It's been nearly a year since I decided to write a book about Bill and Hillary Clinton and the effort to rewrite Bill Clinton's record on Iraq and terrorism. At that time, Hillary appeared to be the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. My plan was to publish "Sins of the Husband" right after Hillary secured the nomination on February 5. That did not happen.
I ended up rewriting much of "Sins of the Husband" and renamed it "What Really Happened." I also removed the 100-page appendix, which included dozens of Clinton administration documents about Iraq. Those documents are now available online at the Sins of the Husband web site. Lastly, I removed the chapter entitled "The Chickenhawk Smear." I wrote this when I thought Hillary would be the Democrats' nominee and either Mitt Romeny or Rudy Giuliani would be the GOP nominee. With John McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, as the GOP nominee, the "chickenhawk smear" is no longer relevant in 2008. The chapter can be read online for free at http://www.sinsofthehusband.com/chickenhawksmear.pdf.
"What Really Happened" is currently available at http://www.lulu.com/. It will be available at Amazon.com and other web sites later this summer.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
The MSM's dishonest WMD spin
Democrats and their allies in the media are claiming that Scott McClellan’s new book confirms that the Bush administration deliberately lied about Saddam’s WMD. I think it’s important to keep this issue in its proper perspective.
For more than a decade prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was a bipartisan, multi-administration, and multinational consensus that Iraq had WMD. “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2004. “It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.” She had said the same thing the previous year: "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent."
Former Sen. John Edwards echoed Clinton in 2007: “Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials.”
I have put together an informational Web site that includes dozens of Clinton administration documents. These documents prove there were no differences between what the Clinton and Bush administrations said regarding Saddam’s WMD.
If the Democrats and the media want to continue with the “Bush lied” narrative, it is dishonest to omit the fact that those “lies” started before Bush became president.
For more than a decade prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was a bipartisan, multi-administration, and multinational consensus that Iraq had WMD. “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2004. “It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.” She had said the same thing the previous year: "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent."
Former Sen. John Edwards echoed Clinton in 2007: “Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials.”
I have put together an informational Web site that includes dozens of Clinton administration documents. These documents prove there were no differences between what the Clinton and Bush administrations said regarding Saddam’s WMD.
If the Democrats and the media want to continue with the “Bush lied” narrative, it is dishonest to omit the fact that those “lies” started before Bush became president.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Lyin' Biden
Today, Charles Krauthammer notes that Barack Hussein Obama's made a gaffe concerning meeting Iran's leaders without preconditions and now, "realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation," has decided "to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy."
The Democrats know Obama has serious problems with his foreign policy, and, not willing to admit it, have resorted to lying about it. Of course, Sen. Joe Biden, the most dishonest person in the U.S. Senate, has taken a lead role in mischaracterizing Obama's gaffe.
On CNN this morning, Biden had just started into his litany of falsehoods when the McCain campaign challenged the Delaware senator. "Senator, we just got this statement in," said CNN correspondent John Robert. "It was just handed to me from the McCain campaign. They claim that 'you're missing the point' about the unconditional summit saying that the actual issue is whether the office of the president of the United States should lend its prestige and legitimacy to a dictator like Ahmadinejad saying, 'When a tyrant or dictator is afforded the promotion of an equal footing, unconditional summit with the president of the United States, those bad actors are emboldened and it threatens the security of the United States and our allies.'"
"The fact of the matter is Barack Obama did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad," Biden responded. "He said he'd sit down with the Iranian leadership."
That is a flat-out lie. (Or maybe Obama would merely stand if he were to meet with Ahmadinejad.)
First, Ahmadinejad is part of the Iranian leadership. Second, Obama clearly said that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. According to USA Today in 2007, "Democrat Barack Obama says he probably wouldn't have invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University but would be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader as a way to protect U.S. interests."
CBS News also reported last year that Obama said he would meet with Ahmadinejad.
Biden also said that Republicans such as Bush and McCain "ought to read history." He said this shortly after asking, "Can you -- my question is, can you imagine JFK, Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman getting this into the mess we're in in Iraq?"
