Washington Post Does Much Better Work
Okay, the Washington Post did a MUCH better job in describing this assessment that is going to be released. It actually discussed Iraq!
However, read closely, you will find that it is actually an indictment of the Democrats "redeploy" plan as nothing but surrender. Here are the key graphs:
According to officials familiar with the document, it describes the situation in Iraq as promoting the spread of radical Islam by providing a focal point, with constant reinforcement of an anti-American message for disaffected Muslims. The Web sites provide a narrative of a war with frequent victories for the insurgents, and describe an occupation that they say regularly targets Islam and its adherents. They also distribute increasingly frequent and sophisticated messages from al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, urging Muslims wherever they are to take up arms against the "Crusaders" on behalf of Iraq.
Both Bush and bin Laden now regularly describe the Iraq war as the "central front" of the global war, and both are depending on victory there to set the direction of future struggles far afield. Although intelligence officials believe bin Laden's ability to direct major terrorist operations has been greatly diminished, his status as the ideological leader of a global movement that appeals to disaffected Muslims has vastly increased.
Now, understanding that bin Laden is counting on victory in Iraq to set the direction of future struggles far afield...what, then, would our position in Iraq be if we "redeployed to Okinowa?"
Posted by Aaron at 11:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Falling like a deck of cards
Sunnis want US to stay in Iraq. The New York Times piece is wrapped in spin. What we see here is "strategery."
DEMS ALL WRONG AGAIN!
Posted by Aaron at 08:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
They Constitute Weapons of Mass Destruction
Still silent in about 75% of the media:
The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
Posted by Aaron at 04:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Oh, those WMD
I don't think Santorum would lend his name to something this earth shattering if it were not true:
- Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
- Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
- Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.
- The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
- The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
- It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
Posted by Aaron at 06:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Just Keeping You Informed
Alpha Patriot, by way of the Strategy Page, points to some positive trend in Iraq:
- The economy. GDP doubled from 2003 to 2004, and was up double digits in 2005. Inflation and unemployment have both been falling steadily.
- Now, for the first time in half a century, Iraq is exporting food.
- Since last Fall, over fifty U.S. bases have been transferred to Iraqi control. American troops are moving to larger, consolidated, bases out in the countryside.
- Iraqi has gone from police state, to media madhouse, in three years.
- Al Qaeda, and Baath Party terrorists continue to carry out enough attacks to keep foreign journalists occupied, but the terror campaign is much diminished over the past year. There are still several suicide bomber attacks a week, and assassinations of government officials or tribal chiefs continues. The terrorists are still obsessed with the idea that they can foment a civil war. But most Iraqis look at the terrorists as a crime problem.
Say what? Shut yo mouf! This takes away from the credibility of the media, which, of course, is rock solid.
Posted by Aaron at 03:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More bad news for the Bush-hating anti-war crowd
On June 8th, the Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) published the following story (Hat Tip: ALLAHPUNDIT):
BAGHDAD, June 8 (KUNA) -- Iraqi citizens took to the streets celebrating Abu Musaab Zarqawi's death on Thursday.
Joy filled Baghdad's hot streets, as gun shots sounded through the air, and cars packed with overjoyed Iraqi's roamed the streets. Iraqis were sharing sweets with people outside their homes.
Civil organizations paraded as they condemned violence chanting "death to Zarqawi and Saddamites." Thursday's celebrations could be compared to the jubilation in Baghdad's streets the day Saddam Hussein was captured.
Iraqis hope Zarqawi's death would bring an end to the series of terrorist operations on Iraqi streets.
Iraqi MP, Mahmoud Othman, said Zarqawi instigated sectarianism in Iraq and bloodied its streets.
He said he expected that the number of terrorist attacks will decrease dramatically and the new government will be able to stabilize Iraq. As a result, MNF troops will be able to leave Iraq sooner.
Zarqawi was killed in an area close to Baqouba in an air raid Thursday.
Posted by Dodo David at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wow! A Movie About Iraq!
For those of you who have been wondering why there haven't been many movies about the situation in Iraq, get ready for one that is worthy of the Michael Moore generation of filmmakers. (It takes a while to find that "perfect script," you know.)
After months of searching, "Boys Don't Cry" director Kimberly Peirce has found her leading man for the Iraq war drama "Stop-Loss."
