll make a recession into a Depression...why would we want to pass them AFTER this recession?

By your own logic they will be a drain on the economy, but they will be PERMANENT: the excessive cost of this socialism will be to turn what would have been a recession without them into a depression, what would have been weak growth into recessions, and strong growth into weak growth, etc.

That PERMANENT drain on our economic output is exactly why we're opposed to them ALL THE TIME. Yes, implementing them NOW will be disaster. But implement as we're coming out of a bad recession and risk slipping back into one?

This is exactly why Obama and his team want to try and implement this NOW. By pushing back these programs until the economy is healthy, they are tacitly ADMITTING that they will cause permanent damage to our economic output.

So they HAVE to implement these now else they admit the Emperor has no clothes.

They know exactly what damage this will cause, but they are not interested in long-term economic growth. They are interested in consolidating power (tax.tax.tax.spend.spend.spend.elect.elect.elect) and implementing socialism.

The next logical step is right there in front of you, Mr. Cramer. It's a lonely road, but ultimately comforting that you made the right decision.

What is victory in Iraq?

2006-10-25T21:58:00.000-07:00

Victory in Iraq. What is it? Are we victorious, defeated, both, neither? Well, I'll tell you.

Wars are a series of battles that make up a larger war. Taking France in the Normandy invasion was important, but that in itself didn't defeat Hitler. It was a series of smaller victories and defeats that led to a larger victory in WWII.

It's a bit harder to see victory in Iraq, but we've already won the most crucial battle: we deposed Saddam.

Saddam WAS a threat to the US, most certainly had ties with Al Queda, and absoutely would have developed WMD after sanctions were ended. I know, you think I'm full of it; but read the Iraq Survey Group, read the 9/11 Commission Report, read the Senate Intel reports, and read my report of the Senate Intel Report here: http://loudcrickets.blogspot.com/2006/09/phase-ii-intelligence-report-as-told.html

So removing Saddam, which Bush signified with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier, WAS a significant "mission" that was "accomplished". Right? Right.

Apart from that, where are we now? Since Saddam's deposition(?), are we winning? How do we even define winning?

Well, a HUGE victory in Iraq would be: Iraq is a stable democracy without active participation from the US military.

Now, does that mean all insurgents will be caught? No. That is impossible: ANY democracy in the heart of the Middle East will be a target for foreign insurgents FOREVER.

There will also ALWAYS be sectarian tensions because of the large numbers of Shiites AND Sunnis in Iraq and in Baghdad. Again, NOTHING will stop that, they've been fighting for centuries.

If Iraq consistently has democratic elections, AND ALSO trains enough police/military to stop US military from doing active patrols, that is victory in Iraq.

We should capture/kill as many al Queda as we can while we are in Iraq, because al Queda has NO interest in stability in Iraq. They want INSTABILITY so the democracy will fall and they can hopefully install a theocracy in Iraq. That's why Al Queda kills US military AS WELL as Iraqi police/military AS WELL as blowing up generators/oil refineries AS WELL as killing ORDINARY IRAQIS IN MARKETS. They only care about instability for Iraq, NOT ABOUT FREEDOM FOR IRAQ.

Again, there will always be violence in Iraq. There will be power shortages and a weak economy for a long time. Though of crucial importance to Iraqis themselves, they are not so important to the US. Benchmarking victory on Iraq on these things is foolish: you mean to tell me that in 3 years, we had a stable democracy in Iraq, US military stood down, and insurgents blew up power stations that reduced power output, that would mean US defeat? Hardly.

As for violence, there is violence THROUGHOUT the Middle East. Is Israel a "failed state" because they had daily suicide bombings? No.

Is Saudi Arabia a "failed state" because Al Queda kills Americans there, kills Saudis, and tries to overthrow the government? No.

What about Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan? These countries are ALL subecjt to terrorist attacks. Are they "failed states"? No.

So the fact that violence is in Iraq doesn't mean US has lost, or Iraq has "failed". It's just unlucky to be a country in the Middle East in 2006.

Elections in Iraq are a success: though the Sunnis boycotted the first election, they REALLY VOTED EN MASSE in the second election. What does this prove? That maybe they want to have a democratic Iraq! If ALL Sunnis rejected democracy, they wouldn't have voted.

Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds recognize the DEMOCRATICALLY-elected Government in Iraq. It's not rejected by Sunnis or Kurds. All 3 groups recognize it, which is crucial.

What is left in Iraq is militias (some funded by Iran and Syria) to destabilize Iraq, as well as foreign insurgents like Al Queda who want to destabilize Iraq. There is also a certain % of people that just want to kill the other sect, though without weapons from a militia or terrorist group, people would merely be haters instead of able to kill people.

Leaving Iraq now will leave the government in Iraq vulnerable to collapse, leading to the takeover by Iran and/or Islamic militants. Before they took over, there would be YEARS of MASSIVE civil war and REAL GENOCIDE in Iraq. That would be a defeat for the US, for Iraq, and for the World.

It's tragic and disgusting to see so many innocent Iraqis or US soldiers die in Iraq. But what do US soldiers fight for? They fight to build a stable Iraq, so that we can hope to transform the Middle East to the rest of the modern world. The Modern world is anathema to Islamic militants, which is why turning Iraq into a stable, modern country is so important. If Iraq propsers, more people in the Middle East will trn to the US/Iraq as a model, NOT AL QUEDA. Transforming Iraq into a modern country is ambitious, but not impossible at all. Iraqis are extremely well-educated, and before Saddam, Iraq was very modern and prosperous. Those same traits STILL EXIST in Iraq today.

Insurgents attack because they are counting on US losing its nerve and pulling out so they can more easily take over. This is why they attack the US: http://loudcrickets.blogspot.com/2006/09/do-you-know-why-islamic-terrorists.html

In the big picture in Iraq, progress is slow, but palpable. People in Iraq think that next year will be better than this year. That signifies hope, which is crucial to move forward. US soldiers are dying, and we are paying a high price, but pulling out will be a defeat in Iraq, and stabilizing Iraq a victory in Iraq.

So by any rational standard, Saddam's removal was a REAL VICTORY; it would be a victory for the US if we could remove Kim Jong Il and Iran's President! Saddam's removal was Mission Freakin' Accomplished! But even with the victory of Saddam's removal, we have another mission: to stabilize Iraq. We can be victorious in this mission, or we can be defeated. if Iraq merely continues on the same trajectory they are on now(I didn't say "stay the course" :) , then US, and the Iraqi people, will be victorious in Iraq. Given that more Iraqi troops are coming online every day, and the government of Iraq itself is holding solid, it's clear to say that we've already achieved a great deal of victory in Iraq, which will be solidified over time.

To all the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists...

2006-09-28T22:20:00.000-07:00

OK, you see yourself as a brave soul fighting for the "real truth": that Bush and cronies did 9/11 to grab oil, take power, whatever.

Since almost all of your theories have been debunked very plainly, the fallback position seems to be WTC7.

WTC7 seems to fall as if it were exploded from within: after all, there were 2 planes, and they only hit the WTC Towers, NOT WTC7.

Proof that Bush pulled off 9/11!

I have one question for you: if Bush/Cheney "junta" did orchestrate 9/11, and rigged explosives to blow up the Twin Towers as well as WTC7...

why didn't Bush just blame the explosives on the terrorists?

We all know Bush blamed Al Queda for crashing the planes into the Twin Towers. If Bush was responsible for the planes AND the explosives, why didn't he just come out and say "Al Queda crashed the planes into the Twin Towers, and they also brought down WTC7 with explosives!"

After all, explosives in the World Trade Center is not a new concept: Al Queda bombed the SAME BUILDING, the World Trade Center, in 1993, just 8 years before 2001. They used explosives.

If Bush were to come out and blame explosives on Al Queda, would that be strange/out of character for Al Queda? Not at all.

So why didn't he blame Al Queda for the explosives? After all, he KNEW about the explosives and the planes ahead of time. Why would Bush blame ONLY the planes on Al Queda and RISK getting caught by you clever people about the explosives?

A: Bush wouldn't plan out this careful attack of planes and explosives, and then only blame the planes on Al Queda.

If Bush was guilty of planning out 9/11, the sentence for getting caught would surely be death by treason.

Would he risk getting caught and not blame the explosives on Al Queda? What if an unexploded bomb was found? That would surely be a big risk for Bush to take to not mention the explosives THAT HE HAD PLANTED.

I know it's tempting to blame someone you already hate, like Bush/Cheney, for 9/11, as opposed to a foreign group of Islamic militants.

So again, if Bush DID carry out 9/11, and they carefully planned on using explosives and planes, and they blamed the planes on Al Queda, why didn't they just blame the explosives on Al Queda.

:)

P.S. Why use planes at all? If Bush/Cheney used explosives to bring down all 3 WTC buildings, why not just use explosives and forget the planes? Seems to make the chances of success much lower, chances of getting caught much higher, and explosives were already used by Al Queda. And with explosives you'd still have the buildings come down.

Do you know why Islamic terrorists attack us?

2006-09-28T21:30:00.001-07:00

Q: Is it because of our values?
A: Not really because of our values, although they really do hate our values. They hate democracy, they hate rights for women, they hate freedom. Islamic militants in general hate the West, but if there motivation was values, why didn't they bomb the Red Light District in Amsterdam on 9/11, or Sweden? These countries are far more "progressive" than America, and much less religious, yet they weren't attacked on 9/11. Don't get me wrong, Islamic militants DO HATE "progressive" values. Witness the assassination of Theo Van Gogh (in the Netherlands), the reaction to the Danish cartoons, etc. But they aren't considered "strategic targets".

Q: Is it because we support Israel?
A: Again, foot soldiers of Al Queda and Iran really do hate Israel, but both AQ and Iran LEADERS USE Israel as a recruiting tool. If they attacked us on 9/11 because we supported Israel, why didn't they just attack Israel on 9/11? Tons of airplanes flying around Israel every day. Yet, they didn't attack Israel on 9/11. Israel is used by AQ and Iran just like Hitler used the Jews: as a scapegoat. Neither AQ or Iran wants a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Q: Is it to take us over militarily?
A: No. The World Trade Center isn't even a military target, unlike Pearl Harbor which was a crucial military target. They know it's not possible to defeat the US militarily with terrorist attacks.

So what is the real reason why Islamic terrorists attack us?
The real reason why they attack us, and other countries in the West, is... to have us pull out of the Middle East.

Q: Why would they want to do that?
A: So they can more easily take over the Middle East.

There is a conflict in the Middle East, between secular, moderate leaders and Islamic militants who want to cast the world into an Islamic theocracy.