That would be the same JFK who got us into Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs (JFK did not sit down with Castro, did he?) and the same Harry Truman who got us into Korea. And, of course, Biden voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The Democrats know Obama has serious problems with his foreign policy, and, not willing to admit it, have resorted to lying about it. Of course, Sen. Joe Biden, the most dishonest person in the U.S. Senate, has taken a lead role in mischaracterizing Obama's gaffe.
On CNN this morning, Biden had just started into his litany of falsehoods when the McCain campaign challenged the Delaware senator. "Senator, we just got this statement in," said CNN correspondent John Robert. "It was just handed to me from the McCain campaign. They claim that 'you're missing the point' about the unconditional summit saying that the actual issue is whether the office of the president of the United States should lend its prestige and legitimacy to a dictator like Ahmadinejad saying, 'When a tyrant or dictator is afforded the promotion of an equal footing, unconditional summit with the president of the United States, those bad actors are emboldened and it threatens the security of the United States and our allies.'"
"The fact of the matter is Barack Obama did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad," Biden responded. "He said he'd sit down with the Iranian leadership."
That is a flat-out lie. (Or maybe Obama would merely stand if he were to meet with Ahmadinejad.)
First, Ahmadinejad is part of the Iranian leadership. Second, Obama clearly said that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. According to USA Today in 2007, "Democrat Barack Obama says he probably wouldn't have invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University but would be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader as a way to protect U.S. interests."
CBS News also reported last year that Obama said he would meet with Ahmadinejad.
Biden also said that Republicans such as Bush and McCain "ought to read history." He said this shortly after asking, "Can you -- my question is, can you imagine JFK, Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman getting this into the mess we're in in Iraq?"
That would be the same JFK who got us into Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs (JFK did not sit down with Castro, did he?) and the same Harry Truman who got us into Korea. And, of course, Biden voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Friday, May 16, 2008
CNN's idea of full disclosure
CNN this morning allowed Jamie Rubin to attack President Bush and Senator McCain in response to Bush's speech before the Knesset yesterday. According to Rubin, "There's no more gruesome place for the president to suggest that other Americans, other Democrats are somehow appeasers because they want to sit down at the negotiating table with Iran, especially when, let's face it, his own secretary of defense has said we should negotiate with Iran. Many, many Republican officials have said we should negotiate with Iran. All of Bush's silent treatment of Iran and Syria has gotten us nowhere."
Of course, Bush never referred to Democrats in his speech. In fact, the U.S. senator Bush did mention was a member of his own party. In addition, Rubin is being disingenuous when he says Bush's "own secretary of defense has said we should negotiate with Iran." The difference is that Obama has clearly said that he himself would meet with Iran's leaders WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS.
CNN correspondent Kyra Phillips informed viewers that Rubin was a "foreign policy adviser in the Clinton administration. For full disclosure I want to get that in. But for the campaign, excuse me, Clinton campaign." What she did not disclose it that Rubin is married to CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour was on CNN shortly before Rubin to discuss Bush's speech before the Knesset. Amanpour employed the same spin that her husband did: "Well, the reaction has been quite stunned because this is quite a harsh thing for an American president to level at a fellow American right in the parliament of those people who survived Hitler's atrocities, is now comparing a fellow American's potential policies to appeasing Hitleresque kind of tendencies."
This looks as if the Rubins decided in advance to carry the Democrats water, first with Amanpour taking up the Democrats' spin as a journalist. Knowing that she could only carry the water so far in that role, hubby took over with the more incendiary and partisan charges. And, of course, CNN never once disclosed the fact that the two are husband and wife.
Of course, Bush never referred to Democrats in his speech. In fact, the U.S. senator Bush did mention was a member of his own party. In addition, Rubin is being disingenuous when he says Bush's "own secretary of defense has said we should negotiate with Iran." The difference is that Obama has clearly said that he himself would meet with Iran's leaders WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS.
CNN correspondent Kyra Phillips informed viewers that Rubin was a "foreign policy adviser in the Clinton administration. For full disclosure I want to get that in. But for the campaign, excuse me, Clinton campaign." What she did not disclose it that Rubin is married to CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour was on CNN shortly before Rubin to discuss Bush's speech before the Knesset. Amanpour employed the same spin that her husband did: "Well, the reaction has been quite stunned because this is quite a harsh thing for an American president to level at a fellow American right in the parliament of those people who survived Hitler's atrocities, is now comparing a fellow American's potential policies to appeasing Hitleresque kind of tendencies."