Ryan Phillippe is in negotiations to star in the Paramount film, playing a soldier who returns home to Texas and is called to duty again in Iraq through the military's "stop-loss" procedure. The soldier then refuses to return to battle.
Abbie Cornish already has signed on to play the female lead. The studio is eyeing a late-summer start date.
Peirce has taken her time in finding the right project to follow up her feature directorial debut, 1999's "Boys Don't Cry." That film brought Hilary Swank her first best actress Oscar as well as a nomination for co-star Chloe Sevigny.
Phillippe, who co-starred in last year's Oscar-winning best picture "Crash," next appears in Clint Eastwood's WWII drama "Flags of Our Father" and in "Breach," opposite Chris Cooper.
Take a look at Phillippe:
The obvious choice for today's enlightened soldier...
Posted by Pam at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Unity Government Formed and Sworn in Two Days Early
Again, this will fall on the left's deaf ears:
Despite the violence, legislators began to arrive at Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone for a session of the 275-member parliament that was to approve Prime Minister-designate Nouri al-Maliki's new Cabinet.
The United States hopes the new national unity government of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can calm the violence and pave the way for Washington to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.
"This is a historic day for Iraq and all its people," deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiyah said at a nationally televised news conference as the legislators gathered.
"It is the first time that a full-term, democratically elected government has been formed in Iraq since the fall of the ousted regime. This government represents all Iraqis," said al-Attiyah, a bearded Shiite cleric wearing a white turban.
He could accurately go further: this is the first full-term, democratically elected government in Arab history.
Posted by Aaron at 07:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Brookings Institute Shows Solid Progress in Iraq
Shhhh, don't tell the Democrats; they are politically invested in the defeat of our forces in Iraq and want the country to fall into chaos to win seats in government. All Things Conservative provides the highlights:
1. Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.
2. Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.
3. Actionable tips from Iraqis have increased every month this year. In January, 4,025 tips were received; February, 4,235; and March, 4,578.
4. On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.
5. Crude oil production reached 2.14 million barrels a day (MBD) in April of this year. It had dropped to 0.3 MBD in May of 2003.
6. Revenues from oil export have only slightly increased from pre-war levels of $0.2 billion, to $0.62 billion in April.
7. Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts.
8. The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.
9. The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.
10. Iraqi military casualties were 201 in April of 2006, after peaking at 304 in July of 2005.
11. As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.
12. Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.
13. As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.
14. Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.
15. In May of 2003, Iraqi Security Forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.
16. The breakdown of foreign terrorists by country of origin is interesting. The largest number come from Algeria, at 20%. The next two countries are Syria and Yemen, at 18% and 17%, respectively.
17. The number of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq was estimated at between 300 and 500 in January 2004. That number increased in April of this year, to between 700 and 2,000.
18. From May 2003 and April 2006, between 1,000 and 3,000 anti-Iraqi forces have been killed each month.
Posted by Aaron at 06:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More Democratic Lies (grab a kleenex)
Everytime I hear Chris Matthews say what we were told would happen by the administration, I yell at the television. He says that the American people we were told that Saddam had ties to 9/11, we were promised WMD, a cakewalk, that our soldiers were greeted as liberators and that Iraqi oil would pay for the operation--none of which were true (he says).
What a liar. No, we did not find the WMD in Iraq and I was certainly disappointed. I remember watching the news for a month straight waiting for our soldiers to find them. Every bunker they found where the field tests tested positive, I was happy that we got to them before Saddam used them. But they were not WMD and I was frustrated.
I was frustrated for all the wrongs reasons. The only reason I wanted the WMDs to be there was to rub it in the face of all the Hollywood actors and self-important Democrats that voted for the war then cried foul before the first shot was fired.
I get upset with Chris Matthews because the rest are blatant lies. No one said that Saddam was involved with 9/11 other than that random Iraqi agent in Germany and the fact that Iraq was complicit in the first WTC attack. War is never a cakewalk and most people involved believed that Saddam would use WMD against the troops as they approached Baghdad. And this pay for the war with Iraqi oil is the exact OPPOSITE position the administration took before the war. It would BE a war for oil if that was how we were going to pay for it.