This conflict has been going on for quite some time now, but only recently have the pieces started to fall together.

Bin Laden and Al Queda attacked us in the 1990's for the same reason they attack us now: we are preventing them from taking over.

Many countries are under assault by Islamic militants: Iraq is one of them, as is Afghanistan, but so is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Pakistan. In each of these countries, there is a strong current of Islamic radicalism, and the government has varying degrees of success battling them and keeping them under control (Lebanon I would say is failing the most).

There are other countries that Islamic militants fight in: Somalia (Islamic militants just took over), Sudan, Algeria, India, Russia, Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia, among other.

And in all these countries, the US primarily is the country "propping up" these governments with direct aid (like Egypt), trade (like with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), and even weapons (Pakistan). As long as the $$ keeps flowing in, these non-Islamic governments manage to stem the tide of Islamic militants and prevents them from taking over.

Well, that's a problem for Islamic militants. Especially for Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, there is a great resentment at the aid of the US that directly prevents a takeover by Islamic militants. One of bin Laden's main stated reasons why he hated the US was because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. And American troops in SA meant that Al Queda had a much smaller chance of deposing the ruling Saudis. With American troops gone, they have a better chance.

It was the same in Lebanon in 1982, why did Hezbollah kill US Marines? So we would pull out of Lebanon and they could more easily take over.

If the current set of UN troops prevent Hezbollah from exercising their power (which I doubt, given there were 2000 UN troops in Lebanon before the recent fighting), then Hezbollah will attack UN troops.

Iran is on the same wavelength as Al Queda: with the US in the Middle East, they have a very small chance of invading Saudi Arabia. With US gone from the Middle East, they have a better chance.

Look at the Madrid bombing: al Queda attacked Spain so they would pull troops from Iraq, and...they pulled troops from Iraq.

UK subway bombings was aimed at the same thing: force UK to pull troops from Iraq.

Which brings us to Iraq. Iran and Al Queda both DESPERATELY want to see US troops leave Iraq. With US troops gone, it will be a HUGE moral victory for terrorists, a great recruiting tool, as well as having terrorism being repeated everywhere as a confirmed winning strategy.

But more importantly, US troops out of Iraq means that there are no US troops in Iraq. This makes it MUCH easier for Iran and Islamic militants in Iraq to depose the current, weak Iraqi government and install an Islamic State totally aligned with Iran.

So Islamic militants attacks for a few different reasons: in most countries that have weak militaries, they attack the government directly in order to take over the country and install an Islamic theocracy.

Al Queda attacked US troops in Somalia, and was surprised at how easily we pulled out of Somalia. Did Al Queda and Islamic militants lay down their arms when the US pulled out? No, they attacked with GREATER intensity. In fact, Islamic militants just TOOK OVER Somalia this June.

World Trade Center was chosen as a target to both terrorize the United States and attempt to weaken us financially: in their minds, bring the WTC down would mean US would have less $ going to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. That's why they chose WTC in 1993, and in 2001: it was the best way to weaken the "US Economy" that they could think of.

The reason why they attack Western countries like the US in attacks like 9/11 is not to defeat us militarily; World Trade Center wasn't even a military target. The purpose is to TERRORIZE us (hence the name terrorist) into withdrawing from the Middle East, allowing them a freer hand in which to attack.

And why do they attack in Iraq? After all, Al Queda's al Zarqawi was from JORDAN. The new AQ leader in Iraq: from EGYPT. Do you think that if the US pulls out of Iraq, they will cheer, and then go back to their home countries? Of course not! They will consider the US pullout a great VICTORY, like they did with the US pullout in Somalia, and then proceed to attack the current Iraqi government until it falls, replacing it with an Islamic theocracy.

Phase II Intelligence Report as told by Loud Crickets

2006-09-10T03:17:00.000-07:00

I just read the media reports of the Phase II Senate Intel Report. No Saddam/Al Queda links? Saddam thought AQ was a threat? That's not why my mama taught me.

Actually, I think the Senate and the media has done a HORRIBLE job at interpreting intel, and has done so for political purposes. So I am releasing this "Loud Crickets" version of the Phase II Intel Report.

I decided to do some research, both into the ACTUAL SENATE REPORT (not the media version), as well as the documents regarding Iraq.

If you recall, the justification for war in Iraq was a "conjunction of WMD and terrorism" (as we found out from the Downing St. memos).

Let's see where we are at in 2006...

WMD

Let's start with WMD, the biggie. The Iraq Survey Group released its report on Iraqi WMD programs in Sept., 2004. Much of the information about Iraqi WMD is from the ISG report; in fact, the Senate Report, on page 11, states that: "The Committee used the ISG's report and information gathered from theISG team as the primary evidentiary basis".

What did the ISG say in 2004? That Saddam basically gave up his WMD program in 1991, and there were no WMD stockpiles.

We already knew this, and it represents an absolute colossal failure in intelligence.

However...

The ISG said something even MORE important:

"(U) Based on its postwar debriefings of Saddam Hussein, debriefings ofother key figures in the Iraqi regime, and document exploitation, the ISGconcluded that Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to end sanctions,while preserving the capability to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction whenthat occurred."

Read that again. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Yes, he was going to rebuild WMD stockpiles when sanctions ended (which he thought was imminent). Saddam was bribing French and Russian government officials (according to the ISG), and after sanctions were lifted, Saddam would have REBUILT HIS WMD STOCKPILES.

Some more quotes from the ISG/Phase II Senate Report:
page 123 of the Phase II Senate Report:

"(U) Initially, according to the ISG, Saddam was confident in Iraq's ability to ride out inspections without fully cooperating. Therefore, Iraq declared only part of its ballistic missile and chemical warfare programs, but not its nuclear weapons and biological warfare programs.304"

page 125 of the Phase II Senate Report:

"(U) Saddam viewed nuclear programs as a symbol of a modern nation, indicative of technological, scientific, and economic progress. Saddam was unconvinced by the notion of nonproliferation, believing that nuclear weapons provided "strategic balance."315 He wanted them "to compete with powerful and antagonistic neighbors; to him, nuclear weapons were necessary for Iraq to survive."316 He "considered WMD as the only sure counterbalance to an enemy developing WMD of its own."

(U) The ISG also found that Saddam probably intended to have a different mix of WMD capabilities after sanctions ended: "Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability - in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks - but he intended to focus on ballistic missiles and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.""' According to the ISG, events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's views about the kind of WMD capability Iraq needed, believing that chemical weapons and ballistic missiles had saved the regime several times.312 In particular, Saddam concluded that Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war prevented Iran from completely overrunning outnumbered Iraqi forces."

The ISG is VERY CLEAR, and this Senate Report is also very clear: Saddam thought WMD were useful, even NECESSARY, against Iran, and has SAVED his regime in the Iran/Iraq War. Saddam intended to ride out inspections, keep scientists and data on WMD, and then REBUILD after sanctions were ended.

So, yes, Saddam did NOT have WMD. But he did have the INTENSE DESIRE to rebuild WMD stockpiles, the MEANS (he had already done it before), and would have had the OPPORTUNITY after sanctions were inevitably lifted.

This is, to say the least, kind of important. If we left Saddam in power, and sanctions were lifted, then, according to the ISG this Senate Report, Saddam would have REBUILT HIS WMD STOCKPILES.

OK, that is not only in the ISG, but is quoted in the Phase II Senate Report on page 122. Let's go into the Phase II report on ACTIVE WMD capabilities.

Nuclear:

Aluminum tubes. What were they used for rockets or for a nuclear centrifuge? The Senate makes their own judgement on page 21: "the Committee believed the information available to the Intelligence Community indicated that the tubes were intended for a conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program."

Well, let's see on one hand, we have the director of Iraqi centrifuge program saying the tubes couldn't be used for a centrifuge. But is he believable? Probably not, as all high-ranking Iraqi officials have a strong reason to lie to the US debriefers.

We have this statement, p.22: "One version of the assessment, published as a Senior ExecutiveMemorandum, included a check list which showed that of eight categoriesidentified the tubes were suitable for a centrifuge end use in all eight, but weresuitable for rockets in only two.38"

Well, you tell me: why would Iraq build/buy aluminum tubes that matched 8/8 categories for use in a centrifuge, yet only 2/8 for rockets, and then claim they were for rockets? How is this explained in the Senate Report? It's not.

And we had Saddam's intent, p.25 of the report : "Several senior Iraqis told the ISG they assumed Saddam would reconstitute Iraq's nuclear program once sanctions were lifted.4"
Still think the aluminum tubes were for rockets?

Iraqi uranium purchases

This is muddy waters, which has been made even MORE muddy by the forged documents. If you recall, Bush made a speech saying that the the British have determined that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

Well, that's true. The Brits DID maintain that, and DO TODAY. They released a report on Iraqi intel known as the UK Bulter Commission Report, released July 2004.

In it, it states, page 139:

"503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqiattempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in1999.b. The British Government had intelligence from several differentsources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiringuranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters ofNiger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, asopposed to having sought, uranium and the British Governmentdid not claim this.d. The forged documents were not available to the BritishGovernment at the time its assessment was made, and so the factof the forgery does not undermine it."

Basically:

UK is saying Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger in 1999UK said Iraq was trying to buy uranium BEFORE the forged memos came outUK STILL MAINTAINS Iraq tried to buy uranium (as of July 2004)UK had intel from SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES that Iraq tried to buy uranium from NigerUK is NOT SURE if the sale went through.

The evidence in the Senate report is contradictory: In Oct 2002, DCI Tenet asked Bush remove the uranium/Africa section from his speech, however: on p.17 of the Senate Report: "Also in October, the CIA published an Iraq handbook which said, "Iraqmay be trying to acquire 500 tons of uranium - enough for 50 nuclear devices afterprocessing - from Niger. "2"

And also, in mid-November 2002: "the U.S. government briefed the IAEA's Iraq Nuclear Verification Office (INVO) that"reporting on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Africa are fragmentary, atbest. We assess that none of these deals have gone through, but it shows that Iraqis probably trying to acquire uranium ore abroad."26"

"On February 4,2003, the U.S. government provided copies of the Nigeruranium documents to the IAEA with talking points which stated, "two streams ofreporting suggest Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. We cannotconfirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims.Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad hasattempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclearweapons program." The two streams of reporting mentioned refer to theintelligence reports from the foreign intelligence service and a CIA intelligencereport reflecting the findings of a former Ambassador's visit to Niger ."

