Saturday, November 19, 2005

hahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahaha !!!

this may be the funniest thing i will read all month.. uber sensitive anti-american hero johnny depp has found his utopia of france unbearable..

(just look at that drama-fag picture.. fag of course referencing the cigarette)

simplistic people, such as depp, who view the world thru their liberal utopian glasses, will continue to be disappointed as their simple minds are stretched on the rack by that evil little word 'reality.' money and fame will buy people like this a bit of respite from that evil little word, but ultimately, like everyone else, the people responsible for these types of things will kill the uber-self important right next to the blue collar guy who makes the things that make the world go round.


Hollywood star JOHNNY DEPP is so shocked by the riots raging through France, he's considering abandoning his home in the country.
The FINDING NEVERLAND heart-throb moved to Europe when life in Los Angeles became too violent.
He has since divided time between the two continents - but he fears France will be scarred permanently by the current troubles.
He says, "It's insane, that setting cars on fire is the new strike.
"I went there (to France) to live because it seemed so simple.
"Now it's anything but. I don't know how they'll recover from this."

counter free hit unique web

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

details on the sell out of israel..

more on my previous post on rice's visit to israel..
from DEBKAfile:

DEBKAfile Exclusive:
All of Israel’s security branches sent strong written protests to Sharon against the new Gaza crossings deal as exposing Israel to grave terrorist peril.
November 15, 2005, 11:35 PM (GMT+02:00)
US secretary Rice forced the accord through in a diplomatic blitz Tuesday Nov. 15
The protests came from the top levels of Israel’s armed forces, the Shin Beit and all other intelligence services and the police. Rarely before have so many expressions of alarm been rushed to the head of government by all of top security agencies.
By this extreme step -
1. Each of the branches submitted separate warnings to prime minister Ariel Sharon and defense minister Shaul Mofaz. They were alerted to the grave hazards in store when the crossings are reopened later this month and the rest of the accord goes into effect, shorn as they have been of appropriate security controls.
2. Each branch placed its reservations in writing to clearly record where responsibility lies for the worst possible contingencies.
DEBKAfile’s security sources report gloomy forecasts from all the leading officials responsible for Israeli national security and the war on terror. The accord signed Tuesday caught them in the middle of constructing a new security system designed to safeguard the country after Israeli troops were pulled out of the Gaza Strip. The new accord threatens to push this system aside. Israel is divested of the means of keeping terrorists from making free use of the crossings which reopen Nov. 25 and the Palestinian convoys driving from Gaza to the West Bank and back from Dec. 15.
There is no longer any barrier to Palestinian terrorists bringing shoulder-launched anti-air missiles any time to the point from which they can turn Israel’s international airport into a disaster zone and paralyze international air traffic to and from the country.
Our sources reveal that the prime minister’s office made sure the six-page accord left by Rice was not translated into Hebrew. Israeli television and radio audiences were therefore not exposed to its contents.
Israel is denied any veto power over the arrival of terrorists from Sinai to Gaza or from Gaza to the West Bank in both directions. A wanted terrorist can simply board a bus in Gaza and commute to Hebron or Ramallah without restraint. Israel officials may not stop and search it the vehicle, albeit on Israeli soil, let alone make an arrest. They can only gnash their teeth in frustration.
Equally freedom of control is promised the merchandise and container trucks. The
American and European inspectors at the Gaza-Israeli crossings will not allow the Israeli officers free rein to effectively search them for hazardous freights lest the 150-per-day quota be slowed. The Palestinians will thus be quite free to move as many terrorists and as much water material and explosives as they like between the Gaza and the West Bank.
Therefore, when Israeli security leaders saw with dread the collapse of their painfully wrought war on terror – a NATO military mission arrived in Israel as Rice left to study Israel’s tactics and techniques – circles close to Palestinian minister Mohammed Dahlan in Ramallah were crowing with delight. They praised Condoleezza Rice for helping them break down Israel’s regime of crossings and barriers. At last, they said, we can enjoy full freedom of movement.

this is bad policy on the part of the united states. i can't say that enough. this will come back to bite the us on the backside one way or another..

counter free hit unique web

in their own words..

if you needed further evidence the runaround the dems are spearheading on pre-war intelligence is nothing more than a political ploy, here you have it. this is really sickening.. it proves that this group of people will do anything - lie, cheat, even sell out the country to get power back in their hands.. if their transparent tactics weren't clear before, they are now.

Washington Prowler
In Their Own Words
By The Prowler Published 11/15/2005 11:56:50 AM
(This document was distributed today at the Senate Republican Policy Lunch.)


SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: "What Was Said Before Does Matter. The President's Words Matter. The Vice President's Words Matter. So Do Those Of The Secretary Of State And The Secretary Of Defense And Other High Officials In The Administration." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 11/10/05)

Executive Summary:Democrats Consistently Warned The Nation Of The Threat Posed By Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Democrats, Circa 1998

-- President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

-- Vice President Al Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

-- Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright: "[W]e are concerned ... about [Saddam's] ability in the long run ... to threaten all of us with weapons of mass destruction."

-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "[Saddam] will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again."

-- U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Facts are facts. Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas. It's that simple."

-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.): "[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Democrats, Circa 2002

-- Former Vice President Al Gore: "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow."

-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

President Bill Clinton Called Iraq "A Rogue State With Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Ready To Use Them Or Provide Them To Terrorists..." CLINTON: "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Clinton, On Saddam's WMD: "Some Day, Some Way, I Guarantee You He'll Use The Arsenal. And I Think Every One Of You Who Has Really Worked On This For Any Length Of Time, Believes That, Too."
CLINTON: "[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Clinton, On Saddam: "[M]ark My Words, He Will Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction. He Will Deploy Them, And He Will Use Them."(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)

In November 1997, Clinton Directed Then-Secretary Of Defense William Cohen To "Raise The Profile Of The Biological And Chemical Threat." "Cohen, meanwhile, was arguing that a true U.S. vital interest -- and one that could easily be explained in public -- was Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, often referred to in abbreviated terms as WMD. Clinton directed him on Nov. 13 to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat. The following day, the former senator from Maine held a five-pound bag of sugar on ABC's This Week Sunday program and said the same quantity of anthrax could kill half the population of Washington." (Barton Gellman, Dana Priest and Bradley Graham, "Diplomacy And Doubts On The Road To War," The Washington Post, 3/1/98)

Cohen, Following Clinton's Orders On ABC's This Week: "What Is On The Horizon Is Anthrax, VX, Sarin, And Other Types Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." COHEN: "All of his neighbors in the region, I think, are fearful of what Saddam Hussein has done in the past and apprehensive of what he might do in the future. We intend to intensify that apprehension on their part by showing it's not invasion of Kuwait, it's not invasion of Saudi Arabia that's on the horizon. What is on the horizon is anthrax, VX, sarin, and other types of weapons of mass destruction." (ABC's This Week, 11/16/97)

Clinton: "I Have No Doubt Today, That Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Use These Terrible Weapons Again." CLINTON: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)

Clinton Insisted Saddam Sat Atop The List Of "Predators Of The 21st Century." CLINTON: "[T]his is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century, ... [T]hey will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Vice President Al Gore Claimed "Saddam's Ability To Produce And Deliver Weapons Of Mass Destruction Poses A Grave Threat ... To The Security Of The World." GORE: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. His defiance of the will of the international community to allow UNSCOM to do its job cannot and will not be tolerated." (Al Gore, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

Gore: "If You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill?"
GORE: "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)

When Discussing Saddam's Iraq, Gore Invoked The Specter Of "Ballistic Missiles, Nuclear Weapons, Chemical And Biological Weapons." "Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." (ABC News' "Special Report," 12/16/98)

Gore, In 2002: "We Know That [Saddam] Has Stored Away Secret Supplies Of Biological Weapons And Chemical Weapons Throughout His Country." (Al Gore, Remarks To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, 9/23/02)

Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright Said Saddam "Had The Capability With The VX Agents To Destroy Every Man, Woman And Child On Earth." ALBRIGHT: "Weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. It's hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to – you know, Saddam Hussein had the capability with the VX agents to destroy every man, woman and child on earth. So we have a serious problem here. He is a threat." (PBS' The Newshour With Jim Lehrer, 12/17/98)

Albright: "[W]e Are Concerned, As The President Said, About [Saddam's] Ability In The Long Run To Threaten His Neighbors, And Frankly, To Threaten All Of Us With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Albright Accused Saddam Of Pursuing Dual Threats To International Peace: Terrorism And Weapons Of Mass Destruction. ALBRIGHT: "Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges, while posing yet a third. .. As we look ahead, we will decide how and when to respond to Iraq's actions based on the threat they pose to Iraq's neighbors, to regional security and to U.S. vital interests. Our assessment will include Saddam's capacity to reconstitute, use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks At The American Legion Convention, New Orleans, LA, 9/9/98)

Albright: "[Saddam] Has Chosen To Spend His Money On Building Weapons Of Mass Destruction And Palaces For His Cronies." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks To The Chicago Council On Foreign Relations, Chicago, IL, 11/12/99)

