Judicious Search


Advanced search

Asinine Stats

Total entries: 3147
Comments:
1907

Most Popular Entries

Another problem with Islam in the modern world (9216)
Kerry picks Edwards (7750)
With Friends Like These (7540)
Kerry's big speech on National Security (7521)
2003 Weblog Awards (5964)
North Korean's Defect (5308)

Archives

May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003

Syndicate RSS

Judicious Asininity blog, news, views, opinions

News Links

ABC News
American Daily
American Enterprise Institute
boortz.com
Capitalism Magazine
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times
CNEWS - Canada
CNSNews.com
Commentators
City Journal
CNN
Canadian TV
Daily News
DEBKAfile
Drudge Report
FOXnews
Google News
Insight Mag
Jerusalem Post
Journal News
LA Times
Lucianne.com
MarkSteynOnline
Mercury News

Miami Herald
MSN Slate Magazine

National Review Online
Media Research

MEMRI
Middle East Newsline
Moreover
MSNBC
Muslim News
NATIONAL POST Canada
The Nation
New York Times

NY Daily News
NYPOST.COM
Newsday
NewsMax
NRO
Opinion Journal
Reductio ad Absurdum
Pakistan Daily Times
RealClear Politics

Reuters
Roll Call
Saudi-Online
Sky News
Slate
Sydney Morning Herald
The Observer
The Scotsman
The Union Leader
TIME
Times of India
Town Hall
UPI
U.S. Politics Today
US News and World Report
USA Today
Washington Times
Weekly Standard
Worldnetdaily
Yahoo! News

Contact Form

Your Email
Subject
Message

This is the Archive Page.
Click Here for Main Page

Wed Nov 30, 2005

The War in Iraq is nearly over

Victory is at hand

The election on December 15th will seal the issue beyond all doubt.

Factors in our favor:

1. Terrorist enclaves are being eliminated by US and Iraqi take and hold operations, such as Operation Iron Hammer. History will show that retaking Fallujah was the beginning of the end for the terrorists. They've been on the run ever since.

2. Without enclaves the terrorists' lethality is greatly reduced.

3. The terrorist coaltion of Al Qaeda and Baathist hold-outs is fracturing.

4. Iraqi forces are becoming more effective. What they lack in military effectivness they make up for in local knowledge.

5. The Election on December 15th will legitimize the Iraqi government in the eyes of the world.

6. The terrorist tactics of attacking Iraqi civilians targets rather than the US military has backfired; they have turned whatever public support they might have had against them.

Factors running against us:

1. The Democrat/MSM war against George Bush.

2. The publicity given to white-flag Democrat "war heroes" like John Kerry and John Murtha.

3. The MSM drum-beat working to convince the US public that our cause is lost.

We can yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Thanks to the Democrats stopping all further military assistance to South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese won a war despite losing every battle. John Kerry did more to ensure their victory than any of their own.

Unfortunately for the white-flag Democrats, they cannot regain the Presidency before victory in Iraq will be declared, not by us, but by the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 30, 05 | 9:26 pm |
| [1] comments (796 views) |  | Permalink | [79] TrackBack |

Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas

I hate this PC crud

Hey, I'm not religious. But I have immense respect for the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western civilization in general and the United States in particular. I like Christmas. I like the carols. I like the hymns. I respect the humanity that Jesus' message represents.

Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. Let's keep it that way.

So, if someone says "Happy Holidays" to me, I'll respond with "Merry Christmas". I'm tempted to say, "So, what' s wrong with saying Merry Christmas? Is Santa going to be bringing you Happy Holiday presents?"

Posted by: Pat on Nov 30, 05 | 8:59 pm |
| [1] comments (740 views) |  | Permalink | [0] TrackBack |

Tue Nov 29, 2005

Now Cunningham has gone down, is Murtha fair game?

He should be, but is the GOP up to it?

Congressman Cunningham was a genuine war hero, as Belmont Club reports. Yet, he succumbed to temptation and has paid the price.

Murtha has a murky history in the pork department, as News Busters documents. Moreover, he is a potential target for ethics violations. This Perspectives.Com Forum post quotes Rollcall:

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother's lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee...

According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well. KSA directly lobbied Murtha's office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.

In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.

Murtha also inserted earmarks in defense bills that steered millions of dollars in federal research funds toward companies owned by children of fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D).
There is more dirt documented in this post, involving Pelosi. It has been suggested that Murtha proposed surrender in Iraq to make him a target for GOP attacks. Then, when the ethics charges came up, Murtha could claim it was revenge for his speaking "truth to power". But now that a Republican war hero and corrupt congressman has gone down, it is going to be much harder for Murtha to use the political revenge defense.

Murtha's call for surrender has already backfired once. If the Republicans had any spine, maybe they could make it backfire twice. Instead of insulating Murtha from an ethics probe, it may increase pressure to investigate his shady dealings as the most powerful Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

Murtha is a hawk for pork, but not where it counts.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 29, 05 | 11:20 pm |
| [0] comments (766 views) |  | Permalink | [1] TrackBack |

Joe Lieberman tells the truth about Iraq

It is reassuring that there are still a few patriotic Democrats who really do support our troops

His Opinion Journal piece is a must read. Send it to all your anti-war friends who woulds never believe anything that Bush or Cheney says. Joe might get through to them.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 29, 05 | 11:51 am |
| [4] comments (1023 views) |  | Permalink | [5] TrackBack |

Sun Nov 27, 2005

Winter has arrived with a vengeance

Don't plan your holidays based on global warming

In the shorter term (centuries) weather is a random event. If you live in a snow prone area, expect it. It's going to happen.