But what burns me up the most is the new Democratic lie that we were not greeted as liberators. I saw it with my own eyes on television (all news outlets) and in newspaper pictures. As Ann Coulter reminds us, it is easy to be a Democrat because, for a Democrat, history begins every morning. They fiddle with history and try to pretend things didn't happen (like forgetting everything the Clinton administration said about the dangers of Saddam Hussein in 1998 1999).
Larry Elder reminds us of what the Democrats want us to forget--what the Democrats want to steal from our soldiers honor for the brilliant battle they fought to take Baghdad.
Our soldiers and heros were greeted as liberators:
From a soldier
"In April 2004 I was in the first push through Fallujah after the four American contractors were murdered, desecrated and hung from a bridge. I was critically wounded after I was shot through the hip in a firefight and nearly bled out on the battlefield. It was six months before I was able to walk semi-normally on my own more than 20 feet unaided by crutches or a wheel chair. In December of 2004 I was medically retired, and even now over two years later I still cannot run and I honestly don't think I will be regaining that ability in this lifetime.... Well I have had multiple people ask me about what I think about everything going on over there and I always respond the same way.... I reach into my wallet and pull out a card and let them read it. It speaks for itself; I don't need to say a word. I received this shortly after the invasion in 2003, a young boy walked up to me with his father who was standing behind him with his hands on his shoulders and just reached out his hand and gave this to me.... Sure there are those who want us dead and gone and will do anything to get rid of us, but they are a minority."
The soldier enclosed a copy of the card. It has a big heart on the front, and inside it reads: "Thank you George Bush. Thank you American soldiers. Thank you Marines [sic] soldiers. To save us. We are so grateful. Your friend, Ali Ahmed. An Iraqi boy, 9 years old. 2003.4.15 Wedensday [sic]."
From the NYTimesOn April 10, 2003, John F. Burns filed this story from Baghdad:
"Saddam Hussein's rule collapsed in a matter of hours today across much of this capital city as ordinary Iraqis took to the streets in their thousands to topple Mr. Hussein's statues, loot government ministries and interrogation centers and to give a cheering, often tearful welcome to advancing American troops.
" ...Army and Marine Corps units moving into the districts of eastern Baghdad where many of the city's 5 million people live finally met the kind of adulation from ordinary Iraqis that American advocates of a war to topple Mr. Hussein had predicted....
"Much of Baghdad became, in a moment, a showcase of unbridled enthusiasm for America...
"American troops, but almost as much any Westerner caught up in the tide of people rushing into the streets, were met with scenes that summoned comparisons to the freeing of Eastern Europe 14 years ago....
"Shouts to the American soldiers of 'Thank you, mister, thank you,' in English, of 'Welcome, my friend, welcome,' of 'Good, good, good,' and 'Yes, yes, mister,' mingled with cries of 'Good, George Bush!' and 'Down Saddam!'...
"A middle-aged man pushed through a crowd attempting to topple a statue of Mr. Hussein outside the oil ministry with a bouquet of paper flowers, and passed among American troops distributing them one at a time, each with a kiss on the cheek.
"A woman with two small children perched in the open roof of a car maneuvering to get close to a Marine Corps unit assisting in toppling a Hussein statue outside the Palestine and Sheraton hotels, the quarters for foreign journalists, wept as she shouted, 'Thank you, mister, thank you very much.'...
From our generals
Gen. Georges Sada, the No. 2 ranking general in the Iraqi Air Force, said the same thing when I interviewed him Feb. 9, 2006.
I said, "You said the president did the right thing in invading Iraq -- "
"Excuse me," said Sada, "you say invading, I always say liberating.... In most provinces of Iraq and Kurdistan, the forces were received with cheers and flowers, in the South, it was the same thing in my province." The people living in the Sunni triangle did not consider Americans liberators, he explained, because Sunnis ran things. "When they found that this is all gone, of course they didn't like it."
And of course, our MSM hasn't reported on much outside the Sunni triangle as they seldom stray from their hotel balconies.
Posted by Aaron at 11:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Best News I've Read about Iraq this Week
Shi'ite bloc picks new Prime Minister (buried Deep in the Bowels of the NYTimes site).
Posted by Aaron at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Has Anyone Suggested This?
I really hope that the Iraqi parliament comes together and can form a unity government. No matter your political persuasion, I think we can agree that victory in Iraq is in America's best interest. And, as much as a person might hate Bush for putting us there, his unpopularity regarding Iraq can soon slip past partisan stone-throwing and begin to affect our country's ability to defend itself and to tackle future issues.
