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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