If the snow starts falling most of the year and doesn't melt, you have a problem. It signals that Earth is returning to its default state of the last few million years: Ice Age. Welcome to most of the snow-belt being under a mile of ice. That's what an ice age would mean for the US. For Canada, well, it's a bit hard to be a country when your whole terriitory is covered in mile-high sheets of ice.

We would like the default state? I don't think so.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 27, 05 | 10:03 pm |
| [0] comments (769 views) |  | Permalink | [142] TrackBack |

Fri Nov 25, 2005

The threat of bio-terror attack has not gone away

First up, what happened to Saddam's stocks?

David Warren reminds us that a bio-terror attack is still out there. He writes:

Anyone familiar with their websites will know that a bio-terror attack claiming millions of lives has been the waking dream of Islamist fanatics for some time now -- a fantasy preferred even to alternative nuclear or chemical attacks. It is because of this, and because such a bio-attack would be easier to pull off, that Interpol arranged the first of three major conferences, in Cape Town this week -- to brief medics and police from several dozen countries on what they can do to prepare for it. The attack itself is “inevitable”, according to Ron Noble, the Interpol director.
Let's go back and tie a few pieces together with lots of speculation. First, let's review how easy it would be to attack a major city with weaponized anthrax. Take a small plane, a few liters of anthrax, and a simple dispersal device and terrorists could wipe out a large percentage of the population of Los Angeles or Miami or New York.

Oddly, Mohammed Atta (remember him?) spent some of his time in Florida trying to get a government loan so he could buy a small plane and convert it to crop-dusting duty. He was also interested in crop-dusting aircraft and kept hanging around a crop-dusting airfield in Florida. I wonder why he was interested in that line of business?

Then add in Atta's possible second trip to Prague and meeting with an Iraqi agent, the ongoing mystery of the post 9/11 Anthrax mail attacks, and the possibility that one of the hijackers had skin anthrax. Since Al Qaeda did have not an advanced bio-weapons program, they may have needed another source of anthrax. Saddam seems the obvious choice. Perhaps Saddam, fearing that an anthrax attack would be blamed on him, decided not supply more than a sample of his anthrax to Al Qaeda.

Was an anthrax attack plan A and the attack of 9/11 plan B?

Perhaps it is fortunate that Atta went for the hijacking attack. An anthrax attack could have resulted in hundreds of thousand, even millions of lives lost.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 25, 05 | 8:31 pm |
| [0] comments (703 views) |  | Permalink | [667] TrackBack |

Wed Nov 23, 2005

Al Arian terrorist case has gone to trial

It's good to see Palestinian terrorists getting prosecuted

The Tampa Tribune Online reports that the long-running Al Arian case has gone to the jury. Here's the government's position:

Earlier Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Zitek completed the government's rebuttal of last week's closing arguments by the defense. Attorneys had argued that their clients may have voiced support for the Islamic Jihad but only sent money for needy families and orphans.

Zitek pointed to an FBI analysis of bank records that prosecutors say show some donated money diverted to fund a think tank and a school Al-Arian founded.

"When a terrorist organization like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad collects money and pays itself support, that's not charity," Zitek said. "The word 'charity' does not belong in the same sentence as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

He was equally dismissive of defense assertions that the men are being prosecuted for their words and beliefs.

The government is enforcing the laws of the United States, Zitek said, by prosecuting people who worked for an organization whose sole objective is to murder and maim.

"The defendants are all active members of a secret cell here in the United States," Zitek said. "They knew full well what the PIJ did ... and they performed their assigned roles to further the [group's] illegal objectives."
Unlike the other cases that are making the news, this case is about Palestinian Terrorist organizations raising money in the US to finance terrorist attacks on Israel.

Meanwhile, back in Cleveland, deportation proceedings against Musllim cleric Damra are dragging on. He is linked to Al Arian, as this NY Sun report explains:
The defense lawyer also accused prosecutors of giving "some sort of exemption" to a Cleveland-based cleric, Fawaz Damra. Jurors have seen video of a frenzied, screaming Damra at a 1989 conference Mr. Al-Arian organized, declaring ,"Terrorism and terrorism alone is the path to victory." Damra was not charged in the current case, though he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

"Where in the world is Fawaz Damra?" Mr. Moffitt asked. "How did he get left out of this party?"

Damra was convicted of immigration fraud in Ohio last year and is facing deportation proceedings.
It is possible that Damra will avoid deportation because the law is proving itself an ass, again. That will bring joy to some:
The news has solidified Damra's standing within the Islamic Center of Cleveland, a mosque polarized by the terrorism accusations and the exposure of videotaped, hate-filled speeches. But Damra remains a controversial figure both inside and outside the Muslim community.
I sure hope the FBI has that mosque bugged and infiltrated by informers, but somehow, I doubt it.

Update:

Damra has been arrested.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 23, 05 | 2:00 pm |
| [0] comments (791 views) |  | Permalink | [153] TrackBack |

10 most under-rated movies of all times

Slight change of focus, but fun, anyway

The ones that come to mind, such as "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and the "The Blues Brothers" turned into cult classics. We love them both.

#1 "Charley Varrick" - starring Walter Matthau
#2 "Galaxy Quest" - better than any "Star Trek" episode or film
#3 "Being John Malkovich" - he did a good job of that
#4 "The Producers" - bit cultish, but didn't haven't the success it deserved at the time
#5 "Dark City" - better than Matrix
#6 "Inferno" (1953)
#7 "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - "Toons, get's them every time"
#8 "Bowfinger" - The stunt drivers scene kills me
#9 "Proof" - The cops who pull over the hero get a surprise
#10 "Looking for Richard" - Shakespeare for acting buffs

Add to the list or critique my choices!