I think that if Iraq can form a government, Bush should address the assembly. There is a way that Bush can give a speech to the leaders in Iraq without making them look like puppets--like announcing a significant troop drawdown (if possible). I think it will also somehow legitimize government, both for Iraqis and Americans. Has an American president ever addressed an assembly in Iraq? I know his visit to Afghanistan was a first.
I am just brainstorming here and don't want to get into a heated argument about this. What are your thoughts?
Posted by Aaron at 04:24 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Missing Photos
This is an incredible photo that tells a tremendous story--but gone missing in the drive-by media's hysteria over the generals below:
"Police academy graduates celebrated with a stunt performance yesterday [April 13, 2006] in Basra, Iraq. The 475 recruits completed three months of training under Iraqi, British and Danish instructors in the nation's second largest city, about 340 miles southeast of Baghdad."
I scanned this in from the front page of the Washington Times.
Posted by Aaron at 05:12 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Packing Heat with the Truth about Iraq
Laura Ingraham is back from her week long trip to Iraq and she is armed with the truth.
Check out some of her photos, audio clips, interviews and message from soldiers here.
Posted by Aaron at 04:51 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Saddam Judge to Quit
The chief judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein plans to step down, a source close to the judge told Reuters on Friday, in a development that could throw an already turbulent process into further disarray.
"He wants to withdraw," the source said of Rizgar Amin, who is to preside over the next hearing on January 24. "He will oversee the next sitting and then announce his reasons for withdrawing."
Asked why the Kurdish judge, based in the northern city of Sulaimaniya, wanted to pull out of a trial that has made his face familiar around the world during long days of television coverage, he would say only: "It is too difficult."
Pardon me, but the judge was weak and I am glad he is gone. Charles Krauthammer would no doubt agree:
There hasn't been such judicial incompetence since Judge Ito and the O.J. trial. We can excuse the Iraqis, who are new to all this and justifiably terrified of retribution. But there is no excusing the Bush administration, which had Hussein in custody for two years and had even longer to think about putting on a trial that would not become a star turn for a defeated enemy.
Why have we given him control of the stage? We all remember the picture of him pulled out of his spider hole. That should be the Saddam Hussein we put on trial. Instead, with every appearance, he dresses more regally, emerging from cowering captive to ordinary prisoner to dictator on temporary leave. Now he carries on as legitimate and imperious head of state. He plays the benign father of his country, calling the judge "son," then threatens the judge's life. Hussein shouts, defies, brandishes a Koran. The judge keeps telling him he's out of order. He disobeys with impunity, the guards not daring to intervene.
What kind of message does that send to Iraqis who have been endlessly told that Hussein and his regime were finished? "The performance has heartened his followers," writes The Post's Doug Struck from Baghdad. "In Tikrit . . . a large crowd of demonstrators chanted their loyalty on Tuesday. Several marchers said they were emboldened by his courtroom bravado."
I recommend Judge Judy.
Saddam claims he is malnourished: "You're full of baloney!" and "I eat morons like you for breakfast."
Saddam pulls a Biden: "Put a period on it and move on!"
Saddam says he is the president of Iraq and want's to negotiate: "You're not the boss, Applesauce!"
Saddam claims Bush is the real war criminal: "Don't say stupid things to me. If you say stupid things to me, it presupposes that I am stupid, and I don't want people to think I'm stupid. Old, maybe; stupid, never."
Saddam says he was tortured: "Do you see stupid written on my forehead?"
Saddam says he was a good leader: "I don't believe you!"
Saddam starts shouting about anything: "Do you see my mouth moving? When my mouth moves, yours stops."
Saddam starts figiting: "Are you nervous? Good."
Saddam says he needs to pee: "That's your problem."
Posted by Aaron at 06:52 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Bush must admit defeat in Iraq
Who said it?
A. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, California Democrat
B. John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat
C. Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, Nevada Democrat
D. Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, Vermont Democrat
E. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda Deputy
The answer is E. I wonder if he is a registered Democrat as well.
Posted by Aaron at 03:02 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Why? Freedom! Mrs. Ansley, take note.
The Atlantic Journal-Constitution recently published the following editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin):
The newspaper has now published the following response cartoon created by 17-year-old Danielle Ansley:
To read the moonbat response to Danielle's cartoon, click here.