Albright Justified A December 1998 Attack On Iraq As A Way To Increase America's Security And "Deal With The Threat" Of Saddam's Weapons.
ALBRIGHT: "President Clinton felt very strongly that it was in our national security interest to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, their capability, their future capability of threatening us, the neighbors, the regional stability with them, and that we had a responsibility as the United States to deal with a threat of this kind." (CNN's "Early Edition," 12/18/98)

Albright Argued Saddam's Pursuit Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Insistence On Lifting Economic Sanctions Was An "Incompatible Position." ALBRIGHT: "The purpose of it ... is to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. And the targets are related to that. They're going after weapons of mass destruction facilities, after military facilities, command and control security. ... [T]his is because Saddam Hussein has insisted that he wants to keep his weapons of mass destruction and have sanctions lifted, a clearly incompatible position." (NBC's Today, 12/18/98)

Albright Said The Risk That Rogue State Leaders Like Saddam "Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face." ALBRIGHT: "Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Said Saddam "Will Rebuild His Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Someday, Some Way, I Am Certain, He Will Use That Arsenal Again." BERGER: "Some have suggested that we should basically turn away. We should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

Berger: "In The 21st Century, The Community Of Nations May See More And More Of This Very Kind Of Threat That Iraq Poses Now, A Rogue State With Biological And Chemical Weapons." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)

Berger Claimed It Was "Up To Saddam To Decide Whether He Wants Sanctions Relief By Giving Up His Weapons Of Mass Destruction." BERGER: "[I]n December, Saddam Hussein once again broke his commitment to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors, ignoring our warnings. The United States, together with our British allies, responded with military force. We attacked Iraq's program to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his capacity to threaten his neighbors, but we have not eliminated the danger and our resolve to curb the threat Saddam poses will not diminish. … It is up to Saddam to decide whether he wants sanctions relief by giving up his weapons of mass destruction." (Sandy Berger, Remarks To Carnegie Endowment Non-Proliferation Conference, Washington, DC, 1/12/99)

Berger: "I Think The Question Is Whether, Ultimately, Iraq Will Get Rid Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CBS' This Morning, 11/16/98)


Former Secretary Of State Warren Christopher Said Saddam Developed And Used WMD And Sponsored "Countless Acts Of Terrorism." "The record is, unfortunately, all too clear. Saddam has threatened and invaded his neighbors, developed and used weapons of mass destruction, sponsored countless acts of terrorism, and for the last two decades, he has relentlessly persecuted the Kurds and the Shiites. When Saddam tests the will and resolve of the international community, our response must be and will be forceful and immediate." (Warren Christopher, Remarks In Washington, DC, 9/3/96)

U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson Linked Saddam To Anthrax, VX And Botulism, Warning Those Weapons Might "Get In The Hands Of Terrorists That Saddam Is Supporting."
RICHARDSON: "We're [sic] what the American people want: contain Saddam Hussein from going after his neighbors, but also, go after these deadly weapons of anthrax, VX, botulisms, some that are very, very big threats to future generations of children, not just in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but around the world, if they get in the hands of terrorists that Saddam is supporting." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 2/18/98)

Richardson: "Facts Are Facts. Iraq Has Been Deceiving The International Community With The Weaponization Of Nerve Gas. It's That Simple." (Michel Leclercq, "UN Inspector Says Iraq Equipped Weapons With Lethal Gas," Agence France Presse, 6/24/98)

State Department Spokesman Jamie Rubin: Saddam Had "Relentlessly Deceived And Obstructed Efforts ... To Identify And Destroy Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "[W]e have a lot of experience dealing with Saddam Hussein. For over seven years, their leadership has relentlessly deceived and obstructed efforts by the international community to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has misled fellow Arab leaders about his intention to invade Kuwait. He lied to UNSCOM when he said that he did not weaponize VX ... Iraq's leadership has never expressed regret or remorse for his past actions, which include gassing his own people and invading Kuwait. We do not believe he has renounced his aggression or using the most ruthless and barbaric means to achieve it." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)

Rubin: "If We Fail To Act, He Will Feel Emboldened To Threaten The Region Further, Armed With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "Saddam Hussein is not an abstract threat. He has fired Scuds at his neighbors, attacked Kuwait, used chemical weapons on Iran and his own people. UNSCOM has shown, through its work, that he developed massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and weaponized those weapons for delivery by Scud missiles. He has still not accounted for all these dangerous weapons. ... [I]f he continues to block UNSCOM and we do not respond, he will be able to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction in a matter of months, not years. And if we fail to act, he will feel emboldened to threaten the region further, armed with weapons of mass destruction." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)