This looks as if the Rubins decided in advance to carry the Democrats water, first with Amanpour taking up the Democrats' spin as a journalist. Knowing that she could only carry the water so far in that role, hubby took over with the more incendiary and partisan charges. And, of course, CNN never once disclosed the fact that the two are husband and wife.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Mainstream media finally catch up on Hillary's Bosnia lie
The mainstream media this week finally decided to report that Hillary has been lying about her 1996 visit to Bosnia.
This writer exposed her lie three months ago in the Topeka Captial-Journal after Hillary told the same story in Iowa. See last letter to the editor.
This writer exposed her lie three months ago in the Topeka Captial-Journal after Hillary told the same story in Iowa. See last letter to the editor.
Friday, March 21, 2008
The arrogance of Barack Hussein Obama
When Barack Hussein Obama appeared on “Larry King Live” on March 20, King asked the presidential candidate the inevitable question about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “You know, I gave obviously a major speech about this issue and race in general on Tuesday,” Obama responded.
While it is normal for supporters of a candidate or those in the media (which, in Obama's case, are often one and the same) to refer to a speech as a “major speech,” I’ve never heard anyone characterize their own speech as a “major speech.” Some might have considered Obama’s speech a “major speech,” but few would put it in the same category as Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” or Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. I doubt that Lincoln or King ever referred to their own speeches as “major” speeches.
Google the phrase "I gave a major speech" and you'll find few, if any, examples of anyone using such a phrase.
This Obama is coming off as just a bit arrogant, isn’t he?
While it is normal for supporters of a candidate or those in the media (which, in Obama's case, are often one and the same) to refer to a speech as a “major speech,” I’ve never heard anyone characterize their own speech as a “major speech.” Some might have considered Obama’s speech a “major speech,” but few would put it in the same category as Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” or Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. I doubt that Lincoln or King ever referred to their own speeches as “major” speeches.
Google the phrase "I gave a major speech" and you'll find few, if any, examples of anyone using such a phrase.
This Obama is coming off as just a bit arrogant, isn’t he?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Hans Blix's utter dishonesty
In a March 20 column in The Guardian, Hans Blix, head of UN inspections in Iraq in 2003, shares several falsehoods. First, he claims, "The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery." Bush never held up a contract before Congress. In any case, the intelligence that indicated that Saddam had attempted to purchase yellow cake was not base on a forged contract. As FactCheck.org noted in 2004, "Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. " In addition, "Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium."
Blix also claims, "Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq." This is also a falsehood, Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda affiliate, began its operations in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion.
However, the most dishonest aspect of Blix's column in suggesting that he and his inspectors gave Iraq a clean bill of health prior to the invasion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On March 18, 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed the House of Commons and offered these words:
It’s important to note that Saddam played “the same old games” between 1991 and 1998. After seven years of inspections, UNSCOM personnel left Iraq after the Iraqis stopped cooperating with UNSCOM. Prior to leaving Iraq, however, Richard Butler, head of the U.N. weapons inspection commission, said Iraq had enough biological weapons to “blow away Tel Aviv.”
Now, if inspectors were uncertain about Saddam’s WMD programs after being in Iraq for seven years, does anyone seriously believe Hans Blix and his team could have found out the truth after just a couple of months? After reviewing Hans Blix’s book, Disarming Iraq, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek International described the lack of cooperation Saddam provided prior to the invasion:
Zakaria’s review also mentioned one aspect of Blix’s past with Iraq that most of the media have ignored:
If Iraq had been able to fool intelligence services and intelligence agencies during those decades, why would anyone have any confidence in Blix and his inspectors in 2003? As Kenneth Pollack noted in The Threatening Storm, “[I]f faced with the threat of imminent invasion, Iraq would probably go along with a new inspection regime for some period of time, just to forestall the invasion and buy time in the expectation that the United States would eventually become distracted by other events, allowing Iraq to start cheating again. Pursuing the inspections route is a dead-end street.”
Blix also claims, "Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq." This is also a falsehood, Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda affiliate, began its operations in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion.