In her letter to the newspaper, Danielle wrote, "The first time I saw Mike Luckovich’s drawing of the word “WHY?”, made up of the names of 2,000 troops killed in Iraq, was when my mother was putting it up on our refrigerator. It bothered me that no one did a response showing how others feel."
Regarding her mother's response to the reply cartoon, Danielle wrote, "I didn’t take it home and show it to my mother until I had prints made. She and I have different views of things. She said that, as a mother, she didn’t like it that so many people have been killed. She was not happy when I placed my work next to Luckovich’s “WHY?” on the fridge, but it hasn’t been taken down."
Whereas Danielle responded to Luckovich's cartoon, this blogger wishes to respond to the attitude of Danielle's mother.
First, no loyal American likes the deaths of American soldiers. However, it is the job of American soldiers to lay down their lives if necessary, and the soldiers who died all volunteered for military service.
Second, Danielle's mother doesn't seemed to be bothered by the fact that Saddam's regime slaughtered hundreds of Iraqis, or bothered by the fact that Saddam provided sanctuary for terrorists, or bothered by the fact that Saddam gave monetary rewards to the families of suicide bombers. Perhaps Victor Davis Hanson can straighten Mrs.Ansley out on a few facts.
Third, if Danielle's mother wants to know why American soldiers were sent to Iraq in the first place, then she needs to read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq that was passed by both houses of Congress.
Here are portions that resolution that Mike Luckovich and Danielle's mother need to read (emphasis added):
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things . . . supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Congress authorized military action in Iraq for reasons other than because Congress believed that Iraq had WMDs. Let Danielle's mother stick that fact on her refrigerator door.
Posted by Dodo David at 11:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Huge Weapons Cache Found on Iraqi Tip
As the piles of missiles and rockets dug from the desert floor grew, smiles on soldiers’ faces turned to scowls of serious concern.
Working on a tip from an informant, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division on Tuesday dug up more than a thousand aging rockets and missiles wrapped in plastic, some of which had been buried as recently as two weeks ago, Army officials said.
...Vardaro would not comment on whether there were signs the caches had been used recently to make bombs, but the service records accompanying the missiles dated to 1984, suggesting they were buried by the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein.
Still, the plastic around some of the rockets — of Soviet, German and French origins — appeared to be fresh and had not deteriorated as it had on some of the older munitions.
Emphasis mine to illustrate the same trio of the axis of weasels.
Posted by Aaron at 10:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Sunnis Pick up Democrats' Strategy
When you lose, cry foul.
Posted by Aaron at 10:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
This Totally Blows
This slithering snake escaped justice:
Iraqi security forces caught the most wanted man in the country last year, but released him because they didn't know who he was, the Iraqi deputy minister of interior said Thursday.
Hussain Kamal confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- the al Qaeda in Iraq leader who has a $25 million bounty on his head -- was in custody at some point last year, but he wouldn't provide further details.
A U.S. official couldn't confirm the report, but said he wouldn't dismiss it.
"It is plausible," he said.
Thursday's news tops a list of reports of missed opportunities to capture the terrorist mastermind. An official said the military receives frequent reports of al-Zarqawi sightings, all of which are investigated.
Place your bets on how long it will take liberals to argue the following: we didn't have enough troops in Iraq for the aftermath so we had to outsource Iraqi security to the Iraqis so it's George Bush's fault we didn't capture him. You could point out to them that Senator Kerry wants us to outsource our "terrorizing kids and children" to the Iraqi Security forces, but they will just say that that was then and this is now.
Posted by Aaron at 05:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
God Bless Iraq
We love you and will continue to support you as you press forward towards freedom and democracy.
Posted by Aaron at 10:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraqi Woman to Dems: Go to Hell
I was one of the first four people to email the Political Teen begging for him to get a video clip of this. He promises it will be up ASAP.
...and HERE IT IS! [click on the picture to watch]
“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell!”
– Iraqi Citizen, voter Betty Dawisha
GOD BLESS THIS WOMAN AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE!
Posted by Aaron at 07:01 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
John Kerry: American Soldiers Are Terrorists
I just don't know how to react to this; I just know that I am outraged.
Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
This man came within 60,000 votes of being president of the United States...and he is still betraying our troops with his liberal moral equivelency.
Posted by Aaron at 01:21 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Saddam Had WMD?
Lieberman recognizes "low level" WMD program and a "ticking timebomb."
Sen. Joe Lieberman: Saddam Had WMD Programs
Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003.
"The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday.
"[Saddam] was trying to break out of the U.N. sanctions by going back into rapid redevelopment of chemical and biological and probably nuclear [weapons]," Lieberman said, calling the Iraqi dictator "a ticking time bomb."
Posted by Aaron at 08:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Money Quote about Iraq
From Lt. General Patreus:
It's like trying to build the world's largest airplane, while in flight, and while it's being shot at.
The Lord's work is never easy; God bless the troops!
Posted by Aaron at 04:37 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Join the Purple Revolution
A very good idea from Bill Bennett; I hope our readers participate:
I don't know if the idea is original with our audience or not—it's a big country and hard to keep track of all the good ideas out there--but we had a caller today with a great idea, an inoculation against the tide of the Main Stream Media's (or what I call the Alien Media Nation) constant denigration of our fight and effort in Iraq. The continued drumbeat against the war in our culture, high and low, can only serve to hurt the morale of our soldiers and our allies--including the Iraqis themselves. They, despite all we see and hear, are going to the polls next month--for their third election in a year, each election being a remarkably courageous demonstration. So how do we show them our support? How do we let them--and our soldiers--know we stand with and behind them? Americans should start putting purple ink on their right index fingers the week before their Dec. 15 election. And let Iraqis, let American soldiers, let our allied forces see that demonstration here. NBC, CNN, the New York Times want a picture to tell a thousand words? They want a picture of how the majority of Americans feel? Let 'em print our purple fingers--and let the Iraqis on Dec. 15 show even more.
Count me in. Now, where do I find purple ink?
Posted by Aaron at 08:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Dems Strategy Becomes Clear
I am beginning to see a very smart pattern by Democrats for 2006.
They see the progress in Iraq (elections, constitution, Sunni participation) and KNOW that troops will be coming home soon.
So they want to all start demanding significant troop withdrawals next year so they can say that they FORCED the administration to see "REALITY" and they are responsible for all the soldiers coming home.
How lame. They will politicize anything.
Posted by Aaron at 10:48 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Iraqi Demand for a Timetable
I think this is a good development. If the Sunnis see that they can get political concessions from the Shia and Kurds without having to blow things up, that will embolden their reliance on the political process. This is exactly what we want.
Also, the conditions for troop pullout from the Sunnis are identical to the administration (i.e. when the Iraqi security forces can defeat the terrorist insurgency).
The only part of the statement I find troubling is that Sunni's are not labeled as terrorist if their operations do not target civilians. So they are not terrorists if they blow up a US convoy?
Hopefully this part is mostly symbolic--some red meat for the Sunni politicals to take home to the voters.
Posted by Aaron at 03:40 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Pat Buchanan: Traitor?
I call them like I see them, regardless of party: America should lose this war.
Do you think that was the thrust of his column? I do, but that is my reading of it. I ask for other's to challenge me...
Posted by Aaron at 09:46 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
403 SIDE WITH BUSH
* Questioning Their Patriotism: [S]ome leaders in Washington (mostly the Republicans) want to win the war. Others (mostly the Democrats) don't even have the dignity to support the irresponsible cut-and-run strategy they champion whenever they think it will embarrass the president. They have no discernable position on the war. Theyll take whatever position is necessary to gain political advantage.This is almost the very definition of unpatriotic and it is high time someone officially calls them out on the carpet for it.
* You Heard It Here First: I have written about my belief that the Democrats have been doing so much talking about withdrawal from Iraq and demanding timetables and plans because they know that a decrease in U.S. presence there is inevitable and when it happens they want to be able to say they were the cause of it, not that this is what the Presidents Iraq policy has produced and this was the desired and expected outcome all along.
Murtha may be yesterday's leftovers, but you may want to file this away ... just in case.
* Media Ignore Congressman Murtha's Long History Of Opposition to the Iraq War: Maybe most important, the networks totally ignored the fact that Rep. Murtha has been expressing disgust with the Bush administration's prosecution of this war since six months after it started.
