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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