"On February 27,2003, the CIA responded to a January 29,2003 letterfrom Senator Carl Levin which asked the CIA to detail "what the U.S. IC knowsabout Saddam Hussein seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."The CIA's response was almost identical to the points passed to the IAEA in earlyFebruary, saying "two streams of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquireuranium from Niger." The response said the CIA believes the government ofNiger's assurances that it did not contract with Iraq but said, "nonetheless, wequestion, based on a second source, whether Baghdad may have been probingNiger for access to yellowcake in the 1999 time frame.""

In contrast, the UK, in 2004, TWO YEARS after the CIA waffled on Iraq/Niger, the UK Butler Report said unequivocally that Iraq did in fact attempt to buy uranium from Niger.

And so, in the Phase II Report, CIA as of 2003 did have some doubts, but DID believe Iraq tried to buy uranium, UK still maintains that. Yet in their conclusions, the Senate Report states on p.28 :"The head of Iraq's pre- 199 1 nuclear weapons program, Ja'far Diya' Ja'far, stated that after 1998, Iraq had two contacts with Niger and neither wasregarding uranium. In 1999, Iraq's Ambassador to the Holy See, WissamZahawie, traveled to Niger to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq and, in200 1, a Nigerien minister visited Iraq to discuss purchasing petroleum."

Completely IGNORING the UK's CURRENT stance that Iraq tried to buy Niger uranium in 1999, as well as the stance of the CIA which is "whether Baghdad may have been probing Niger for access to yellowcake in the 1999 time frame."

UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle)

Senate Report concludes: "that Iraq's UAVs were primarily intended for reconnaissance."
OK.

Couple of problems with that:

p.62 "The ISG found that, in the early 1990s, Iraq attempted to develop a CBW delivery systemfor a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV)"

p.54:"One Iraqi engineer without direct access to the information, said that in 1995, many Iraqi Air Force engineers believed the intended use was to attack a US aircraft carrier with chemical or biological weapons."Now why would this guy lie? He's just an engieneer, nothing to gain or lose. And he's talking w/other engineers who say it was to "attack a US aircraft carrier with chemical or biological weapons."

Certainly not definitive, but definitely not something to IGNORE, which the Senate did.

Biological Weapons (BW):
It was clear 2 years ago from the ISG that Saddam didn't have active BW stockpiles. This is consistent w/Saddam trying to end sanctions/inspections so he could rebuild stockpiles. Here is some interesting evidence COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED by the Senate Report and the media:

p.36:"According to the ISG, Iraq actively pursued the goal of drying its BW agent and possessed the expertiseand equipment to do so"Why would Iraq want to dry BW agent? Maybe to preserve it until sanctions ended?

"Iraq retained some BW-related seed stock until their discovery after Operation IraqiFreedom (OIF). 83"Why would Saddam want to retain BW-related seed stock? Maybe to preserve it until sanctions ended?

p. 35:"(U) The ISG found undeclared covert laboratories used by the IraqiIntelligence Service (IIS) until the mid-1990s for research into BW agents."How come I haven't heard about THAT in the media?

p.35"The ISG judged that actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrated Iraq's intention to preserve its BW capability and progress to a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose."

Seems pretty clear cut right there.

Chemical:

Again, no caches of chemical weapons as intel had indicated. Huge, tragic, failure in intelligence. But as we read on p.44:

"The ISG found no credible evidenceindicating Iraq resumed its chemical weapons program after 1991, but said that"Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctionswere lifted and conditions were judged favorable.""Seems pretty clear cut right there.
And Saddam actively tried to hide the fact that he kept data and scientists regarding WMD around.

Read this document just released from Iraq:http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=2

"Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team"
Document dated March 23, 1997
"A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:

"Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.) Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents Removing files from computers. "

Letter was dated 1997.

Again, it shows that according to the ISG and THIS Senate Report (and the Loud Crickets version), Saddam could have and WOULD HAVE rebuilt his bio, chem, and possibly nuke WMDs after sanctions were lifted.

So let's think what would have happened if we did NOT invade? Sanctions AT SOME POINT would have been lifted; this was "imminent", according to the ISG. We all know about the bribery regarding the UN oil-for-food, but do you know about this:http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1"Election Campaign Laws in France"

"Documents dated July-August 1999
Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France."

Um, why would Saddam want to know about campaign finance laws in France? That doesn't ring any bells out there?

Point is, sanctions would have been lifted eventually, leaving Saddam free to develop WMD. To recap:

Did Saddam find WMD offensive? No, he thought them NECESSARY and VALUABLE.

Did he use them before? Yes.

Did he still feel threatened by Iran? Yes.

Did he have expertise and equipment to build them? Yes.

Did he try to hide that from UN? Yes.

Was he bribing France/Russia, and thought sanctions would end soon? Yes.

According to the ISG/Senate Report, would Saddam have rebuilt WMD after sanctions were lifted: YES.

Let's move on to Iraq/Al Queda links. Much hay has been made in the media that there are "no Saddam/Al Queda links", according to the Senate Report. But is that the case?

Well, we could ask Saddam:

p.70 "Saddam then specified that Iraq did not cooperate with bin Ladin."

OK.

We could ask Tariq Aziz: "According to Tariq Aziz, "Saddam only expressed negative sentimentsabout bin Ladin.""

OK.

We could ask al-Tikriti, a top Iraqi official: "al-Tikriti noted that Saddam Hussein'sposition was that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa'ida."

OK.

Well, I guess that's that. I mean, if Saddam, Aziz, and al-Tikriti say there were no ties between Iraq/AQ, I guess they must be telling the truth.

Is the Senate nuts??!?!?

Why would you listen to Saddam or any of his top officials on the matter? First, if collaboration between Saddam/AQ were proven, he would have a great chance of being EXECUTED. Second, he ABSOLUTELY wants to damage the credibility of Bush, the man who put him in jail and DEPOSED HIM. If he can weaken Bush, the chance that he won't be executed DECREASES. Even if he still were to be executed, Saddam would want to weaken Bush PURELY OUT OF SPITE.

So there is obviously a VERY HIGH INCENTIVE for Saddam AND ALL OF HIS OFFICIALS to lie about their AQ involvement.

Instead of asking them, let's look at the actual EVIDENCE.

Let's start out with page 73:

"We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that atleast eight direct meetings between senior Iraqi representatives andtop al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990s to thepresent. Several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings areattested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during thesame period.1"

So the CIA CONFIRMED 8 meetings, and most likely MANY MORE occurred, given that it is illogical to think that 100% of the "less reliable clandestine and press sources" are false, and there were "several dozen" of those.

So, they met multiple times; in Iraq, in Sudan, and Afghanistan. But why? Why would Saddam want to visit his enemy?

AQ officials visited Baghdad, as LATE AS 1998:

p.77 "(U) In May 2004, a review of previously unpublished intelligence from AbuHafs al-Mauritani's travels indicated, according to one intelligence agency, that "itappears likely, in retrospect, that senior al-Qa'ida official, Abu-Hafs, theMauritanian, visited Iraq at least once in June of 1998. He possibly also visitedIraq in March 1998, but this is less certain and based solely on circumstantialevidence. "

"(U) Postwar information from the former Iraqi Ambassador to Sudan, AbdulSamad Hamid al-Qaisi, also supports the claim of Abu Hafs' visit to Baghdad. Avariety of reporting corroborates Abu-Hafs visit in March 1998, while only onesource suggests a visit in June 1998."

It appears he visited in March AND June, 1998. But why? Why would a SENIOR al Queda official want to visit Baghdad? I thought AQ thought Saddam as an enemy?

Here's the real kicker, VIRTUALLY IGNORED by the Senate Report, on page 76:

"(U) A captured document states that bin Ladin asked Hijazi in the 1995meeting to dedicate targeted broadcasting of sermons by Shaikh Sulayman al-Udah and to conduct joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia."
"The document describes Iraqi Intelligence Servicecontacts with Saudi oppositionists, including bin Ladin. The document does notindicate that Saddam agreed to joint operations with bin Ladin, but notes thatSaddam "agreed to dedicate programs for targeted broadcasting." The documentalso states that "through dialogue and agreements we will leave the door open tofurther develop the relationship and cooperation between both sides. '3 192"

"further develop the relationship and cooperation between both sides"

Does that sound like Saddam considers AQ as an ENEMY? That they had "no ties"? Yet that is what the media is reporting.

Salman Pak

Salman Pak was, according to p. 85: "The Salman Pak Unconventional Warfare Training Facility wasestablished in the late 1970's. Iraqi officials told UNSCOM inspectors that acounterterrorist unit was established at Salman Pak in 1985. Iraqi officialsreiterated the claims and indicated that the IIS established the facility to traincounterterror units."

What does the Senate Report say about AQ and Salman Pak?"Reporting about al-Qa'ida activity at Salman Pak-ultimately sourcedto three Iraqi defectors-surged after 11 September. The defectorsclaimed that al-Qa'ida and other non-Iraqis engaged in specialoperations training at Salman Pak. It was subsequently determined,however, that at least one of these defectors, whose story appeared inmagazine,had embellished and exaggerated his access. Others repeated similar information but apparently did not have first-hand access to it. No al-Qa'ida associates detained since 11 September have said they trained at Salman Pak."

"In an October 2002 assessment, the DIA said, "there have been fragmentary reports that Iraq hasmore recently trained foreign Islamic extremists in terrorist tactics and techniquesat this facility, but this has not been definitively e~tablished."~A~ N' ovember 2002Special Analysis said "while there has been some recent unconventional trainingactivity detected at Salman Pak in early-September, it is unclear whether al-Qa'idaor other Islamic extremists have been involved in these activities."222"

OK, that doesn't say much. There WERE people that say AQ was trained at Salman Pak, it's just that the CIA can't CONFIRM their statements.

"There was information developed after OIF that indicated terroristswere trained at Salman Pak; there was an apparent surge of suchreporting. As with past information, however, the reporting is vagueand difficult to substantiate."

Again, in June 2006, CIA says there was information that AQ WERE trained at Salman Pak, but they can't substantiate it.

page 88:"A November 2003 assessment from DIA noted that postwar exploitationof the facility found it "devoid of valuable intelligence." The assessment addedthat CIA exploitation "found nothing of intelligence value remained and assessedthe Iraqi Intelligence Service (11s) cleaned it out." The DIA assessment concludedthat "we do not know whether the ex-regime trained terrorists on the aircraft atSalman Pak. Intelligence in late April 2003 indicated the plane had beendismantled. DIA and CENTCOM assess the plane was sold for scrap."227"

OK, here's my question: WHY would the IIS (Iraqi Intelligence) "clean out" Salman Pak? I mean, Iraq PUBLICLY announced Salman Pak in 1985 as a counterterrorism training ground. So ostensibly, if all it was used for was counterterrorism, IIS would have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON so "clean it out".