Oh, by the way, just Who is Jack Murtha?: Murtha is a pork-barreling pol (they don't call it the Jack Murtha Highway for nothin'), the go-to guy for Democrats who want their cut of the defense budget. ... The Left isn't winning the media war about Iraq because its storyline is somehow more appealing -- otherwise you wouldn't need to trump up a second-rate Congressman who doesn't ordinarily make news.
* NEW BLOG (at least to me). Obviously, Murtha has not spent much time with these people.
Posted by kitty at 09:18 AM | Comments (3)
Jean Schmidt: Ball Buster?
The woman who defeated the media darling: Paul Hackett (you should read that first). DeWine should take notice.
Did her comments cross the line? Yes. The way she phrased her statement implied that Rep. Murtha was a coward...he is a decorated war veteran who served his country with courage and bravery.
I will state, however, that prior bravery (that should be revered) does not entitle you to be an ass your entire life (see John Kerry). Rep. Murtha, whatever he claims to have meant, took to the microphone in front of a hungry press, wanted the troops out of Iraq, regardless the consequenses. He only wanted the troops out safely, but cared nothing of result to the people in the region.
Here was a brave man who served his country, but he makes statements that terrorism started with Abu Ghraib. You can respect a man's service and his bravery, but still know he is either a political hack, a tool of political hacks or an idiot.
From Opinion Journal we have this exchange from PBS yesterday:
In exchange with Margaret Warner on last night's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," though, suggests that Murtha has simply taken leave of reality:
Warner: But may I ask you, sir, if you believe--[the president] says--for whatever reason, Iraq has become the center of terrorism - that if the U.S. appears to retreat in the face of that, that it will be a blow to the American fight against radical Islamic terrorism? What do you say to that?
Murtha: Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas.
These are the words of a liar or an idiot.
But he shouldn't be attacked on the floor of the House. His ideas should be attacked. Am I splitting hairs? Maybe. I cannot think of the Bible passage off-hand (I think it was in Job) where, without sinning, he said to his wife that she spoke like the whores speak--therefore not calling her a whore, but telling her how she sounded. What Schmidt needed to do was the same, attack Murtha for speaking like whores (Michael Moores) speak, but not that he is a whore himself. Political Teen has the video...
"Cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
Posted by Aaron at 08:10 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Factual Rebuttal
What is factually incorrect about this statement during Bush's 2002 SOTU Address?
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)
Click on the link for the statements on Iraq in SOTU 2003; again, I ask for a factual rebuttal to the statements made. Warning: if your a kool-aid drinker who runs to the "16 words" statement, remember that Bush credited BRITISH intelligence, not Joe Wilson, and the British to this day (after an investigation) believe that statement to be true. In fact, our own CIA believes that Joe Wilson's visit to Niger confirmed that Iraq sought uranium.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.
For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.
Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.
The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.
It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.
Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.
Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.
Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?
The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.
And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.
The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Posted by Aaron at 06:58 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
I'll Believe When I See It
I HOPE this is true, but alas, hoping doesn't make something so. But if it is true, then, well, we can wrap up the 2006 elections in one document dump.
Could the WH have just been waiting for the Dems to call for surrender to declassify all this material?
Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.
The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.
In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."
Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.
Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include:
• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
• Ricin research and improvement
• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:
• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan
Posted by Aaron at 11:22 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Saddam Defense Wants Fair Trial
Lawyers for Saddam Hussein said the former Iraqi president could not receive a fair trial in Baghdad given the violence that saw a second attorney acting for one of his co-accused shot dead in the city on Tuesday.
"We don't believe that a fair trial can take place in such security conditions," Issam Ghazzawi, a spokesman for Saddam's defence team, told Reuters in the Jordanian capital Amman.
"There can be no fair trial without providing security for witnesses, judges and lawyers on an equal footing. No trial can take place in such conditions."
How many fair trials were prisoners in Iraq given under Saddam's reign? Who else is disgusted by the irony? He ought to be grateful he's getting a trial at all. Sometimes doing the right thing is just downright sickening.
Posted by Pam at 10:43 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
It's All About Cindy--What About Lynndie?
You know, for all the press the Abu Ghraib photos received, why isn't anyone interested in the outcome of Lynndie England's trial?
England was sentenced to three years in prison for her involvement, as well as a dishonorable discharge. Where's the excitement about this example of the American military doing the right thing? Ah, gotcha--we only talk about the military when it goofs, not when it makes things right. George W. Bush can commiserate, I'm sure.