Posted by: Pat on Nov 23, 05 | 1:33 am |
| [0] comments (803 views) |  | Permalink | [168] TrackBack |

The AP, Murtha and the Democrats take another blog beating

Courtesy of Policalities

I'll quote the opening paragrah and urge you to read the rest:

The headline on the Associated Press article reads, "Insurgent ambush in Iraq leaves 24 dead." Ever notice that when you see a headline like this, it turns out that the vast majority of the dead are themselves Iraqis? This particular case is no exception; only one of the fatalities was in fact a United States soldier. 15 were innocent Iraqi civilians, and, as it turns out, the remaining 8 were terrorists... or, to use your and the Associated Press's terminology, "insurgents." It's truly a unique way of reporting a battle. If the current staff of the AP were around half a century ago, they'd probably have reported "Battle of Iwo Jima leaves 30,000 dead." One doesn't usually lump enemy casualties in with friendly and innocent casualties, which leads one to wonder whether the AP even considers the terrorists to be the enemy at all.
Yeah, given their perspective, the real enemy are our servicemen.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 23, 05 | 12:22 am |
| [0] comments (806 views) |  | Permalink | [4] TrackBack |

Mon Nov 21, 2005

Osama Bin Ladin and Congressman John Murtha

Murtha should listen to Osama because Osama is surely listening to Murtha

Junkyard Blog quotes a NewsMax piece that catches Murtha urging retreat from Somalia:

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

“Our welcome has been worn out,” Rep Murtha told NBC’s “Today” show in Sept. 1993, after the Mogadishu battle cost the lives of 18 U.S. Rangers.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been “listening to our suggestions. And I think you’ll see him move those troops out very quickly.”
Let's see how that retreat played out in Al Qaeda's thinking. In Osama's Fatwa of 1996 he said:
Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.
Just when Al Qaeda is really feeling the heat in Iraq, up pops Murtha again, urging retreat and surrender. It's hard to believe that he served in the marines. Now he's just another White Flag Democrat.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 21, 05 | 3:44 pm |
| [1] comments (834 views) |  | Permalink | [150] TrackBack |

Sat Nov 19, 2005

So, who is the enemy in Iraq?

According to one marine, they are outsiders but expert Anthony H. Cordesman says that's false.

Braden Files passes on a young marine's thoughts on weapons and the terrorists tactics and weapons.:

The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere.
...
I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it’s the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.
I was interested in his view of who they were fighting:
Who are the bad guys?:
Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly “foreigners”, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.) , and then travel down the “rat line” which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we’ve been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide bombers or in “sacrifice squads”. Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local govt.’s, the police forces and the Army. The have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80’s. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.
That seems to directly contradict the recent Washington Post report that "Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found". The report goes on:
"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.

"It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders."
So, what's the truth? Are the bad guys foreign or domestic? It's an important question. If the bad guys are foreigners then the "fly-paper" strategy is working. If they are domestic, then we are in a guerilla war against the Sunni triangle. What is instructive is the "Operation Steel Curtain" campaign that Bill Roggio has been documenting at Fourth Rail. That campaign seems to have been designed to shut down the ratlines from Syria into Iraq. On these matters, I would trust the military doing the fighting over WPO reporters and think tank experts.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 19, 05 | 9:38 pm |
| [0] comments (706 views) |  | Permalink | [150] TrackBack |

Islam needs to answer a few simple questions

When they act like slightly exotic Methodists, maybe I'll trust them

Dennis Prager asks Islam for answers.

Will he get them?

Posted by: Pat on Nov 19, 05 | 12:36 am |
| [9] comments (1753 views) |  | Permalink | [3156] TrackBack |

Fri Nov 18, 2005

That Atheist guy is really starting to annoy me

Of course we trust God; it beats trusting Democrats, the UN, the French, Global Warming pundits etc. etc.

I'm not religious. That's just me. Most of my friends are religious. It works for them, and for all I know, they may be right. I like reciting the Lord's Prayer. If friends need prayers, that's what I recite. I like a lot of religious music. I love cathedrals and old churches. I'm just not into going there on Sundays.

Mr. Nedow thinks we should remove "IN GOD WE TRUST" from our currency. So, who would he have us trust? Kofi Annan? George Soros? Josef Stalin? Joseph Wilson? I think God is the safest bet for theists and atheists.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 18, 05 | 11:36 pm |
| [2] comments (762 views) |  | Permalink | [157] TrackBack |

Proof that Fitzgerald was incompetent

He didn't interview Woodward two years ago

In this Time report, we see:

But it is the first time Woodward had contact with Fitzgerald, even though Woodward's name shows up on various White House officials' calendars, phone logs and other records during June and July, 2003, the time frame that is critical to determining whether a crime was committed when information about Plame's employment was shared with reporters. Those White House records were turned over to Fitzgerald long ago.
(my bold). So, why should we trust anything he says or does? Hey, maybe he should interview Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, the VIP crowd, and ask Kristof more questions about what was said when he met the Wilsons.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 18, 05 | 10:38 pm |
| [1] comments (828 views) |  | Permalink | [159] TrackBack |

Ann Coulter predicted the coming of Murtha two years ago

Sometime she's harsh; often she's right

Here's what she said:

The Democrats didn't invent war heroes. What they invented is the scam of deploying war heroes to argue for surrender.
Hat Tip and more at The Cassandra Page. And John Kerry is complaining:
I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha.
This kerfuffle would be funny if the consequences of Democratic treachery, as evidenced in Vietnam, was not so dangerous to this nation.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 18, 05 | 9:49 pm |
| [0] comments (762 views) |  | Permalink | [138] TrackBack |

Thu Nov 17, 2005

Murtha is the latest White-Flag Democrat to show his true colors

This traitor wants the US to cut and run from a rag-tag mob of mass murdering Muslim fanatics

Here's what the traitor said:

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
Actually, the primary target of our enemy are the liver-livered leftists who managed to force the US out of Vietnam a generation ago. Maybe Murtha has forgotten what happened in Vietnam. Maybe he's forgotten the millions of people who fled South Vietnam or ended up in re-education camps. Maybe he's forgotten that America's weakness directly led to the death of two million Cambodians.