Former Clinton Adviser Rahm Emanuel Called It "Insulting" That Anyone Would Question Clinton's '98 Airstrikes "Given Everything Saddam Has Done." EMANUEL: "And I think that if you really look at this, Larry, that it is wrong, and I think it's insulting to the American people's intelligence, insulting to the men and women and professional professors [sic?] in our country, and I think it's detrimental to our foreign policy to really kind of question why we would go, given everything that Saddam Hussein has done over the years. We gave him one last chance." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)


In 1998, Sen. Carl Levin And Twenty-Six Other Senators Urged President Clinton "To Take Necessary Actions" In Response To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs.
LEVIN: "Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President 'after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'" (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 10/9/98)

Fourteen Democrats, Including Then-Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle And 2004 Presidential Nominee John Kerry, Signed The Letter To President Clinton: ("Letter To President Clinton," as Entered Into The Congressional Record By Sen. Carl Levin, 10/9/98)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.) Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.)John Breaux (D-La.) Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Mary Landrieu (D-La.)Wendell Ford (D-Ky.) John Kerry (D-Mass.)

Former Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) Warned Of The Danger Of Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
DASCHLE: "Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address.... Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

After The 1998 Bombing Of Iraq, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Warned Against "Partisan Finger-Pointing" And Said Saddam Was "Too Dangerous ... To Be Given Carte Blanche With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." "We had to attack. [President Clinton] had to do what his military advisors told him he should do,' said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. ... [A]dded Reid, 'Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first.' Saddam Hussein ‘is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction,' he added." (Brendan Riley, "Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing," The Associated Press, 12/26/98)

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Argued That Saddam "Obviously" Was Working, "Secretly And Otherwise," On Weapons Of Mass Destruction. KERRY: "Mr. President, over the years, a consensus has developed within the international community that the production and use of weapons of mass destruction has to be halted. We and others worked hard to develop arms control regimes toward that end, but obviously Saddam Hussein's goal is to do otherwise. Iraq and North Korea and others have made it clear that they are still trying, secretly and otherwise, to develop those weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98)

Kerry Said Saddam Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Past And Wanted "To Try ... To Continue To Do So." "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. ... It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Following A Briefing By Clinton Administration Officials, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) Said Saddam's "Chemical And Biological Weapons Capabilities" Were "Frightening." "At a Capitol Hill briefing Tuesday night, administration officials showed that ‘Saddam Hussein continues to be clear threat to the security of the region and to many of our allies,' Durbin said. "His chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening. We have to take his refusal to allow inspections very seriously.'" (Dori Meinert, "Durbin To Support Limited Approval For Military Force Against Iraq," Copley News Service, 2/4/98)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) Believed The Peace Of "Much Of The World" Was At Risk If Iraq Was Allowed To Protect Its "Biological, Chemical And Nuclear Weapons." "'Time and time again Iraq has flouted the efforts of our nation and the international community to bring peace to the Persian Gulf,' said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. "With the peace of the region and, and in fact, much of the world at risk, we cannot allow Iraq to continue its maneuvers designed to protect such a dangerous buildup of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.'" (John Raby, "Congressmen Support U.S. Bombing Of Iraq," The Associated Press, 12/16/98)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.): "Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs And The Means To Deliver Them Are A Menace To International Peace And Security." LEVIN: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council." (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

Levin Spoke Of Gallons Of Anthrax And Tons Of VX, Noting Iraq Had Denied Possessing Such Weapons. LEVIN: "[I]t was only after there was a defector, Saddam Hussein's own son- in-law defected and said, look here, here, here, and here that then Iraq said oh, yes, we have 2100 gallons of anthrax. By the way, one spore, less than a drop of anthrax kills within days. 2100 gallons and then the U.N. went in and destroyed that. Same thing with the chemical VX; 3.9 million tons of this chemical. One drop kills instantaneously -- was denied by Iraq. The U.N. ... believes that he has 20 tons plus more of VX and six thousand gallons more of anthrax." (CNN's Larry King Live, 2/16/98)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) Issued Grave Warnings About Iraq's WMD, Citing Chemical And Biological Weapons As Well As Anthrax-Tipped Missiles. "First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. The current regime in Iraq has ... displayed a callous willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims. Recently, we have heard chilling reports of possible biological weapons experiments on humans. An UNSCOM Inspector has spoken of information that points to a secret biological weapons production facility. And Ambassador Richard Butler has told us that Iraq could well have missile warheads filled with anthrax capable of striking Tel Aviv. An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail." (Sen. Joseph Biden, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