Lynndie England may be one of the only people I can think of who is thrilled that Cindy Sheehan's popularity with the press has seen a resurgence, as it's taking much of the heat off of her.
While I think it's right that those who participated in that distasteful photo shoot be punished, I find it amusing that the incident at Abu Ghraib, which dominated the headlines for weeks on end, has had its conclusion shunted aside for the "fresher" spectacle of Cindy Sheehan and her followers being arrested in front of the White House.
The MSM should adopt a new slogan: all the news that's fit to occupy the attention span of a gnat. And you wondered what that annoying buzzing sound was!
Posted by Pam at 09:58 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Where was Kerry?
The Dodo has a question about the anti-war rally held in Washington, D.C. on September 24th of this year.
Where was Senator John Kerry?
During his 2004 presidential campaign, Senator Kerry spoke against the war in Iraq.
So why didn’t he appear at Cindy Sheehan’s rally?
Could his absence have anything to do with the speech that he gave on October 9, 2002?
You remember the speech, right? Kerry gave it on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
You don’t remember?
That’s probably because most of the mainstream media didn’t report the speech. If MSM members did report the speech, then they forgot about it during the 2004 presidential campaign. How convenient for Senator Kerry.
So what is in the speech that would make Senator Kerry stay away from Cindy Sheehan?
Answer: Evidence that President Bush did not lie.
Here are some excerpts from Kerry’s speech. Take note of the parts in bold print.
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
He [Hussein] has supported and harbored terrorist groups . . .
In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them. I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.
According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.
As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? . . . And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?
The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.
In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community.
If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence.
So there you have it. A few months before President Bush claimed that Iraq still had WMDs, Senator Kerry claimed that Iraq still had WMDs. Before the Bush Administration claimed that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons, Senator Kerry claimed that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Senator Kerry even said that Saddam Hussein had been aiding terrorists.
So if President Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs, about Saddam Hussein being a threat to the USA, then Senator Kerry lied, too.
Certainly you didn’t expect a “liar” like Senator Kerry to be welcome at Cindy Sheehan’s rally.
A big “Thank You” to Giacomo of Joust The Facts for finding Kerry’s speech, blogging about it and providing a link to it.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:32 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Alone in Iraq
That's the message we get daily from the left and the MSM: we're "going it alone" in Iraq, and the rest of the world has abandoned not only us, but the Iraqis.
Not true.
As Allan Wall points out on Front Page Magazine, there is a coalition in Iraq:
The U.S. presently has 26 coalition partners here in Iraq, with a total of over 23,000 troops which are neither American nor Iraqi.
Here is a list of our 26 partners, in descending order of troop strength: the UK, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, Lithuania, Albania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Norway and the Netherlands.
Just because France, Germany and Russia declared they would not be a part of the mission in Iraq (and we all know why now), that doesn't mean there is no coalition. It makes me think of my high school days, when the kids who thought they were cooler than everyone else would consider any gathering without them a "non-event," even when everyone else was having a great time without them.
Here in Iraq, we have allies with worthy traditions, distinguished units, good equipment and dedicated soldiers. They deserve our respect and appreciation, and we can learn from them. As the Operation Iraqi Freedom continues its fight, we should not forget the contributions of our coalition allies.
Hear, hear.
UPDATE: Oops...click here for that Frontpage Magazine link.
Posted by Pam at 01:29 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Next Grisly Countdown Begins
Get ready folks...we're going to have another media frothfest with the countdown to the 2,000th military death in Iraq.
Click here for a breakdown of casualties of all wars America has taken part in. While we can't give a final count for Iraq because our presence there hasn't ended, please take a look at the other numbers. If we withdrew from Iraq today, the numbers don't even come close to other wars--the Civil War in particular.
This analysis comes from Rosenblog.com (written in May of 2004; all emphases mine):
In fact, during World War II, more American soldiers died in three days on average than in all of fourteen months of operations in Iraq. Despite the tragically higher fatalities rate of World War II, the media of its day kept a respectful distance, and allowed the families of the dead to grieve privately in dignity. There was no complaint that American soldiers were dying "needlessly in a war of aggression" against a Nazi Germany that did not bomb Pearl Harbor.
There was no t