One reason why Bin Ladin was able to appeal to Muslims is that he took credit for defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. One down, one to go. Murtha wants to give Bin Ladin exactly wants he wants -- a massive propaganda victory and a humuliated and weakened United States. An American retreat from Iraq would create far more terrorists than America staying until the job is done. The disaffected masses of Muslim youths in Europe and the Middle East would rally to Bin Ladin's cause in their millions.



Posted by: Pat on Nov 17, 05 | 6:54 pm |
| [4] comments (892 views) |  | Permalink | [156] TrackBack |

Wed Nov 16, 2005

My quick marathon report

Two in a month is doable, even for old baby-boomers

I ran my second marathon in a month last Sunday. It went pretty well. I finished in the same time as I did a month ago. I'd have liked to have done a bit better, but a headwind and increasing temperatures conspired against me. The running buddy who talked me into this ran the whole way with me.

I love this sport. It verges on extreme but virtually anyone can do it. I've run eight marathons since I took up running in 2000 at age 52 after procrastinating for 30 years about getting in shape.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 16, 05 | 11:11 pm |
| [0] comments (782 views) |  | Permalink | [21] TrackBack |

The Plame Blame Game is going to backfire on the MSM

Big time, if the Libby indictment goes forward

Just This Minute notes that:

Keep in mind, following the Wen Ho Lee ruling the defense may have much broader subpoena power than Fitzgerald.
Libby's defense team can do the job that Fitzgerald should have done. They can find out who leaked to which reporter and when. They might even call Joe Wilson and his wife to the stand and expose all his lies under oath.

Even better, this kerfuffle might make reporters much more wary of using leakers grinding the same axe as the reporters themselves. No way should such partisan hacks be given more protection than other citizens.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 16, 05 | 10:56 pm |
| [0] comments (742 views) |  | Permalink | [146] TrackBack |

Former President Clinton gives aid and comfort to the enemy

He should know to keep his mouth shut when his nation is at war

The Jerusalem Post reports that Clinton told an Arab audience in Qatar that:

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."
The hypocrisy is staggering. If he was so good, why didn't he tell Bush before the invasion that it would be a tough fight after Saddam's regime was taken down?

20-20 hindsight is a despicable trait in an ex-President, especially when he goes into territory the enemy regards as its own, and criticizes the Commander-in-Chief. The residual respect I had for him just evaporated.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 16, 05 | 10:17 pm |
| [0] comments (696 views) |  | Permalink | [151] TrackBack |

Fitzgerald's case against Libby has been torpedoed

He's going to be looking like a drowned rat real soon

The WPO reports that:

In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive
...
Woodward's statement said he testified: "I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."

Pincus said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson.

"Are you kidding?" Pincus said. "I certainly would have remembered that."
First up, that destroys Fitzgerald's time line. Libby cannot be the first administration official to "out" Plame. Secondly, it destroys Fitzgerald's credibility as an investigator. How could he have missed Woodward? Thirdly, we now have journalists (Pincus and Woodward) having a lot of trouble remembering who said what to whom and when. So, why should anyone believe a journalist ahead of Libby? I doubt anyone was deliberately lying; rather they trusted to the vagaries of their memories.

Fitzgerald is now between a rock and a hard place. If he withdraws the indictment against Libby he's telling the world his investigation was a waste of time and money. If he proceeds to trial, he'll lose, proving to the world that his investigation was an even bigger waste of time and money.

Libby's lawyer has already hit back:
William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby’s lawyers, said yesterday that Woodward’s testimony undermines Fitzgerald’s public claims about his client and raises questions about what else the prosecutor may not know. Libby has said he learned Plame’s identity from NBC journalist Tim Russert.

“If what Woodward says is so, will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to a reporter?” Jeffress said last night. “The second question I would have is: Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson’s wife?”


History may soon lump Fitzgerald in with Ronnie Earl as a zealous, partisan and incompetent prosecutor.

Good links at The Strata Sphere, Decision 08, and Just One Minute

Posted by: Pat on Nov 16, 05 | 12:48 pm |
| [0] comments (687 views) |  | Permalink | [150] TrackBack |

Tue Nov 15, 2005

Five Democrat Senators voted against the Democrat's call to surrender

One Republican voted for it

According to Fox News:

The Republican-controlled Senate easily defeated a Democratic effort Tuesday to pressure President Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It then overwhelmingly endorsed a weaker statement calling on the administration to explain its Iraq policy.
The surviving patriots in the Democratic party are:

Conrad (D-ND)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)

The renegade Republican was:

Chafee (R-RI)