Yet, they DID clean it out.

And here's another one, page 88:

"(U) The Iraq Survey Group found that an Iraqi intelligence directorate, M14,which was responsible for training and special operations missions, used theSalman Pak facility to train Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese,Egyptian, and Sudanese operatives in counterterrorism, explosives, marksmanship,and foreign operations.228"

Uh, train them in "foreign operations"? Hmmm. Iraq has an order to train FOREIGNERS in explosives and "foreign operations". Why would Iraq want to train foreign nationals (Sudanese, Yemeni, etc.) to conduct "foreign operations" that would require the use of explosives? Multiple reports that AQ was trained at Salman Pak. IIS clears out Salman Pak before Americans arrived.

And what does the Senate conclude on this? Nothing.

Iraq training Al Queda on bio/chem weapons

This subject is obviously of PRIMARY importance. If Iraq trained AQ on bio/chem weapons, not only would it show collaboration on attacks, but also that Saddam intended to DELIVER WMD to AQ after sanctions ended. So what do we know on the subject?

p. 79:"(U) The CIA relied heavily on the information obtained from the debriefing ofdetainee Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior al-Qa'ida operational planner, to assessIraq's potential CBW training of al-Qa'ida. The January 2003 paper, IraqiSupport for Terrorism, reported that al-Libi told a foreign intelligence service:Iraq-acting on the request of al-Qa'ida militant Abu Abdullah, whowas Muhammad Atif's emissary-agreed to provide unspecifiedchemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qa'ida associatesbeginning in December 2000. The two individuals departed for Iraqbut did not return, so al-Libi was not in a position to know if anytraining had taken place. 19s"

Wow. Iraq agreed to train 2 AQ members in chemical/biological weapons.

The DIA was wary of this:p.80:"Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is waryof Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikelyto provide assistance to a group it cannot control.20'"

Here's the problem:

p.82 "In January 2004, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the source of reports onal-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW training in Iraq, recanted the information heprovided. Al-Libi said he had a "strong desire to tell his entire story and identifywhy and how he fabricated information since his capture."20"

Darn it! He recanted; he made up everything, I guess Iraq never trained AQ on chem/bio weapons.

One question: why did al-Libi recant?

al Libi is a senior AQ member, why would he care to recant the training of AQ agents by Iraq a year later?

Would he get a lesser sentence or get out of jail because he recanted: NO.

Would any of his friends get out of jail/lesser sentence because he recanted: NO.

Would Saddam or anyone in Iraq go free because he recanted: NO.

Would there by ANY effect, except to weaken Bush's case for war in Iraq, thereby embarrassing US in the ME: NO.

All his recantation does, in practical terms, is remove linkage between AQ/Iraq. Why would an AQ official "care" about Saddam, why would he even bother to recant? I thought Saddam/AQ were enemies; if that was the case, al-Libi would DEFINITELY NOT RECANT.

But again, all the recantation DOES is EMBARASS the US, make the US intel agencies LOOK BAD, and DECREASE the chances the US military will be involved in the Middle East. Would al-Libi want that? ABSOLUTELY.

So given al-Libi's MOTIVE for recanting, I think the recantation is HIGHLY SUSPECT, to say the least. After all, what would MOTIVATE al-Libi for recanting?

Safehaven for AQ:

The Senate Report paints a picture that Saddam did NOT provide safehaven for AQ members. In fact, testimony FROM IRAQI OFFICIALS is given in testimony and media reports that Al Zarqawi was an "outlaw". Suuuuuuuure.

Again, we have EVIDENCE that suggests otherwise. One instance was the murder of US diplomat Lawrence Foley. According to documents, IIS set up a "special committee" to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable tolocate and capture him. (p.93)

There were 5 individuals wanted for the Foley murder. "In early 2003, the IISsuccessfully arrested one of the individuals, Abu Yasim Sayyem." (p.94)

OK, Iraq is tracking down AQ killers? Where are you going w/this, Loud Crickets?

Where am I going? HERE:

p.94"(U) Although Sayyem denied any affiliation with al-Qa'ida or Zarqawi, theIIS officer believed the evidence of criminal activity provided by the foreignintelligence service against Sayyem was compelling. For this reason, the IISofficer was shocked when the Director of his division ordered Sayyem to bereleased. According to the Iraqi official, the Director of his division told him thatSaddam Hussein ordered Sayyem's release.246"

Why, oh why, would Saddam release Foley's killer, an AQ associate?

Well, we have the word of an IIS officer to go with:p.95 "(U) According to the CIA, a former IIS officer believed that Saddamreleased Sayyem because he "would participate in striking U.S. forces when theyentered Iraq."249"

Now why would Saddam think that? I mean, if AQ REALLY was a threat/enemy, why would he release him? Wouldn't Saddam be worried that AQ would work WITH the Americans to depose HIM, their "enemy"? I mean, if AQ was such a threat, then releasing him when he would be weakened by invasion seems a bit ridiculous. Yet he seemed NOT TO BE WORRIED that Sayyem would turn around and attack him. In fact, according to a former IIS officer, Saddam thought Sayyem would attack US forces. Seems a pretty big gamble from a group that Saddam considered a "threat" and an "enemy", who was the COMPATRIOT of al Zarqawi and WANTED for the MURDER of a US Diplomat.

Ansar al Islam/al Zarqawi

Senate Report suggets that the al Zarqawi link was overblown. But apart from the senction above, where Saddam RELEASED a captured AQ member, Abu Yasim Sayyem, who was affiliated w/Al Zarqawi, there is other EVIDENCE apart from relying on the testimony of Iraqi officials who, again, HAVE EVERY REASON TO LIE TO US OFFICIALS.

p.95:"In addition, "detainees that originallyreported on AI-IIS links have recanted, and another detainee, in September 2003,was deemed to have insufficient access and level of detail to substantiate hisclaims.252"AI being Ansr-Al-Islam, IIS being Iraqi Security. Again a recantation that AQ and Iraq were linked. Amazing how many recantations there are, isn't it? :) And again, what purpose does it serve them to recant?

p.96"The DIA said that one detainee speculated that al-Zarqawi may have had contacts with the former regime prior to Operation IraqiFreedom, but all other detainees' information, from both the former regime andmembers of al-Zaqawi's network, denied such contacts occurred.253"
So we should discount that one detainee? Why?

p.74"The DIA said that al-Qa'ida "has proven ties to Ansar al-Islam""

p.74:"Should regime support to Ansar al-Islam be proven, this will notnecessarily implicate the regime in supporting al-Qa'ida. Ansar al-Islam is an independent organization that receives assistance from al-Qa'ida, but is not a branch of the group. The Iraqi regime seeks toinfluence and manipulate political events in the Kurdish-controllednorth and probably has some type of assets in contact with Ansar al-Islam, either through liaison or through penetration by an intelligence asset. 86"

So AI had PROVEN ties to AQ, and Iraq "has some type of assets in contact with Ansar al-Islam."

Saddam wanted to aid AI, because AI was undermining the Kurdish area that he did not control. AQ was helping to do that with support, and al Zarqawi was a terrorist leader in this area. The link is AT LEAST circumstantial:

Saddam releases al Zarqawi's murder accomplices

Saddam has an interest in AI/al Zarqawi because they are fighting his enemy, the Kurds

Al Zarqawi went to Baghdad in 2002 in May for "possibly seeking medical treatment for war injuries" (p.90)

And also: "The assessment said that the regime was aware of al-Zarqawi's presence, at a minimum, because aforeign government service gave Baghdad identifying information.")"

If Saddam was keen on capturing al Zarqwai, if he was an "outlaw", why release his accomplice, Sayyem? Seems like Saddam would have tortured Sayyem to get al Zarqawi's whereabout instead of RELEASING HIM.

p. 92"A detainee with knowledge of the operation indicated that al-Zarqawi directed and financed the assassination cell, "before, during, and after al-Zarqawi spent several months in Baghdad."242"

p.112"Postwar findings indicate al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May 2002 until late November2002, when he traveled to Iran and northeastern Iraq."
According to the CIA, IIS knew about this, since "The assessment said that the regime was aware of al-Zarqawi's presence, at a minimum, because a foreign government service gave Baghdad identifying information.")"

So he's in Iraq, ostensibly injured, an "outlaw", according to Iraqi officials. They were really looking for him and couldn't find him.

How is that possible? If the guy is injured, where is he going to be treated, Al Queda Medical Center? A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SERVICE gave IIS info that Al Zarqawi was coming to Iraq, he was INJURED, and was there for MONTHS, all while they are looking for him?
And then, when they actually CAPTURE one of Al Zarqawi's accomplices, Sayyem, SADDAM LETS HIM GO.

Yet this is brushed over in the Senate Report, and the Senate believes Iraq that they "didn't know where Al Zarqawi was". Suuuuuuure.

Planning on Sepmtember 11 Attacks

Much has been made of Mohammed Atta, a 9/11 hijacker, meeting with the IIS Chief in Prague prior to 9/11. Proving this link would be extremely damning.

In this report, the Senators basically doubt the idea a meeting took place, based partly on the IIS official's testimony (there they go, relying on the word of Iraqi officials).

Here's what he said:p.103"Very surprised to hear that a 9/11 hijacker was associated with travelto Czech Republic."

You know what? Me too. WHY was Atta in Prague to begin with?

p.98:"The CIA could confirm only two of the visits-in December 1994 and June2000-but neither of the trips matched the date of the meeting between al-Ani andAtta alleged by the Czechs."

So, the CIA CONFIRMED Atta went to Prague in 2000. But why? Vacation? Nice weather? Girlfriend? That alone is suspicious.

But the it was reported by an "asset" of the Czech secret service that Atta met the IIS Prague Chief. So, why would that guy lie? I mean, let's say the gyu made it up. Isn't that REALLY COINCIDENTAL that Atta DID ACTUALLY GO TO PRAGUE? How would that guy know that he did visit Prague, as confirmed by the CIA in 1994 and 2000?

Think about it: this guy sees a picture of Atta, and then tells the Czech Secret Service he saw Atta meet the Iraqi IIS Chief, even though IT WAS NOT BROADCAST that Atta was ever in Prague? That is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY lucky that he GUESSED that Atta, an Islamic 9/11 hijacker HAD been to Prague before, right? Why would he ASSUME THAT? The chances that an Islamic hijacker would visit Prague is probably pretty low.

A: There is no way he would assume that; he MUST HAVE SEEN Atta in Prague at that time. So if he saw him, why would he lie about Atta seeing the IIS chief?