However, the most dishonest aspect of Blix's column in suggesting that he and his inspectors gave Iraq a clean bill of health prior to the invasion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On March 18, 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed the House of Commons and offered these words:
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, and details all the unanswered questions about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It lists 29 different areas in which the inspectors have been unable to obtain information. On VX, for example, it says: “Documentation available to UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX”. On mustard gas, it says: “Mustard constituted an important part . . . of Iraq’s CW arsenal . . . 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for . . . additional uncertainty” with respect to over 6,500 aerial bombs, “corresponding to approximately 1,000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.” On biological weapons, the inspectors’ report states: “Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq’s potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres . . . Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.”
On that basis, I simply say to the House that, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the Security Council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach. What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes, there are minor concessions, but there has been no fundamental change of heart or mind.
It’s important to note that Saddam played “the same old games” between 1991 and 1998. After seven years of inspections, UNSCOM personnel left Iraq after the Iraqis stopped cooperating with UNSCOM. Prior to leaving Iraq, however, Richard Butler, head of the U.N. weapons inspection commission, said Iraq had enough biological weapons to “blow away Tel Aviv.”
Now, if inspectors were uncertain about Saddam’s WMD programs after being in Iraq for seven years, does anyone seriously believe Hans Blix and his team could have found out the truth after just a couple of months? After reviewing Hans Blix’s book, Disarming Iraq, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek International described the lack of cooperation Saddam provided prior to the invasion:
More revealing are Blix’s difficulties with the Iraqis. Time and again he and his colleague Mohamed ElBaradei tried to explain to the Iraqis that they needed to cooperate for the inspections to confirm what they claimed—that they had no weapons of mass destruction. After repeated requests to talk to Saddam Hussein, which were turned down, Blix and ElBaradei met with the Iraqi vice president (a powerless Hussein stooge). At that meeting, ElBaradei sternly explained that it was ‘‘incomprehensible’’ that Iraq had not taken the steps the United Nations had demanded. There was no response….It was behavior like this that led Blix and many others to assume that the Iraqis were not coming clean because they had something to hide.
Zakaria’s review also mentioned one aspect of Blix’s past with Iraq that most of the media have ignored:
From the mid-1970’s through the early 90’s, Iraq continuously, persistently and ambitiously sought nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. All Western intelligence services underestimated the extent of these efforts. International agencies, chiefly the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed by Hans Blix, actually gave Iraq a clean bill of health during these decades. As a result, everyone, including Blix, was wary of Iraq’s declarations that it had destroyed its old stockpiles and wasn’t building new ones.
If Iraq had been able to fool intelligence services and intelligence agencies during those decades, why would anyone have any confidence in Blix and his inspectors in 2003? As Kenneth Pollack noted in The Threatening Storm, “[I]f faced with the threat of imminent invasion, Iraq would probably go along with a new inspection regime for some period of time, just to forestall the invasion and buy time in the expectation that the United States would eventually become distracted by other events, allowing Iraq to start cheating again. Pursuing the inspections route is a dead-end street.”
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Think Progress omits key facts
In "Sins of the Husband," I make the case that Clinton Inc. has been spending much of the past seven years rewriting Bill Clinton's record regarding Iraq and terrorism in order to boost Clinton's legacy and enhance Hillary Clinton's political future.
Think Progress, the blog of the Center for American Progress and a branch of Clinton Inc., gives us a few examples of this phenomenon today.
In one item, Think Progress attacks Kenneth Pollack, the author of "The Threatening Storm." Pollack's 2002 book arguably made a stronger case for removing Saddam from power than the Bush administration did. Pollack, incidentally, served as the National Security Council's principal working-level official responsible for implementation of U.S. policy towards Iraq during the Clinton years. Sandy Berger brought him into the Clinton administration specifically because of his belief that regime change was the only viable option for Iraq.
Now, here's what Think Progress won't tell you. Lawrence J. Korb, a Center for Progress fellow, helped make Pollack's book possible when he was at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In the acknowledgements section of his book, Pollack demonstrated his appreciation for his CFR colleagues. “Leslie Gelb, Larry Korb, Patricia Dorff, and the Council on Foreign Relations have my deepest thanks for their support, encouragement, and assistance throughout the writing of this book,” Pollack wrote. “Les and Larry quite simply made the book possible by giving me the time to write with minimal distractions and the resources to get it done.”