It also looks like the administration is starting to explain its Iraq policies. The Presdent's recent speeches on the subject have been very forceful. Check these quotes from his speech in Alaska:
The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror. These militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow moderate governments in the region - and establish a radical Islamic empire that reaches from Spain to Indonesia. If they are not stopped, the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction ... to destroy Israel ... to intimidate Europe ... to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation. I make you a solemn commitment: This will not happen on my watch.
...
Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And when our commanders on the ground tell me that the Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. Iraqis are also making inspiring progress toward building a democracy. A month ago, millions of Iraqis turned out to vote for a constitution that guarantees fundamental freedoms and lays a foundation for lasting democracy. In a few weeks, Iraqis will vote again - to choose a fully constitutional government to lead them for the next four years. With their votes, the Iraqi people are proving their determination to build a future founded on democracy and hope - and we will help them succeed.
...
When our Nation was attacked on September 11, leaders of both parties recognized a new reality - if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We had to take a hard look at every threat to America - and when we did, one stood apart - ... Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Under Saddam's dictatorship, Iraq was the only country in the world where American military pilots faced regular attack. Iraq was the only country that had used chemical weapons on its own people ... invaded its neighbors ... and fought a war against the United States and a great coalition. Iraq was one of only seven countries listed as a state sponsor of terror - and it was judged by intelligence agencies around the globe to possess weapons of mass destruction.
Go read the whole speech. Would that our worthy senators could give similar speeches instead of carving up pork in the grand tradition of Washington bi-partisanship.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 15, 05 | 3:44 pm |
| [1] comments (740 views) |  | Permalink | [0] TrackBack |

Fri Nov 11, 2005

Light blogging coming up

Decided to run another marathon this weekend

Can I run two in a month? I'll find out on Sunday in West Virginia.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 11, 05 | 9:31 pm |
| [0] comments (696 views) |  | Permalink | [859] TrackBack |

Looks like the Democrats are going back to their original plan of attack on pre-war Intelligence

Fortunately, we've already seen the plan and Bush is counter-punching

In the Weekly Standard of November 14th, Steven F. Hayes reminds us of just how the Democrats planned to use the Senate Intelligence committee hearings:

On November 5, 2003, talk radio host Sean Hannity read on air from a memo prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The memo described the desire of Democrats to reveal "the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral and pre-emptive war."

To achieve this objective, the memo continued, Intelligence Committee Democrats should "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority [Republicans]. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time--but we can only do so once . . . the best time would probably be next year"--that is, during the presidential election.
Their attack was aborted because the memo exposed their nefarious scheme.

But they have returned to their theme of "Bush lied, Americans died". Whether Bush was playing rope-a-dope, or was just too distracted by Katrina and the Plame kerfuffle, he has come back strongly, attacking the Democrats for, well I'd call it treason, but Bush called it "rewriting history". Here he nails them:
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)
I'd say now would be a good time to aggresively pursue the CIA leaks and Joseph Wilson's lies.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 11, 05 | 9:12 pm |
| [1] comments (662 views) |  | Permalink | [0] TrackBack |

Thu Nov 10, 2005

The Right's misdirected energy is costing the GOP

Little wonder Bush's poll numbers are down

Let's start with the Plame blame game. The MSM framed the debate exactly the way Joe Wilson and his CIA cronies wanted it. The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee found that Joe Wilson was a serial liar. Did you hear any GOP senators or congressmen make any use of that information? I sure didn't. They just left the administration out to dry on that issue.

Victoria Toensing asks a number of questions about Wilson's trips that the GOP senators should have been asking. Why didn't they haul George Tenet in for questioning and ask him why Wilson was picked, what was his wife's role, why wasn't he required to sign a confidentiality agreement, why was he not required to submit a written report, and why was he allowed to lie in a New York Times op-ed?

The MSM was allowed to frame the Katrina response as an unmitigated disaster caused by Bush's lack of concern and responsiveness. The reality was that Republican run states had emergency response plans that worked and saved lives while the Democrat run state proved itself utterly inept. Did any senior Republicans bother to make that case? Did any of them point out that the incompetence of governor Blanco and mayor Nagin was the root cause of most of the evacuation problems in New Orleans? When she appeared at a Senate hearing they threw softballs at her and left Bush on the hook.

Then we had the matter of cutting a little pork to pay for the Katrina recovery effort. We saw Republican Senator Stevens of Alaska throwing a hissy fit over any moves to cut funding for a $225 million bridge to nowhere in his home state. In a rare display of bi-partisanship, Stevens got overwhelming support from his fellow senators. The GOP the party of fiscal restraint? Don't make us laugh. But where was Stevens when oil exploration in ANWR came up? Or the rest of the GOP Senators? Energy independence is fine in theory but not in practice.

The war in Iraq is going well. The Iraqi constitution was ratified by the Iraqi people, a major defeat for Al Qaeda and the Baathist insurgency. Iraqi forces are taking over from American forces and more than holding their own. Of course, you'd have to be reading Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Belmont Club and the Milblogs to know what's going on in Iraq. GOP Senators act as if their only source of information on Iraq is the New York Times. They do nothing to stop the MSM framing the war as a quagmire that Bush is losing.

Every senator with half a brain, and that might be a bare majority, believed that Saddam had WMD and WMD programs. Even Democrats. Saddam did a good imitation of a Dictator with something to hide when he failed to comply with UNSC resolution 1441. But our worthy GOP representatives have let the MSM and Democrats frame the debate as "Bush lied [on WMD], 2000 Americans died". They should all memorize the quotes that John Hawkins collected and throw them back at every Democrat hypocrite who has turned against the war.

The wimpishness of the senate Republicans in not terminating the Democrats' threat of judicial filibusters severely weakened Bush's ability to nominate the sort of judges the base wanted. Bush miscued with Miers and all hell broke loose. The base exploded, the GOP Senate wavered, and Bush was forced to withdraw her nomination.