As for the dates, maybe the guy was off by a week or two. He didn't tell the Czechs until AFTER he saw Atta's picture on TV after 9/11, it's easy to be off by a week or so. He's NOT an officer, he's an "asset" (informant of some kind); I'm sure he doesn't have training to remember like an officer would.

Has anyone interviewed him subsequently? His testimony seems to be dismissed out of hand, but again: how could the informant HAVE POSSIBLY KNOWN Atta was in Prague and told the Czechs he saw him meet al-Ani (the IIS CHief) UNLESS HE SAW HIM THERE? In April, Atta was unknown EVEN TO THE CZECHS. How could the informant have known Atta was in Prague previously? Not possible.

Saddam was secular/AQ religious

I have heard many times that it's "not possible" for Saddam/AQ to work together, since Saddam was secular (Baathist Party is the Socialist Party), and Al Queda is religious. Why would the 2 work together, they are "natural enemies".

Baathist leader and religious terrorist organization are "natural enemies"?

Then explain Assad of Syria working with Hezbollah.

Assad, the Syrian dictator, is also a Baathist, the SAME PARTY as Saddam.

And Hezbollah is an ISLAMIC terrorist organization.

And they seem to work together JUST FINE, especially in Lebanon. After all, the US allied with STALIN during WWII, and even with Iraq in the 80's against Iran.

Why is it impossible or even improbable for Saddam/AQ to work together when Assad/Hezbollah have worked together for years, perhaps decades (with Assad's father)? A: it's not impossible, Saddam would have worked with ANYONE to further his own ends, as would Al Queda.

In conclusion, this Phase II Senate Report was poorly done: the analysis that Saddam had NO ties to AQ, NO WMD, and basically contradicting ALMOST ALL pre-War intel, is FOCUSED ON.

ISG reports that there were no WMD stockpiles found: FOCUSED ON.

Documentation that SHOWS Saddam's WILLINGNESS and INTENT to rebuild WMD stockpiles after sanctions: glossed over.

Saddam's multiple meetings with Al Queda, in Sudan, AND BAGHDAD, as late as 1998: glossed over.

al Zarqawi in Baghdad for MONTHS w/o getting caught by the IIS: glossed over.

Salman Pak training of terrorists in explosives and "foreign operations": glossed over.

Iraq training AQ in chemical/bio weapons: recantation accepted as fact.

Iraq/AQ are "enemies": testimony of Saddam, Aziz, and al Tikriti believed w/o question.

The following document, which was not in the 2004 report: GLOSSED OVER:

"(U) A captured document states that bin Ladin asked Hijazi in the 1995meeting to dedicate targeted broadcasting of sermons by Shaikh Sulayman al-Udah and to conduct joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia.""The document does notindicate that Saddam agreed to joint operations with bin Ladin, but notes thatSaddam "agreed to dedicate programs for targeted broadcasting." The documentalso states that "through dialogue and agreements we will leave the door open tofurther develop the relationship and cooperation between both sides. '3 192

That, my friends, is the Loud Crickets version of the Senate Report. If you have any comments/suggestions/whatever, feel free to post here.

But if we kill Nazis, we'll just make more Nazis!

2006-08-03T01:38:00.000-07:00

If Dems of today were time-transported to 1942, this is what they would be saying to FDR.

Their argument today: we shouldn't kill terrorists, because if we kill terrorists, even more terrorists will spring up in their place.

So would they be saying the same argument in 1942?

After all, the Nazis appeared to be winning in 1942, so saying America should stop killing Nazis because we were creating even MORE Nazis would almost make sense.

Almost.

There are a few fallacies in the liberal mantra that "killing terrorists only makes more terrorists". The first is that they assume there are an infinite amount of people that become terrorists that will replace dead terrorists.

The second is that liberals assume incorrectly that all terrorists are equally important.
As for the 1st fallacy, let's go back to the Nazis. We didn't need to kill ALL the Nazis, just a good % of them. Once we killed a good deal of them, their morale sank. Some surrendered, but more importantly, we were killing Nazis FASTER than they could make new ones. If Germany didn't surrender, we eventually would have killed ALL Nazis; but we didn't need to.

As for the 2nd fallacy, let's again go back to the Nazis. We didn't try to kill every Nazis, because some Nazis were more important than others. What do I mean? Well, some Nazis were just foot soldiers, others had expertise in explosives or were snipers, some were spies, and precious few were generals who could do military planning and execute attacks. Of these generals, some of them were BRILLIANT in determining strategy, and some were just mediocre.

Now let's say that on one day in 1942, we killed Hitler and ALL of his top generals. Would the Nazi war machine continue? Possibly not. But even if it did, it's effectiveness would be GREATLY reduced. Those generals were there because of their ability OTHERS DID NOT HAVE. Killing them weakens the effectiveness of the ENTIRE MILITARY, even though the soldiers out in the field didn't change ONE IOTA.

The Nazi regime ws unable to function once Hitler was dead and the generals captured, even though we did NOT kill 100% of Nazis, or 100% of German tanks, etc.

So let's fast forward to the present. If we kill military PLANNERS (like al Zarqawi), freeze assets of Al Queda, and disrupt training grounds and never let them rest, that disrupts their organization. They are LESS capable of planning and executing major attacks.

If we continue to kill top LEADERS of Al Queda who have skills OTHER TERRORISTS DO NOT HAVE, we eventually will have an Al Queda which still hates America but has no real capability for a major strike.

Another analogy is the Mafia. Imprisoning Mafia foot-soldiers is pointless: Mafia will just recruit more. But go after the Mafia dons, and over time, you start to see an effect. Mafia has squabbles over power, and effectiveness of the organization effectively degrades.

So killing terrorists does not ONLY make new terrorists. Killing the RIGHT terrorists, those with SPECIAL SKILLS, and TOP LEADERS of al Queda, ABSOLUTELY makes a difference.
Eventually, the operational capability of the organization suffers. Top leaders like Al Zarqawi.

And what you're left with is a lot of people that still hate America, but are unable to carry out large attacks against America. They don't have the $, or the weapons, or the contacts, or the planning/operational expertise, or the leadership/charisma.

So when liberals recite the mantra "killing terrorists only makes more terrorists", think what would have happened if FDR believed that in 1942.

Democrats want me to kick my son out of the house!

2006-08-03T00:05:00.000-07:00

It's true! Democrats want my son out, and they want him out NOW. What am I talking about? Well, I'm just guessing they want me to kick my son out, given the fact that they want the US to start pulling troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.

So, what does that have to do with my son? Everything. See, Democrats are saying that Iraq is really like a 38-year old son that has never moved out: he's dependent on us, and he really can't mature because we coddle him. If the US pulls out, Iraq will finally be a man, grow up, and learn to take care of themselves. To Democrats, Iraq is like a 38-year old son that is ready to take care of himself, but the parents never force him out, so he never matures and never has to face problems.

But here's the problem: Democrats don't really KNOW that Iraq is ready to go it alone, they are just SAYING Iraq can. Iraq's prime minister was approved April 22, 2006. That's just as few months ago. The first election EVER was held Jan 30, 2005. How quickly do Democrats think Iraq can form a government out of nothing? In a few months? How would Democrats KNOW that Iraq could successfully handle security for the entire country: regular police, sectarian violence, and foreign terrorists and military units from Iran/Syria that aid them? The Answer: Democrats DO NOT KNOW.

Yet Democrats are calling for JUST THAT: let Iraq fend for itself, even though Iraq government is really just a few months old. They think we're coddling Iraq, and Iraq should have been able to create a police force within 6 months, tops.

So here's where my son comes in: Democrats claim the new government in Iraq is ready after being in existence for a few scant months. But what if they aren't? They would want me to kick my son out of the house when they DON'T KNOW HOW OLD MY SON IS.

Democrats don't know if my son is 38, and I'm coddling him by not kicking him out; or he's 8, and kicking him out would land me in jail and SERIOUSLY jeopardize the safety of my son.

Democrats don't know if Iraq is ready, and given the short length of time the government has been in existence, it's a pretty safe bet they are not ready for a US pullout right now. A US pullout would leave a power vacuum and INCREASE sectarian attacks AND attacks on the government, since there would be no stable military (the US military) to back up Iraqi police/military. Al Queda would have a very good shot at overthrowing the existing Iraqi government (again, just a few months old) and establishing an Islamic theocracy in the mold of Iran there where there is a democracy there now; Iran would not have reservations about sending MORE special forces into Iraq to aid the overthrow of the democracy w/o US forces in their way.

An overthrow of the Iraqi democracy would obviously be a huge blow for the US and a huge victory for foreign terrorists. That is the reason Al Queda leader Al Zarqawi, who is from JORDAN, not IRAQ, fights: for radical Islam, not for Iraq. Against democracy, and for theocracy.

So, amazing as it may seem, Democrats want me to kick my son out of the house w/o KNOWING if my son is READY to go on his own; just like they want Iraq to go it alone w/o KNOWING if Iraq is READY to go it alone.

Both are obviously irresponsible, yet Dems are sticking to that irresponsible plan.

And in case you were wondering, do you think my son is 8 or 38?

He's 3.

NYTimes, what do you want Bush to do?

2006-06-28T21:44:00.000-07:00

Bush just can't win with the NY Times. Bush was called on the carpet for not being vociferous enough in tracking down the financial transactions of terrorists. The 9/11 Commissions told the Bush Admin. to be vigorous in tracking down the financial transactions of terrorists.

So when the Bush Admin. actually implemented programs to track down the financial transactions of terrorists, the program is revealed to the NYTimes.

So, NYTimes, what is Bush supposed to do? Here are some LAME arguments defending the NYTimes:

1 The argument that "terrorists already knew about SWIFT" is stupid. First, KNOWING about SWIFT and knowing the DETAILS of HOW SWIFT is monitored is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Bush SAID he was going to target financial transactions of terrorists, BUT HE DID NOT SAY HOW HE WOULD DO IT!

100% of banks say they have a security system to thwart robberies. But are they going to DETAIL what the security systems are, how many security guards they have and at what times, the model of the alarm, etc.? OF COURSE NOT.

Same thing with computer security systems. Hackers TRY TO FIND OUT what kind of security systems are in place; that way, they know WHAT TO TARGET and WHAT TO EXPECT.

Similarly, I'm sure the higher eschelons of terrorists knew their financial transactions were tracked. But now they know SPECIFICALLY HOW they are tracked, and can SPECFICALLY attempt to go around those.

2 Keller of the NYTimes argued that "Bush Admin argued against releasing this half-heartedly, and Bush didn't lobby personally". WHAT?!?! Bush has to kiss the ring of Mr. Keller in order for this story not to br printed?!?!? The Bush Admin GAVE THE ARGUMENT WHY the story shouldn't be printed, and the NYTimes DID ANYWAY. If Bush went personally to the NYTimes, I'm sure they would have printed it REGARDLESS. They probably would have smiled when Bush left, knowing they were going to print the story anyway.