Pollack noted that his book was written with the CFR'S imprimatur. Korb might argue today that the imprimatur does not mean that he and CFR agreed with Pollack's argument. However, there is no evidence that Korb and CFR placed their imprimatur on another author's book that argued against removing Saddam from power.
In my opinion, if WMD had been found in Iraq and things went more smoothly with the occupation, Korb would be arguing today that he was wise to make Pollack's book possible.
Another thing that Think Progress won't tell its readers is that Clinton Inc. still maintains ties to Pollack. In October 2007, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, became an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Berger also operates a consulting firm called Stonebridge International. According to Stonebridge's web site, Pollack is one of Berger's consultants. While the bio page for Pollack notes his authorship of "The Persian Puzzle," it makes no mention of "The Threatening Storm."
Another item on Think Progress' blog today attacks Richard Perle and his relationship with Ahmed Chalabi. This is not the first time that Think Progress has attacked the Bush administration's association with Chalabi. In November 2005, Think Progress included an item entitled, “Sleeping With the Enemy: Chalabi’s Sordid History.” In the item, Think Progress offered a “short rap sheet on the man who the administration used to provide justification for the Iraq war.” Like Al Gore before them, Think Progress noted that Chalabi had been convicted of embezzlement by a Jordanian court in 1992. However, there is a gap in Think Progress’ “sordid history” and “rap sheet” on Chalabi. They went from 1992 to the Bush administration years and completely left out Chalabi’s activities between 1992 and 2001.
So, what was Chalabi doing during the 1990s? During much of that decade Chalabi led the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella Iraqi opposition group formed with the aid and direction of the United States government following the Gulf War. INC’s goal was the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. During 1999 and 2000, Chalabi and the INC met with many Clinton administration officials, including Thomas Pickering, Madeleine Albright, and, yes, Al Gore himself. (Note that Gore's meeting with Chalabi came just seven years after Chalabi was convicted of embezzlement. Gore kind of gives hypocrisy a bad name.)
Of course, Clinton's chief of staff had to be aware of the fact that members of the Clinton administration were meeting with Chalabi and offering him support. Who was that chief of staff? None other than John Podesta, who is now the Center for American Progress' president and chief executive officer.
Do the folks at Think Progress have amnesia concerning Pollack and Chalabi. No. Their goals are to stir up hatred for Bush (just read the comments readers offer) and present those they favor in the best possible light. If they have to leave out the whole story (i.e., lie through omission) in order to achieve those goals, they will do exactly that. As a component of Clinton Inc., they have worked for years to damage Bush's reputation. Unfortunately, it seems they are now taking a bit of credit for finding success in that mission.
Think Progress, the blog of the Center for American Progress and a branch of Clinton Inc., gives us a few examples of this phenomenon today.
In one item, Think Progress attacks Kenneth Pollack, the author of "The Threatening Storm." Pollack's 2002 book arguably made a stronger case for removing Saddam from power than the Bush administration did. Pollack, incidentally, served as the National Security Council's principal working-level official responsible for implementation of U.S. policy towards Iraq during the Clinton years. Sandy Berger brought him into the Clinton administration specifically because of his belief that regime change was the only viable option for Iraq.
Now, here's what Think Progress won't tell you. Lawrence J. Korb, a Center for Progress fellow, helped make Pollack's book possible when he was at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In the acknowledgements section of his book, Pollack demonstrated his appreciation for his CFR colleagues. “Leslie Gelb, Larry Korb, Patricia Dorff, and the Council on Foreign Relations have my deepest thanks for their support, encouragement, and assistance throughout the writing of this book,” Pollack wrote. “Les and Larry quite simply made the book possible by giving me the time to write with minimal distractions and the resources to get it done.”
Pollack noted that his book was written with the CFR'S imprimatur. Korb might argue today that the imprimatur does not mean that he and CFR agreed with Pollack's argument. However, there is no evidence that Korb and CFR placed their imprimatur on another author's book that argued against removing Saddam from power.
In my opinion, if WMD had been found in Iraq and things went more smoothly with the occupation, Korb would be arguing today that he was wise to make Pollack's book possible.