If the GOP base had directed a quarter of that energy at Wilson, Plame, Blanco, Nagin, cutting pork, ANWR, and defending the war, the GOP Senators might start acting like Republicans.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 10, 05 | 9:13 pm |
| [0] comments (716 views) |  | Permalink | [159] TrackBack |

Why are politicians so concerned about protecting terrorists?

Have they forgotten WTC, Cole, 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, Amman and the rest of their atrocitities?

They make the argument that we are better than them so we shouldn't stoop to their level. Sorry, that argument doesn't wash. Nobody is talking about the US blowing up innocent civilians simply to sow terror. Nobody is talking about the US taking innocent hostages and beheading them on CNN. Nobody is talking about the US hijacking civilian aircraft and flying them into civilian buildings.

What we are talking about is the US taking all necessary steps to stop terrorist attacks. What we do know is that up until 9/11, the US had done a very poor job of stopping terrorists from attacking us, let alone deterring them.

If we want to win this war on militant Islam we need to return to a World War II mindset. Terrorists are unlawful combatants under the Geneva conventions. They can and should be treated as such. Pussy footing around with them does not make them like us or respect us. When we release them they go right back to being terrorists again. They see Allah's hand in our mercy and weakness in our lack of resolve. If they have useful information and yield it willingly, we may show them mercy. Otherwise, we should do what it takes to find out any useful information they have, execute them, and bury them in unmarked graves.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 10, 05 | 8:32 am |
| [2] comments (737 views) |  | Permalink | [151] TrackBack |

Tue Nov 08, 2005

Media myth vesus reality on Bush's trip to Latin America

Investors.Com scores it Bush 29, Chavez 5

Here's the New York Times editorial:

After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long.

In Argentina, Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his ability to relate to world leaders face to face, could barely summon the energy to chat with the 33 other leaders there, almost all of whom would be considered friendly to the United States under normal circumstances. He and his delegation failed to get even a minimally face-saving outcome at the collapsed trade talks and allowed a loudmouthed opportunist like the president of Venezuela to steal the show.
Here's what really happened, according to Investors.Com:
Only five states at the Organization of American States summit in Mar del Plata withheld signing a statement to restart talks for a Free Trade of the Americas pact, and four of those — Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay — did so temporarily on valid concerns about farm subsidies.

The U.S. sympathizes with them, but is hamstrung by its larger trade relations with heavily subsidized Europe. That's why the U.S. is going to bat for those four at the World Trade Organization's 148-nation Doha Round of trade talks in Hong Kong this December.

That leaves just Venezuela obstructing free trade, and on ideological grounds. The real story is that 29 very different states — making up 90% of the hemisphere's GDP — endorsed free trade.

Even more encouraging, the summit's most articulate advocates for free trade spontaneously came from Latin American leaders whose nations have already experienced free trade. Among them, Mexico's President Vicente Fox emerged as a star, bluntly warning anti-trade factions they are "out of touch with reality."

Fox should know. Mexico's GDP has nearly doubled and its exports to the U.S. have tripled since the 1994 passage of NAFTA, expanding Mexico's economy to just a hair's breadth below that of Brazil, a country with almost twice Mexico's population.
The NYT moves ever closer to Soros territory.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Posted by: Pat on Nov 08, 05 | 11:06 pm |
| [0] comments (683 views) |  | Permalink | [1451] TrackBack |

Mon Nov 07, 2005

The road to Baghdad Airport is safe under the control of Iraqi forces

But trains to Charles de Gaulle airport have been cancelled

Mudville Gazette quotes a Washington Post report that the road to Baghdad airport is no longer the most dangerous road in Iraq:

In April, 13 people died along the route, including an American aid worker, Marla Ruzicka, who was killed on a sliver of pocked pavement that intersects threadbare fields and modest cement homes. In the median, the flying-man statue -- a familiar landmark that pays homage to a medieval astronomer who tried to fly, and ultimately died, using homemade wings -- was the silent witness. People died on this road in fiery, awful ways, and the flying man seemed to take it all in.

Then, two months ago, the killings stopped. In October, one person was wounded on the road and no one was killed, according to the U.S. Army, which also calculated the April deaths. The turnaround was owed to simple, boots-on-the-ground military tactics, Army officials said.
Meanwhile, back in Paris:
Traffic was halted on Thursday morning on a suburban commuter rail line which links Paris to Charles de Gaulle airport after stone-throwing rioters attacked two trains at the Le Blanc-Mesnil station.

They forced a conductor from one train and broke windows, the SNCF rail authority said. A female passenger was slightly injured by broken glass.
I suspect the "insurgents" in France are just getting warmed up. How long before the stones become Molotov cocktails?

Posted by: Pat on Nov 07, 05 | 8:05 pm |
| [0] comments (697 views) |  | Permalink | [142] TrackBack |

Sat Nov 05, 2005

Premature Jihad

Nice of them to put Europe on notice

The rioting in France continues as the Muslim underclass wreaks havoc on the platitudes of Political Correctness and European tolerance. After Madrid and London the world waited to see what would happen to France. Instead of igniting bombs in train stations, the radicals ignited the Muslim underclass. While many of the rioters are simply venting their frustration at living in a society that had some use for their parents but none for them, the instigators are using the ideology of radical Islam and the lure of Jihad to keep tensions high. Those arrested will be radicalized in prison and ready to rejoin the fight when they are released.

France, welcome to George Bush's war on radical Islam.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 05, 05 | 9:40 pm |
| [0] comments (712 views) |  | Permalink | [0] TrackBack |

The leak about the CIA secret prisons for terrorists needs to be investigated

Or is there a double standard in Washington?