3 This is beating up the liberal NYTimes/stirring up Repub base/"Well, other papers did it too!" All these areguments are stupid. First off, the "base" is not a bunch of robots that can't think. I, for one, am pissed off that the NYTimes would reveal this information. The Bush Admin. doesn't need to tell me to be angry, thank you very much. Bush Admin. is RIGHTLY ANGERED by this, and to dismiss it like Bush Admin. is just "acting" is insulting and just shows how dumb the NYTimes really is. In short, this is a CLEAR CASE where the NYTimes erred; they were hungry for another Pulitzer, but this was a serious miscalculation. As for the "other papers did it too", the other papers were WAITING FOR THE NYTIMES to publish first. If the NYTimes didn't publish, I doubt the Wall St. Journal would have. If the LATimes published first, then I'd be directing this post to them. But the NYTimes led the story; after they broke it, it's OLD NEWS.

4 Americans have a "right to know"! Right to know WHAT? All accounts are that this is PERFECTLY LEGAL, it's just a clandestine program to catch terrorists. Bush BRIEFED CONGRESS, and again, WAS WITHIN THE LAW. Does the WORLD (NYTimes is read by foreigners, believe it or not) have a RIGHT to know ALL secret activities of the CIA/NSA/FBI? ABSOLUTELY NOT! How can we conduct any kind of surveillance or clandestine activity with the NYTimes blowing the cover at any time?!?! It seems that ALL secret programs, EVEN IF LEGAL, could potentially be leaked and then reported by the NYTimes. FBI secretly monitoring foreign scientists at nuclear research centers? NYTimes should publish a story about it. NSA setting up listening post in downtown Beijing? NYTimes should publish a story about it. CIA paying villagers in Afghanistan for info about AL Queda? NYTimes should publish a story about it, complete w/pictures of the informants.

5 Congress should have authorized this. What? Congress has to authorize EVERYTHING the CIA/NSA do? No hirings, firings, order printer toner, change lightbulbs, or set ANY KIND OF POLICY in the Treasury Dept/NSA/CIA without the APPROVAL OF CONGRESS? This argument is absurd: this SWIFT monitoring is LEGAL and within the BOUNDARIES set forth BY CONGRESS. Congress does not need to apprve EVERY ACTION of the Executive Branch. And the NSA/CIA/Treaury Dept are part of the Executive Branch. Other than funding and confirming heads of the departments, CIA/NSA/TReaury pretty much set their own agenda. Of course Congress is briefed, AS THEY WERE WITH SWIFT. But to suggest Congress MUST approve this is LUDICROUS: the SWIFT monitoring is LEGAL, and therefore doesn't need ANY EXTRA APPROVAL from Congress!!

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! If there is a law against the NYTimes doing this, Bush Admin. MUST PROSECUTE lest the NYTimes repeat this and hamper our anti-terrorism efforts EVEN FURTHER. If there is no law against this, MAKE ONE!

Notice how very quiet Democratic legislators are on this one. They KNOW they were briefed, they KNOW this was legal, and they must KNOW this was EFFECTIVE. But they don't want to anger their liberal base by actually defending something Bush did as effective and legitimate, so they would rather stay silent. They would rather not get on the bad side of the NYTimes, who helps them immensely (except for this story). Thanks a lot for sticking up for America, Democrats. Such courage.

There is no cogent argument defending the NYTimes. They are gunning for Bush, and gunning for another Pulizter in the process. NSA Story was just blood in the water, and they will continue to print stories like these REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES or the effect it has on our anti-terrorism efforts.

So, NYTimes, I'll ask you again: what do you want Bush to do NOW in regards to monitoring financial transactions of terrorists? And is Bush follows your advice, can he assume you will have this secret program on your front page in a year or two?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

NYTimes editors should go to jail

2006-06-27T23:01:00.000-07:00

What purpose did the NYTimes story revealing the SPECIFICS of how America is monitoring financial transactions serve?

Did it help ordinary Americans? No.

Will this story get Bush impeached or affect him at all? No.

Is what Bush is doing illegal at all? No.

Does this help terrorists and other criminals by learning the details of how transactions are monitored? Yes.

The only purpose the story served is to help criminal and terrorists know more details of our law enforcement efforts, hurting our ability to monitor illicit transactions.

Thanks, NYTimes.

The Justice Dept. needs to charge editors from the NYTimes with a crime, prosecute, and send them to jail.

Will this send a "chilling effect" across the American Press? YES, that's the point!

No one rational is arguing for the abolition of the 1st Amendment. I LOVE the fact that politicians can get lambasted in the media, Bush included. The NYTimes is liberal, but there are other conservative media outlets to make the case for Bush; let the viewer decide who is right.

But releasing national secrets is not rational political discourse. When the program (like this one) is LEGAL, revealing it doesn't serve any purpose. Bush White House hasn't done anything wrong, so there is nothing to impeach Bush over. Yet the damage done in our fight against terrorists or other criminals is irreperable and long-lasting, and ultimately not knowable.

The Justice Dept. needs to prosecute the NYTimes for the same reason why we prosecute ALL other crimes: to DETER future criminals from committing the same crime.

We definitely want to DETER future media such as the NYTimes or LATimes from releasing national secrets. If we do NOT prosecute, NYTimes will be emboldened to release MORE secrets that are LEGAL but the NYTimes doesn't like.

Again, prosecuting media aimlessly or without merit is abhorrent in a free society; it's part of the backbone of our country that politicans are attacked in the media. Obviously, NYTimes can run stories all day, every day, about Abu Grahib, Bush's mismanagement of the war, Katrina, gas prices, etc. Bush doesn't like it, but too bad. But when national secrets are revealed, the media has crossed the line and the media MUST be punished.

It is up to the Justice Dept. to prosecute the NYTimes and tell the media where the line is, for the good of the country. Without punishment, NYTimes et. al. will CONTINUE to reveal ANY and ALL secrets they come across, REGARDLESS of the effect on America, if they THINK revealing the secret will damage Bush.

Refusal to indict Cynthia McKinney helps GOP

2006-06-20T12:03:00.000-07:00

"Police Group Wants McKinney Scuffle Probed"

After a grand jury refused to indict McKinney, and the prosecutor doesn't really care. In fact, he seems RELIEVED she wasn't indicted: "U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein said, "We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter".

What exactly is a "difficult matter"? We know she is a Congressman, but the police officer she assaulted didn't, he was just doing his job. Just because she isn't recognized doesn't give her the right to assault a police officer. Is it OK to assault TSA officials at airports if they want to inspect your bags/pat you down? You can just say "They should KNOW I'm not a terrorist, I have every RIGHT to assualt them!" Patently absurd.

And this case, and the refusal of the grand jury to indict, will help the GOP in November. How? Because it just shows that Democrats are not interested in ethics, preventing corruption, or justice for wrongdoings. Democrats are interested in protecting their own, even if they comitt crimes.

William Jefferson, according to an FBI affadavit, was found with $90,000 of the $100,000 the FBI gave him in a sting operation. The serial numbers MATCHED the FBI $, doesn't get more solid than that. And what do Democrats do? Defend him, politely ask him to step down from his committee post, and when he refuses? They shrug and say "oh well".

So how can the American people believe Dems when Dems level the charge against the GOP as the "Culture of Corruption"? Democrats level this charge, yet their own party is full of crooks that ESCAPE JUSTICE, like Jefferson and McKinney.

DeLay has already resigned, so he won't be an impact in November. He is a FORMER Congressman, not a CURRENT Congressman. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In contrast, McKinney is a SITTING Congressman who thinks she can assault police officers with impunity, and GET AWAY WITH IT, because the Democrats need the Black vote.

By McKinney NOT being indicted, this shows how craven the Democrat Party is, and how hollow their cries of "GOP Culture of Corruption" really are. If McKinney was indicted, pled guilty, and said sorry, Americans would see her as a stand-up person that can realize right from wrong.

It's called ethics, ever heard of it?

No matter...McKinney's lack of indictment will help the GOP in November, by showing to the American people that Democrats think they are above the law, and that they will protect their own, as opposed to the GOP, that comes out AGAINST lawbreakers like Duke Cunningham.

That's a message that sticks with voters.

:)

Plamegate explained

2006-06-13T13:12:00.000-07:00

Many on the left think that Libby and Rove, egged on by Cheney, leaked Plame's name to the press as payback for Wilson's true article about Niger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For review, Plame's name was revealed by Robert Novak. Plame is Joe Wilson's wife, who works for the CIA. Wilson wrote an op/ed piece in the NYTimes bashing Bush's claim about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from the country of Niger. Wilson basically said this was untrue and published such in his op/ed. As a result of Novak's column, CIA wanted the "leaker" of Plame's name published, ostensibly because she was non-official covert, and revealing her name compromised security.

OK, now the fun part...

1 Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife, was the one that suggested to officials at the CIA her husband be the one to go to Niger.
2 Plame is a known Democratic contributor.
3 Rove and Libby were simply pointing out the TRUTH, that Plame recommended her husband to go to Niger. Neither one of them knew Plame was covert. Neither one of them were the original leaker.
4 Wilson was a former AMBASSADOR, not someone trained as an investigator or in WMD.
5 The CIA did not change their opinion on Iraq/Niger based on Wilson's report.
6 The UK Butler Report STILL MAINTAINS to this day that Iraq DID try to purchase Niger uranium.

So, Plame "recommened" (or at least "suggested") her husband go to Niger to investigate claims of Iraq purchasing uranium in Feb 2002. Wilson spent 8 days in Niger, at which point he made an oral report to the CIA that a uranium purchase was "highly unlikely", although Wilson did concede Iraq went to Niger in 1998 to establish "commerical contacts". The CIA did not regard Wilson's report as definitive. What did Wilson do?

HE PUBLISHED AND OP/ED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES! So, the CIA doesn't regard his report as definitive, so he publishes his opinion in the New York Times as fact! In his op/ed:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. "

"The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. "

Wilson believes that Iraq did not try to buy uranium, and so he basically accused Bush of lying when Bush said that Iraq did try to buy uranium.

However, the UK Butler Report tells a different story. The Butler Report is the UK equivalent of the 9/11 Commission, a link to which you can read here:
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

This report was published in July 2004, WAY after Wilson's op/ed piece, WAY after we invaded Iraq.

This commission was brought about to understand intelligence gaps between what was thought about Iraqi WMD and what turned out to be true.