Another thing that Think Progress won't tell its readers is that Clinton Inc. still maintains ties to Pollack. In October 2007, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, became an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Berger also operates a consulting firm called Stonebridge International. According to Stonebridge's web site, Pollack is one of Berger's consultants. While the bio page for Pollack notes his authorship of "The Persian Puzzle," it makes no mention of "The Threatening Storm."
Another item on Think Progress' blog today attacks Richard Perle and his relationship with Ahmed Chalabi. This is not the first time that Think Progress has attacked the Bush administration's association with Chalabi. In November 2005, Think Progress included an item entitled, “Sleeping With the Enemy: Chalabi’s Sordid History.” In the item, Think Progress offered a “short rap sheet on the man who the administration used to provide justification for the Iraq war.” Like Al Gore before them, Think Progress noted that Chalabi had been convicted of embezzlement by a Jordanian court in 1992. However, there is a gap in Think Progress’ “sordid history” and “rap sheet” on Chalabi. They went from 1992 to the Bush administration years and completely left out Chalabi’s activities between 1992 and 2001.
So, what was Chalabi doing during the 1990s? During much of that decade Chalabi led the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella Iraqi opposition group formed with the aid and direction of the United States government following the Gulf War. INC’s goal was the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. During 1999 and 2000, Chalabi and the INC met with many Clinton administration officials, including Thomas Pickering, Madeleine Albright, and, yes, Al Gore himself. (Note that Gore's meeting with Chalabi came just seven years after Chalabi was convicted of embezzlement. Gore kind of gives hypocrisy a bad name.)
Of course, Clinton's chief of staff had to be aware of the fact that members of the Clinton administration were meeting with Chalabi and offering him support. Who was that chief of staff? None other than John Podesta, who is now the Center for American Progress' president and chief executive officer.
Do the folks at Think Progress have amnesia concerning Pollack and Chalabi. No. Their goals are to stir up hatred for Bush (just read the comments readers offer) and present those they favor in the best possible light. If they have to leave out the whole story (i.e., lie through omission) in order to achieve those goals, they will do exactly that. As a component of Clinton Inc., they have worked for years to damage Bush's reputation. Unfortunately, it seems they are now taking a bit of credit for finding success in that mission.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Media misrepresents Pentagon report on Iraq-al Qaeda links
The Pentagon this week released its report documenting Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism. Unfortunately and predictably, the mainstream media misrepresented what the report actually said. While the report noted numerous connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, the media focused on the report's finding that there was no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) that linked Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.
Power Line did an excellent job of covering this issue, so, instead of offering my own commentary, I'll direct you to that blogs items.
The Connection, take 54
The Connection, Take 55
The connection, take 56
As noted by William Kristol in "take 56," the Bush administration has apparently decided to plea nolo contendere when it comes to reexamining the case for removing Saddam from power. I personally believe that such a reexamination needs to take place and that it why I wrote "Sins of the Husband." I hope that such a reexamination is part of the debate leading up to this November's election.
Power Line did an excellent job of covering this issue, so, instead of offering my own commentary, I'll direct you to that blogs items.
The Connection, take 54
The Connection, Take 55
The connection, take 56
As noted by William Kristol in "take 56," the Bush administration has apparently decided to plea nolo contendere when it comes to reexamining the case for removing Saddam from power. I personally believe that such a reexamination needs to take place and that it why I wrote "Sins of the Husband." I hope that such a reexamination is part of the debate leading up to this November's election.
Video on YouTube
I put together a little "Sins of the Husband" video and uploaded it to YouTube. The video includes just a few of the items discussed in my book. Please click here to view the video. If you like it, please leave a comment on YouTube.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Sins of the Husband has been published
After Super Tuesday on February 5, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were in a virtual dead heat for the Democratic presidential nomination. Larry Sabato, the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, stated today that the Clinton-Obama race is likely to continue through June. Therefore, I have decided to go ahead with my original publication target date (which was immediately after Super Tuesday) for Sins of the Husband. For more information about the book, including ordering information, please visit the Sins of the Husband web site.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Illegal activity in Berkeley
Here is an incredible video of protestors in Berkeley, Calif., using force to prevent people from entering a Marine Corps recruiting station. One gentleman who attempted to enter confronted a police offier who, while acknowledging that the protestors were breaking the law, said the police were remaining neutral. Good you imagine the police remaining neutral as a mugger uses force to beat an elderly lady.