CIA operative recommends husband for a CIA mission for which he was ill-qualified. He comes back with evidence that Iraq may have been interested in Niger uranium ore and then says the opposite in leaks followed by a NYT op-ed. Who gets investigated? The White House officials who tried to set the record straight.

Government employee(s) leak classified information about secret jails used by the CIA for high-risk, high-value terrorists. Who gets investigated? Nobody, so far.

It is way past time those traitors in the CIA, State Department and DOD who are leaking to the NYT and WPO to undermine the President be identified, prosecuted and punished. Ditto the reports and editors who do the leaking. Hanging is too good for them, but I tend to think of these things in World War II terms, when such behavior was simply not tolerated.



Posted by: Pat on Nov 05, 05 | 4:56 pm |
| [0] comments (681 views) |  | Permalink | [0] TrackBack |

Thu Nov 03, 2005

Has Saddam's WMD program been discovered already?

Look no further than Libya

As a software developer I often spend time debugging programs. One little maxim I've found very useful, usually after bashing my head against a brick wall for hours, is "if you can't find the problem where you're looking then you are looking in the wrong place". I think that maxim applies to WMD.

From The Strata Sphere:

Some of this speculation was confirmed when these reports surfaced claiming that the Niger Forgeries were created by Libya to divert suspicions from a Libya-Iraq-Egypt alliance, where Libya purchased the yellowcake for Saddam and others.
New attempts are being made by officials from Niger to obfuscate the political picture with regard to the supply of Niger-originating uranium to Iraq. However, there is now a growing possibility that the reality that Niger supplied uranium to Libya, and that Libya hosted the Iraqi strategic weapons programs from about 1998 onwards, will be openly acknowledged by US and UK governments in the near future.
I have no clue to the veracity of these claims or where this group comes from. But the fact that we found a nuclear weapons capability in Libya shortly after Saddam’s regime fell is consistent with the scenario were we traced Saddam’s weapons to Libya and Libya gave up the ghost when we confronted them.
Googling "Iraq Libya weapons cooperation" turns up this 1998 report that goes into further detail on joint WMD development efforts between Iraq and Libya. I have no idea how accurate this report is, but it does suggest that Saddam out-sourced WMD development to Libya and provided some of his scientists to help the effort:
However, by the mid 1990s, Baghdad could no longer be selective in its cooperation with Libya. The BND's 1994 studies of the Iraqi procurement system in Europe was unsettling for it threatened Iraq's ability to revive key WMD programs just as the Iraqi system was being restored to its pre-Gulf War magnitude. Moreover, the UN inspection regime was beginning to grasp the complexity of the Iraqi challenge. Indeed, even before the Summer 1995 "defection" of Lt.Gen. Hussein Kamal, the UN was increasing its efforts to locate hidden stuff. As discussed above, Kamal's "defection" was prompted by Baghdad's apprehension that the UN was capitalizing on data provided by genuine defectors in order to zero in on Iraq's hidden WMD facilities. For example, Iraq's biological facilities were first subjected to a meaningful inspection in April 1995, on the eve of the "defection." Even though by then, Baghdad had already hidden its biological weapons cache and destroyed all evidence of its existence, the mere UN visit to the abandoned sites was too close for comfort.

Meanwhile, with the Iraqi-Libyan cooperation in chemical weapons development and production going well, Saddam authorized already in the Summer/Fall of 1994 the move of other weapons programs to Libya. Arrangements for closer cooperation were quickly made.

In January 1995, Iraq and Libya signed a major agreement whereby Iraqi specialists will work at a secret Libyan establishment on the development of a long-range ballistic missiles with range of about 1,000 km. A senior Iraqi Trade Ministry official, Hajem Attiya Salma arrived in Tripoli for final discussions with AbdAllah Hijazi, the head of Libya's Scientific Research authorities. In the agreement reached, Qadhafi agreed to pay the salaries of the Iraqi experts -- some $1,200 a month -- as well as finance the acquisition of Western technology. Moreover, the Iraqis were promised access to the Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean missile technology Libya had already acquired. Baghdad promised to share all the experience acquired in the Gulf War. Iraq did not have much alternative. Incapable of working, the Iraqi design teams built around experts trained at the best European and Russian establishments were falling apart. Now Qadhafi was offering to fund and provide cover for the revival of the al-Hussein and Badr missiles under the cover of the Libyan al-Fatakh program.

Meanwhile, the Libyans were most interested in the Iraqi experience with biological weapons, particularly the advanced stages of the militarization projects. In the ensuing negotiations, Baghdad acknowledged that Iraq still possessed several biological weapons and warheads for them. The Iraqis would share these technologies with the Libyans provided that Tripoli agreed to also sustain and fund the revival of the Iraqi military nuclear program. By 1995, some of the Iraqi nuclear materials were being held in Algeria while the key systems and design elements were being hidden all over Iraq in dormant state. Iraqi experts were apprehensive that the lack of proper maintenance and storage conditions under the sand in desert temperatures were destroying the sophisticated equipment. Hence, the Iraqi negotiators suggested that Iraqi nuclear fuel could reach Libya by sea within weeks after the signing of an agreement, and that Iraqi experts in Libya would then be able to begin enriching it after installing more small or medium-sized kilns/furnaces.