If you read the actual report, aruond page 135 or so, you'll find a section entitled "6.4 URANIUM FROM AFRICA". Good read. What does it say, page 139?

"503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi
attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different
sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of
Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government
did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British
Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact
of the forgery does not undermine it."

Remember, this UK Butler Report was published in 2004. 2004 PEOPLE! Way after Bush's speech, after Wilson's trip in 2002 to Niger, Wilson's op/ed in the New York Times, etc.

UK is saying in 2004 that Iraq went to Niger in 1999 to buy uranium, EXACTLY WHAT BUSH SAID and 100% contradicting Joe Wilson.

Now, everyone thinks that the story on Niger is untrue because "those documents were forgeries". Look what the UK Butler Report says: they said Iraq tried to buy uranium BEFORE THOSE FORGED DOCUMENTS WERE EVEN AVAILABLE. Pay attention people: yes, it's true that forged documents were released showing a Iraq/Niger link. HOWEVER, UK had OTHER INTELLIGENCE from SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES indicating that Iraq tried to buy Niger uranium.

So, the forged documents were irrelevant; Iraq DID try to buy Niger uranium, and Wilson was WRONG. After all, Wilson is a DIPLOMAT; he even said so in his op/ed. THIS ONE GUY, Wilson, a former DIPLOMAT with NO WMD experience, NO investigative experience, and NO contacts in Niger apart from the contacts the Niger government WANTS him to have, spent 8 days "drinking sweet mint tea" and talking w/people. But what do you think Niger is going to say? You think they are going to ADMIT to Wilson that Niger sold Iraq uranium? OF COURSE NOT!

The UK INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY believes that Iraq DID IN FACT attempt to buy uranium from Niger, using "SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES". The government of UK maintains this TO THIS DAY. Compare that with Wilson, a former DIPLOMAT, and his 8 day trip interviewing some people he knows and saying the opposite. Yet liberals believe WILSON!

It's ridiculous. Look at some quotes from the UK Butler Report:

"494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made
inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this
case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.
495. During 2002, the UK received further intelligence from additional sources which identified
the purpose of the visit to Niger as having been to negotiate the purchase of uranium ore,
though there was disagreement as to whether a sale had been agreed and uranium
shipped."

Again, there is no evidence the sale WENT THROUGH, that Iraq did in fact OBTAIN the uranium from Niger (although UK does have intel that they DID complete the sale with Congo). What's important is that Bush said Iraq ATTEMPTED to purchase uranium, which to the UK, IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

In conclusion:
1 Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife, was the one that suggested to officials at the CIA her husband be the one to go to Niger.
2 Plame is a known Democratic contributor.
3 Rove and Libby were simply pointing out the TRUTH, that Plame recommended her husband to go to Niger. Neither one of them knew Plame was covert. Neither one of them were the original leaker.
4 Wilson was a former AMBASSADOR, not someone trained as an investigator or in WMD.
5 The CIA did not change their opinion on Iraq/Niger based on Wilson's report.
6 The UK Butler Report STILL MAINTAINS to this day that Iraq DID try to purchase Niger uranium.

Drop the case against Libby, Mr. Fitzgerald

2006-06-13T12:35:00.000-07:00

It's clear now that Mr. Fitzgerald has absolutely no case against Mr. Libby. Why is this?

The case against Libby has NOTHING to do w/releasing classified info, revealing Plame's name, treason, etc. Libby is being charged w/perjury and obstruction of justice because Fitz thinks that Libby lied in his testimony to federal prosecutors. Libby could have testified about ANYTHING and Fitz could have indicted him for perjury if he thought he was lying. If Fitz thought Libby had a ham sandwich and Libby testified that he had a turkey sandwich, Fitz could indict him for perjury.

The cruz of Fitz's case, according to the indictment http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf, is that Libby testified that he FIRST heard FROM reporters about Plame, while Fitz maintains that it was the other way around: Libby TOLD REPORTERS about Plame, and Libby already knew about Plame from Cheney et al. The reporters are Tim Russert and Matt Cooper.

There are a couple of problems w/the case right off the bat. First off, Libby doesn't even testify that he FOUND OUT about Plame from the reporters. Here is his testimony from the indictment:

"And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, "

What Libby testified to was NOT that he heard about Plame for the 1st time from reporters, but HE FEIGNED IGNORANCE SO AS NOT TO CONFIRM WHAT HE SAID. This is a big difference! Libby, IN REALITY, testified he lied to Russert by denying he knows about Plame, because Libby "DIDN'T WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT RUSSERT WAS SAYING". Libby DID know about Plame when he talked to Russert and Cooper, but he feigned ignorance to them, and THAT is what he testified to!

Libby is an experienced Washington lawyer, and when he testified to prosecutors, LIBBY ALREADY KNEW that Fitz KNEW about Russert and Cooper. Why would Libby perjure himself WHEN HE KNEW THAT? The answer is that Libby did NOT perjure himself: he testified NOT that he heard about Plame from the reporters, but he PRETENDED to first hear about Plame from the reporters. That's why he says:

"I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him. "

If Fitz' interpretation is accurate and Libby DID testify that he first heard about Plame from reporters, WHY did he want to not confirm the statement? Think about it: if Libby heard about Plame for the first time, why would he concerned about confirming Russert's statements? Libby would just tell Russert "I had no idea about Plame" because HE REALLY DID HAVE NO IDEA about Plame. Now, let's pretend Libby ALREADY KNEW about Plame (which he did). When Russert ASKS about Plame, Libby now has a REASON to NOT CONFIRM Russert's statement.

Again, it does NOT MAKE SENSE for Libby to not confirm a statement if he REALLY IS HEARING it for the 1st time. So...it should be pretty clear that Libby was not lying to prosecutors, he just lying to reporters!!

Fitz's case relies on the fact of interpreting Libby's statements to be that he heard about Plame FROM reporters. Fitz says that is impossible (Libby is lying) because:
1 Fitz can show that Libby heard about Plame before talking to reporters
2 REPORTERS DID NOT KNOW about Plame before Libby

#1 is true, we have documentation (that Libby knew about BEFORE talking to prosecutors) that Libby did hear from Cheney and other sources in the State Dept. that Wilson's wife "suggested" he go to Niger and Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA.

#2 has proven SUBSEQUENT to Libby's indictment NOT TO BE TRUE. Bob Woodward testified to this:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/16/D8DTLRKG5.html

If you read it, it's clear that:
1 Bob Woodward testified to Fitz AFTER Libby was indicted
2 Woodward knew about Plame's indentity BEFORE Libby talked to reporters
3 Neither Libby nor Rove was Woodwards' source
4 Woodward told Walter Pincus, a reporter at the Post, about Plame
5 Fitz asked Woodward not to release the source that told Woodward
6 Woodward says it's possible that HE told Libby about Plame, but he can't recall

What does this tell you? SOMEONE ELSE besides Rove and Libby is the original "leaker". THIS PERSON is the person Bush was talking about when he said he wanted to "find the leaker". Bush didn't know who it was, but he KNEW it wasn't Libby or Rove.

More importantly, is shows that THE PRESS KNEW ABOUT PLAME BEFORE LIBBY TALKED TO REPORTERS.

This totally undermines Fitz's case, because he can not PROVE that Libby told the reporters about Plame because SOME IN THE PRESS already knew about Plame. Libby's lawyers can just put Woodward on the stand and the jury will know that Woodward knew about Plame, as did Pincus, and ???? who knows who else in the press.

Without a tape recording of Russert's and Cooper's converstaion with Libby, it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby told the reporters about Plame OR that the reporters told Libby about Plame. Libby's lawyers can say it is POSSIBLE that Russert/Cooper were told by Pincus or someone else in the press, which it certainly is.

Given Woodward's testimony, BOTH are plausible. I'll say that again: without a tape recording of Libby's conversations with Russert and Cooper, it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE that Libby told the reporters about Plame. Because it is not possible to PROVE this, Fitz has no case.

I don't fault Fitz for this. Libby's statements were interpreted incorrectly by Fitz, but there is some doubt there. However, Woodward did not testify to Fitz until AFTER HE INDICTED Libby.

Fitz had NO IDEA that other reporters knew about Plame UNTIL Woodward testified. Of course, Libby TOLD FITZ THAT in his testimony, but Fitz thought Libby was lying.

Bob Woodward's testimony effectively nullifies Fitz's case against Libby. I'm confident Fitz will do the right thing and drop the case.

Why do Islamic militants attack Somalia?

2006-06-05T10:59:00.000-07:00

Islamic militants have been attacking in Somalia for years, and June 05 they captured Mogadishu.

Liberals frequently say that Islamic militants like al Queda attack because:
1 The country supports Israel (such as why they attack America)
2 Militants hate the foreign policy of the country (such as why they attack America, Spain, UK)
3 They are freedom fighters just protecting their homeland

OK, so why are Islamic militants linked to Al-Queda attacking in Somalia? They are attacking the Somali warlords and just defeataed them in the capital. Let's go through our liberal checklist, shall we?
1 Do Somali warlords support Israel? Somehow, I don't think so.
2 Do Somali warlords have any anti-Muslim foreign policy? No, all their actions are in Somalia.
3 Are Islamic militants casting out occupiers? No, both the militants and warlords are native Somalis, they are not fighting an "occupier".

So...why would Islamic militants want to kill in order to take over Somalia? What possible reason would they have?

Truth is, Islamic militants do NOT CARE about politics; they are not leftists bent on Socialist revolution. In fact, they HATE leftists.

Islamic militants NOT CARE about oppressed people: they LOVE oppression. Witness the Taliban and Iran for good examples.

Islamic militants do NOT CARE about Israel, except as a marketing/recruiting tool.

Islamic militants do NOT CARE about foreign policy of countries except as a marketing/recruiting tool (like they do w/US). But ALMOST ALL of the countries Islamic militants attack don't have ANY foreign policy.

Here are SOME of the countries Islamic militants fight in:
Phillipines
Thailand
Indonesia
Iraq
Jordan
Egypt
Pakistan
India
Russia
China
Somalia
Algeria
Sudan
Saudi Arabia

Islamic militants fight for one thing: ISLAM. The name "Islamic militants" should give it away. They fight to spread Islamic theocracy ACROSS THE GLOBE.

Liberals need to wake up and realize that these "freedom fighters" are not fighting capitalism, or fighting for women's rights or higher wages. They fight and KILL SOLELY to spread Islamic THEOCRACIES wherever they can. That is the ONLY reason why they attack in ALL of those countries.