If you are as outraged as I am over this, contact the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce and politely let them know you will boycott Berkeley until the police enforce the law. The Chamber disagrees with the the mayor of Berkeley and the majority on the city council who have allowed this illegal activity toi take place. If business in Berkeley begins to suffer, the objectively pro-terrorist folks who run the city might have a change of heart.
If you are as outraged as I am over this, contact the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce and politely let them know you will boycott Berkeley until the police enforce the law. The Chamber disagrees with the the mayor of Berkeley and the majority on the city council who have allowed this illegal activity toi take place. If business in Berkeley begins to suffer, the objectively pro-terrorist folks who run the city might have a change of heart.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Senator Leahy's Big Lie
On January 30, Sen. Patrick Leahy made the following statement during an oversight hearing with Attorney General Michael Mukasey:
"It is not enough to say that waterboarding is not currently authorized. Torture and illegality have no place in America. We should not delay beginning the process of restoring America’s role in the struggle for liberty and human dignity. Tragically, this administration has so twisted America’s role, law and values that our own State Department, our military officers and, apparently, America’s top law enforcement officer, are now instructed by the White House not to say that waterboarding is torture and illegal. Never mind that waterboarding has been recognized as torture for the last 500 years. Never mind that President Teddy Roosevelt properly prosecuted Americans soldiers for this more than 100 years ago. Never mind that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding Americans during World War II."
What our soldiers did to Filipinos during the Philippine-American War and what the Japanese did to our troops during World War II was the "water cure," not waterboarding. According to Wikipedia:
"Water cure is a form of water torture in which the victim is forced to drink large quantities of water in a short time, resulting in gastric distension, water intoxication, and possibly death.
"Often the victim has the mouth forced or wedged open, the nose closed with pincers and a funnel or strip of cloth forced down the throat. The victim has to drink all the water (or other liquids such as bile or urine) poured into the funnel to avoid drowning. The stomach fills until near bursting, and is sometimes beaten until the victim vomits and the torture begins again."
That is far different from waterboarding. If Leahy had any integrity, he would apologize for suggested that the water cure and waterboarding are the same thing.
"It is not enough to say that waterboarding is not currently authorized. Torture and illegality have no place in America. We should not delay beginning the process of restoring America’s role in the struggle for liberty and human dignity. Tragically, this administration has so twisted America’s role, law and values that our own State Department, our military officers and, apparently, America’s top law enforcement officer, are now instructed by the White House not to say that waterboarding is torture and illegal. Never mind that waterboarding has been recognized as torture for the last 500 years. Never mind that President Teddy Roosevelt properly prosecuted Americans soldiers for this more than 100 years ago. Never mind that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding Americans during World War II."
What our soldiers did to Filipinos during the Philippine-American War and what the Japanese did to our troops during World War II was the "water cure," not waterboarding. According to Wikipedia:
"Water cure is a form of water torture in which the victim is forced to drink large quantities of water in a short time, resulting in gastric distension, water intoxication, and possibly death.
"Often the victim has the mouth forced or wedged open, the nose closed with pincers and a funnel or strip of cloth forced down the throat. The victim has to drink all the water (or other liquids such as bile or urine) poured into the funnel to avoid drowning. The stomach fills until near bursting, and is sometimes beaten until the victim vomits and the torture begins again."
That is far different from waterboarding. If Leahy had any integrity, he would apologize for suggested that the water cure and waterboarding are the same thing.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Center for Public Integrity's study on Bush's false statements
The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) last week released a study in which they claimed the Bush administration “made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.” Given that it has been nearly five years since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, the timing of this report is a bit curious. It's almost as if they held the report until it would have the greatest impact, i.e., a presidential election year.
It's not as if CPI just decided last year to take on alleged false statements concerning Iraq. For example, Charles Lewis, founder and executive director of CPI, wrote an opinion piece in 2005 in which he claimed, “[W]ith some notable exceptions such as Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder’s duo of Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, investigative news coverage before March 2003 of the Bush administration’s ramp-up to the war in Iraq was underwhelming, to say the least.”