As expected by the Iraqis, the lure of nuclear weapons was irresistible for Qadhafi. A high-level Libyan delegation led by Major Raad Bin-Id al-Daffi from the Libyan Engineering and Military Industrialization arrived in Baghdad on August 30, 1995. They negotiated with the Iraqis a comprehensive agreement that still serves as the cornerstone of the Iraqi-Libyan strategic and military cooperation. The agreement stipulated the extent to which Libya would go to assist Iraq in the expansion of the Iraqis' own WMD programs as well as in evading the UN stringent surveillance of Iraq's military plants.
I did spot the following transcript from the report that The Strata Sphere linked to:
Former US Federal Prosecutor John Loftus in May 2004 confirmed on Fox News some of the earlier 2002, 2003 and 2004 reporting by GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs that Libya had hosted the Iraqi nuclear program, and further detail was added to this in the June 2004 book by GIS Senior Editor Yossef Bodansky, The Secret History of the Iraq War. Loftus, however, failed to note the Niger connection which was literally verified by the deception operation mounted by the Libyan ESO. Loftus told Fox News interviewer Eric Shawn:

Loftus: “I was told about this amazing wiretap where British Intelligence overheard a call from North Korea to Libya saying, 'My god, if the Americans ever go into Iraq, they're going to find out about our nuclear program. And who's going to pay all the Iraqi nuclear scientists in Libya if Saddam falls?’”

Shawn: "You're saying before the war there were Iraqi nuclear scientists working on a potential bomb in Libya before we launched this [war in Iraq]?”

Loftus: "Yeah. This was a treaty signed by a man called Ali Sobree. He was the Foreign Minister of Iraq. And he went to [Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-] Qadhafi and they worked out a whole protocol. Qadhafi would donate a hollowed out mountain in Libya; Iraq would provide the nuclear scientists, and North Korea would provide the uranium. And they would literally make a factory for nuclear weapons. And once that factory was complete, we had lost the war on terrorism. People don't realize that even a small nuclear weapon can kill 300,000 people. That's one hundred 9-11's. So that's why we put [garbled] bin Laden on the back burner — we were really focusing on getting the Ali Sobree protocol — we had to smash that ring."

Shawn: "Now when you talk about Saddam and the war on terror ... your indication is that [US] President [George W.] Bush understood this after 9-11 and he was mostly concerned about a nuclear bomb from Libya or Iraq or Iran."

Loftus: "Eric, that's EXACTLY it. Within a month after 9-11, British wiretaps showed that we had a MAJOR risk. Nuclear weapons in terrorist's hands would be devastating. And that's why the President said: 'OK, we're gonna shift the emphasis from Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. We're gonna go into Iraq - that's where the evidence is - we have to capture Ali Sobree."

Later in the interview Loftus noted:

"It was THE major strategy. Qadhafi has now confirmed he is going to hand the Ali Sobree protocols over to the United States. Sobree, himself, is now in US custody and he is already scheduled as one of the first three witnesses in the trial of Saddam Hussein.”
Now we understand why Qadhafi was so frightened by Saddam's fate that he surrendered their joint WMD programs. The link to Saddam would have condemned his regime to the same fate as Saddam's.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 03, 05 | 12:16 pm |
| [1] comments (713 views) |  | Permalink | [149] TrackBack |

The Paris riots foretold (and 9/11)

Theodore Dalrymple explained why France is in deep trouble in City Journal (Autumn 2002)

Big Lizard asks:

Is This the "Third Intifada" -- Or Not?
Theodore Dalrymple provided important background and a prediction back in 2002. He wrote:
But among the third of the population of the cités that is of North African Muslim descent, there is an option that the French, and not only the French, fear. For imagine yourself a youth in Les Tarterets or Les Musiciens, intellectually alert but not well educated, believing yourself to be despised because of your origins by the larger society that you were born into, permanently condemned to unemployment by the system that contemptuously feeds and clothes you, and surrounded by a contemptible nihilistic culture of despair, violence, and crime. Is it not possible that you would seek a doctrine that would simultaneously explain your predicament, justify your wrath, point the way toward your revenge, and guarantee your salvation, especially if you were imprisoned? Would you not seek a “worthwhile” direction for the energy, hatred, and violence seething within you, a direction that would enable you to do evil in the name of ultimate good? It would require only a relatively few of like mind to cause havoc. Islamist proselytism flourishes in the prisons of France (where 60 percent of the inmates are of immigrant origin), as it does in British prisons; and it takes only a handful of Zacharias Moussaouis to start a conflagration.
That future conflagration may have found its spark.

Dalrymple continues:
The French knew of this possibility well before September 11: in 1994, their special forces boarded a hijacked aircraft that landed in Marseilles and killed the hijackers—an unusual step for the French, who have traditionally preferred to negotiate with, or give in to, terrorists. But they had intelligence suggesting that, after refueling, the hijackers planned to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower. In this case, no negotiation was possible.
Read more »

Posted by: Pat on Nov 03, 05 | 9:35 am |
| [0] comments (831 views) |  | Permalink | [0] TrackBack |

If you ask the wrong question

You get the wrong answer

In the WSJ tday (11/3/05) Victoria Toensing skewers the CIA for failing to protect Plame's cover and then complaining to the DOJ when Novak finally spilled the beans. Dogged Special Proscecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby on specious grounds after failing to find out who leaked Plame's cover to Robert Novak and, for that matter, David Corn of the Nation. The question that Fitzgerald should have asked was not, who leaked Plame's cover, but rather who blew Plame's cover.

Back on 1/12/05, Toensing wrote in the Washington Post:

The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present.
The CIA failed to take the simplest possible measure to protect Plame's cover when they followed her suggestion and sent her ill-qualified husband on an undercover mission without requiring him to sign a confidentiality agreement. It's almost as if the CIA wanted him to write that NYT pack of lies op-ed piece to undermine the President.

Posted by: Pat on Nov 03, 05 | 8:42 am |
| [0] comments (733 views) |  | Permalink | [177] TrackBack |

Go to Main Page


Random Posts

Compounding Errors

5 Killed

Light blogging coming up