Senate Immigration Bill is AMNESTY

2006-06-04T22:33:00.000-07:00

It's clear that the Senate Bill offers citizenship to illegals w/o going through the normal process of legal immigration. Bill supporters that it isn't amnety because:
Illegals have to pay a fine of $2,000
Illegals in the country more than 5 years get amnesty (from deportation), and then have to wait 6 years before becoming legal citizens

Well, the Senate Bill is full of holes, and really offers citizenship to all illegals.

First off, the fine of $2,000 is due, however, this little gem is in the Senate Bill:
"WAIVER.—The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive any other provision of section 212(a), or a ground of ineligibility under paragraph (4), in the case of individual aliens for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest."

Humanitarian purposes, like being very poor? So they will pay the fine if they can afford it and if not, oh well. So there is no penalty for not paying the fine, making it a meaningless condition.

As for offering special status for illegals here over 5 years, that too is a crock. 100% of illegals are going to say they have been here 5 years, and the benefit of the doubt is given to THE ILLEGAL, to the point where the burdern of proof is on DHS to prove the illegal has not been here 5 years! All an illegal has to say is: "I have been working for cash for 5 years, DHS; you prove otherwise". Since they can't, he is considered to be here 5 years.

Even if illegals were truthful, the length of time is also a crock. The current wait time for legal immigrants from the country of Mexico is 13 YEARS from today; applications are being considered today for people that applied 13 years ago. So to be truly fair to the legal applicants, then instead of illegals getting automatic citizenship after 6 years, they should be considered for citizenship after 13 years. That's how long they would have to wait if they applied legally (13 years); yet they get automatic citizenship after 6 years?

The Senate Bill is amnesty, plain and simple.

Enforcing the border is racist?

2006-06-01T16:46:00.000-07:00

Then how do you explain Mexico doing this:

"Among other ironies: Mexican-migrant activists in the United States hotly oppose a congressional bill that would make undocumented immigration in the U.S. a felony – but Mexican law already classifies it as such. The crime is punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common. "

"The level of brutality Central American migrants face in Mexico was underscored on Monday, when police conducting a raid for undocumented migrants near a rail yard in central Mexico state shot to death a local man, apparently because his dark skin and work clothes made him look like a Central American.
Virginia Sanchez, a housewife who lives near the railroad tracks that carry Central Americans north to the U.S. border, say shootings like the one Monday in her town of Tultitlan are not infrequent.

Neighbor Maria Elena Gonzalez said police sexually abuse female migrants. “The migrants have told us that they detain them just to rape them. They force them to strip, supposedly to search them, but the purpose is to sexually abuse them.”
Guatemalan immigrant Carlos Lopez, 28, who lay hidden in a nearby field waiting for a train heading north to the U.S.border, said Mexican police routinely rob and release migrants. "

Jose Luis Soberanes, president of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission, issued a report in December documenting many of the abuses of migrant rights.
“One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues,” Soberanes said, “is the contradiction in demanding that the North (the United States) respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20060418-1004-mexico-mistreatingmigrants.html

All countries enforce their border, it's not even a question. If you want to call Americans racists that want our Southern border enforced , make sure you tell Mexicans that want the Meixcan border enforced the SAME THING.

Haditha

2006-06-01T01:58:00.000-07:00

The investigation into Haditha is supposed to end in a few weeks. Until then, THE MARINES ARE NOT GUILTY. They should be presumed innocent like everyone else in America. We don't know if the Marines were fired on, if stray bullets hit some of the civilians accidentally, if they even WERE civilians, or if the civilians were killed by explosion or other gunfire from insurgents. The Marine investigation is set to conclude in a matter of weeks; at that time, we can weigh the evidence and their culpability.

If the investigation does show that the Marines committed murder, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If pictures are not necessary to prove their guilt, they should not be publicly released; their release won't affect their sentence, and will only serve to kill more Americans needlessly.

This is an isloated incident, and should be put in the context of the stress of young soldiers in combat, not a pattern of behavior.

This should in no way have any effect on our presence in Iraq.

After all, if a policeman was guilty of killing a suspect or even an innocent civilian, should the entire police force be disbanned because it causes them stress? We need to weigh the need to stay in Iraq SEPARATELY from this horrible, ISOLATED, atrocity.

Liberal Media Bias

2006-05-31T09:52:00.000-07:00

Lots of (liberals) claim that there is no liberal media bias. The fact that they are liberals and most press articles are biased to what they believe apparently is not enough to convince them. Liberals claim that it's not possible for media to be biased because media is owned by corporations and corporations are inherently conservative/Republican.

Well, how about this?
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/newspapers/sulzberger_jrs_commencement_speech_hes_no_conan_thats_for_sure_37239.asp

This is New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. speaking at a commencement:
"So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way.
You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting amisbegotten war in a foreign land.
You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose."

Does that sound like a moderate, conservative, or liberal to YOU? This is the CHAIRMAN of the New York Times. not just a reporter. So if HE believes this, it's fairly OBVIOUS he's not going to force a conservative view on his LIBERAL reporters.

Polls have shown consistently that reporters/editors are liberal, and it's obvious that bias seeps into reporting. It's impossible not to, they are only human. Now, with Sulzberger's comments, there is NO WAY that liberals can hide behind the "media is owned by conservatives" defense.

Immigration: Time to act is NOW.

2006-05-30T23:51:00.000-07:00

Although you might not believe it, ILLEGAL immigration is one of the largest problems we have in America. How is that? Consider:
1 Illegals lower wages by $200 BILLION every year from Americans, both to native-born and legal immigrants. These wages are lowered in "blue-collar" jobs like construction, light manufacturing, and trucking.
2 Illegals are a net COST to taxpayers: this is no surprise given their low wages and the fact that a good % of them get paid in cash "under the table".
3 Illegals raise health care costs: also a no-brainer given their low wages, yet hospitals are obligated to treat them for "emergency" care.
4 Illegals currently work 20% of construction jobs; jobs supposedly "Americans won't do".

Illegal immigrants function like OUTSOURCING to business: they are used as cheap labor, plain and simple. The difference between outsourcing and illegal immigration is that American taxpayers don't PAY FOR the schooling and medical care of those working in Chinese factories. Americans DO PAY for the schooling of the children of illegals, medical care, increased car insurance, increased health insurance, etc. In both cases, the BUSINESS OWNER can pocket the profit.

Given that illegal immigrants are such a huge burden on the State and Federal governments, why would any politician support them?

Both Dems and Repubs support them because they both want to pander to Hispanic voters. They think (incorrectly) that Hispanics will not vote for a party that doesn't give amnesty, so they are both falling all over themselves to look Hispanic-friendly.

In addition, Republican business owners like to see an endless supply of cheap labor, and Democrats want instant Democratic voters/union members with amnesty. The fact that working-class Americans suffer with lower wages, and middle-class Americans suffer with higher taxes, and everyone experiences social services at the breaking point, it apparently not on the radar of politicians.

What people have to make clear is that Amnesty is not acceptable. Any process where current illegal immigrants are given citizenship without going through the legal process of immigration is amnesty. A fine is useless: are you telling me they will deport 100% of illegals that can't pay the fine? Of course they won't.

Are illegals going to "the back of the line"? No. The current "line" from Mexico (source of most of our illegals) right now is 13 YEARS. Meaning TODAY immigrants from Mexico are being let in to the country from application 13 YEARS ago. Anything less than 13 years would mean they are not going to the back of the line, they are cutting in line.

The whole concept of amnesty in response to deportation is just ridiculous. Can you imagine a police chief saying "we can't catch all carjackers, so we're just going to legalize all carjackers". It's the same thing as saying "we can't deport 12 million illegals, so let's make them legal". If they broke the law by coming here, and we still have a border, then they should be deported. Just because we can't deport ALL of them doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to deport as many as POSSIBLE. If they want to come to this country, then they should apply in the LEGAL fashion.

I am not for closing America off to immigration. Our nation is a nation of immigrants, and immigrants provide a spirit of hope that all immigrants feel. After all, immigrants, legal and illegal, left their home country to a foreign land (America) to find better opportunity. But America still has a right (and duty) to decide HOW MANY immigrants are let into the country. No country in the world just lets in unlimited numbers of illegal immigrants.

So what do we do? Not only should we police the interior for illegals, what we do is enforce immigration where it SHOULD BE enforced: with the employer. In 1999, there were 2849 worksite arrests for immigration violations. How many in 2004? 159. Don't believe, me, read it yourself in the GAO report page 35-36: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05813.pdfObviously the Bush Administration is going easy on employers that hire illegals, yet saying he wants a strong border. With strong enforcement of employers, there will be fewer jobs in America for illegal workers, and less reason for them to come here.

As to securing the border, we obviously have to have some physical barrier: fence, wall, or both. A fence/wall is not 100% foolproof, it just SLOWS the RATE of illegal immigration, which helps. The amount of manpower needed to police a fenced area vs. an open area is a lot less. Fences also don't sleep or subject to budget cuts, and they aren't hamstrung by administration and paperwork. Dedicated smugglers and illegals will find ways around almost any barrier, but a fence/wall will REDUCE the number of illegals.

We tried an Amnesty Bill in 1986, it didn't work. We legalized 3 million illegals, but didn't secure the border. So the DAY AFTER amnesty was signed, MORE illegals starting to come across the border. So, in 20 years, we just got 12 million MORE illegals. Did wages rise for working class Americans after 1986? No.

So Amnesty without securing the border is ridiculous: it will just lead to more illegals in an endless cycle, with wages falling every year for working-class Americans, and burden on Government and citizens growing every year. When they have reached a certain number of millions of people, illegals will feel no pressure to assimilate, and will live their entire lives without learning English or feeling they are American at all. Already a great many illegals feel that way; as their numbers grow, so will their boldness grow to declare they are citizens of their home country and not Americans.

House and Senate will soon go into conference to discuss immigration reform. Of course, Senate went as far as possible in the opposite direction of the House in order to land somewhere in the middle out of conference.

Americans, both Democrat and Republican, MUST UNITE to defeat the Senate provisions. Amnesty without border security is foolish and will just lead to MORE problems in the future. What problems? Wages will CONTINUE to lower for working class Americans; health care costs will CONTINUE to increase; and taxes will CONTINUE to rise to pay for education/medical expenses/other programs for illegals. Border security is the FIRST thing that needs to be done: after that, we can adjust legal immigration as it is necessary. At least with 100% of immigration being legal, American voters can KNOW how many immigrants are coming into the country and vote IN/OUT politicians that let in too many or not enough. If politicians want to let in more immigrants, then they can sell that to the American people that will end up apying the TAXES for these illegals.

Americans, stand with the House GOP and get border security in place. Your future as well as the future of your children and the quality of life in America will depend on it.