It's not a coincidence that Lewis made mention of Walter Pincus. The Washington Post reporter is married to Ann Pincus, who, as of December 2007, was listed as the director of communications and outreach for CPI. Ann Pincus, an Arkansas native, was appointed by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Information Agency. She later transferred to the State Department.
CPI has received several grants from George Soros' Open Society Institute. Soros, of course, spent more than $20 million to defeat George W. Bush in 2004. Soros also reportedly provided almost half of the funding for a 2006 study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq. That claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates. According to the Times Online, "New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003. "
CPI claims to be non-partisan, yet where is the study in which this group detailed the false statements regarding Iraq made by the Clinton administration? That administration claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on weapons production and left office in January 2001 still claiming that Iraq had WMD. CPI may respond that such a study would not be relevant since Bill Clinton has been out of office for seven years. That is true. However, Hillary Clinton is running for president and it is quite possible that Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke, and other officials from the Bill Clinton administration would join her administration if she were elected. If the Bush administration made false statements concerning Iraq, CPI cannot deny that these Clinton administration officials also made false statements.
I doubt that we will see such a study since CPI appears to be aligned with Clinton Inc. and, therefore, lacks the integrity to share the whole truth with the American people.
It's not as if CPI just decided last year to take on alleged false statements concerning Iraq. For example, Charles Lewis, founder and executive director of CPI, wrote an opinion piece in 2005 in which he claimed, “[W]ith some notable exceptions such as Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and the Knight Ridder’s duo of Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, investigative news coverage before March 2003 of the Bush administration’s ramp-up to the war in Iraq was underwhelming, to say the least.”
It's not a coincidence that Lewis made mention of Walter Pincus. The Washington Post reporter is married to Ann Pincus, who, as of December 2007, was listed as the director of communications and outreach for CPI. Ann Pincus, an Arkansas native, was appointed by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Information Agency. She later transferred to the State Department.
CPI has received several grants from George Soros' Open Society Institute. Soros, of course, spent more than $20 million to defeat George W. Bush in 2004. Soros also reportedly provided almost half of the funding for a 2006 study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq. That claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates. According to the Times Online, "New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003. "
CPI claims to be non-partisan, yet where is the study in which this group detailed the false statements regarding Iraq made by the Clinton administration? That administration claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on weapons production and left office in January 2001 still claiming that Iraq had WMD. CPI may respond that such a study would not be relevant since Bill Clinton has been out of office for seven years. That is true. However, Hillary Clinton is running for president and it is quite possible that Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke, and other officials from the Bill Clinton administration would join her administration if she were elected. If the Bush administration made false statements concerning Iraq, CPI cannot deny that these Clinton administration officials also made false statements.
I doubt that we will see such a study since CPI appears to be aligned with Clinton Inc. and, therefore, lacks the integrity to share the whole truth with the American people.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Sins of the Husband nears completion
After several years of research and several months of writing, Sins of the Husband: The Rewriting of Bill Clinton’s Record on Iraq and Terrorism to Benefit Hillary Clinton is nearly ready for publication.
When I started writing the book last year, I assumed that Hillary Clinton would have a cakewalk to the Democratic Party nomination. However, Barack Obama proved to be a much stronger candidate than most of us expected. If the polls are correct, he will win today's primary in South Carolina, which leaves the race up in the air until at least February 5. I suspect that we will know who the Democrats' nominee is by the end of February. If it's Hillary, the book is ready for printing. If it's Obama, I'll have to rewrite a bit of the book. Either way, I believe Sins of the Husband will help to set the record straight concerning the Clinton administration, Iraq, and terrorism. I think it's clear that Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq ultimately led to 9/11. History needs to reflect that fact.
When I started writing the book last year, I assumed that Hillary Clinton would have a cakewalk to the Democratic Party nomination. However, Barack Obama proved to be a much stronger candidate than most of us expected. If the polls are correct, he will win today's primary in South Carolina, which leaves the race up in the air until at least February 5. I suspect that we will know who the Democrats' nominee is by the end of February. If it's Hillary, the book is ready for printing. If it's Obama, I'll have to rewrite a bit of the book. Either way, I believe Sins of the Husband will help to set the record straight concerning the Clinton administration, Iraq, and terrorism. I think it's clear that Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq ultimately led to 9/11. History needs to reflect that fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