Due To Saddam's Efforts To Assemble Biological, Nuclear And Chemical Weapons, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Argued In 1999 That Clinton "Ended The Bombings Too Soon." "Senator Schumer is taking issue with several recent decisions of the Clinton administration on Middle Eastern affairs, despite his close association with the president and first lady. ... Schumer said America should renew its bombing campaign against Iraq ... A renewed bombing campaign against Iraq would show Saddam Hussein the price he must pay for his lack of cooperation and would inhibit Iraq's ability to assemble biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, Mr. Schumer said. 'The president ended the bombings too soon.'" (Uriel Heilman, "Schumer Says Clinton Should Resume Bombing Targets In Iraq," Forward, 1/29/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Warned That Military Action Against Saddam's Regime "Must Deal A Major Setback" To Iraq's "Weapons Of Mass Destruction Program." "Feinstein also said that for the attack against Iraq to be successful, the air strikes must ‘destroy the weapons of mass-destruction facilities and supplies that the thwarted inspections were designed to find...' ‘At the very least,' she added, ‘Operation Desert Fox must deal a major setback to the weapons of mass destruction program that has been in development by Saddam Hussein.'" (Stephen Green, "Feinstein Initially Questioned Attack's Timing," Copley News Service, 12/17/98)


Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Acknowledged Iraq Breached The 1991 Armistice Agreement By Refusing To Destroy Its Stockpiles Of Weapons. REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] based on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Remarks At Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, 10/27/02)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's Existing Biological And Chemical Weapons Capabilities Pose Real Threats To America Today, Tomorrow."
ROCKEFELLER: "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. … [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Believed Saddam's "Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction" Represented "An Unacceptable Threat." KERRY: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) Warned That -- If Left Unchecked -- Saddam Would Continue To Increase His Unconventional Weaponry And Even Develop Nuclear Weapons. CLINTON: "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Said Saddam Was A "Terrible Danger" To America Because Of His "Vigorous Pursuit" Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
SCHUMER: "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Claimed To "Understand The Grave Danger Posed To America ... By Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Hands Of A Reckless Dictator Like Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the Iraqi people and threat and instability to his neighbors throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. ... I understand the grave danger posed to America and the whole international community by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a reckless dictator like Saddam Hussein." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) Announced In 2002 That Within Five Years Saddam Would Possess "Tactical Or Theater Nuclear Weapons."
BIDEN: "My view is if five years from now Saddam Hussein is in power, left unfettered with $5 billion to $7 billion a year to pursue his weapons, he will be a grave danger to us, in the sense that he will intimidate the area and we will be unwilling to go after him because he'll have tactical or theater nuclear weapons." (CNN's Larry King Live, 10/9/02)

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Simply Stated: "There Is No Question That Iraq Possesses Biological And Chemical Weapons."
DODD: "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressional Record, 10/8/02)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) Felt Saddam's Chemical And Biological Weapons Posed "A Considerable Threat To Us."
NELSON: "Well, I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons. And the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us." (CNBC's "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) Listed The Weapons At Saddam's Disposal: "Ballistic Missiles, Anthrax, Sarin Gas, VX And Smallpox." BAYH: "Today, Hussein already has ballistic missiles, anthrax, sarin gas, VX and smallpox, and he could someday soon have nuclear weapons at his disposal. As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt conviction that we cannot." (Sen. Evan Bayh, Op-Ed, "Bayh Justifies The Need For Using Force Against Iraq," The Indianapolis Star, 10/10/02)

(This document was distributed today at the Senate Republican Policy Lunch.)

counter free hit unique web

putting the screws to israel..

once again, the bush administration, in an effort to appear even handed, has forced israel in to a bad security situation. condi rice stayed over in jerusalem to strong arm the israeli's in to agreeing to a direct route through israel for the palestinians.. rice leaned on israel to give up all security demands to make this happen.

i've prolly said this 100 times on this blog, but any time the usa puts israel's security at risk, it's bad news for the united states. no country in it's right mind, surrounded by terrorists, would allow for this type of thing to occur.. however, we are placing tremendous pressure on israel to comply... all to better our image in the middle east.. to better our image among people who will hate us regardless. bush, rice and company need to figure this out. his policy towards israel has been punitive and has put israel at increased risk for terrorist attacks and invasion.

from DEBKAfile:

Rice Secures Rafah Package Stripped of Adequate Counter-Terror Safeguards
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
November 15, 2005, 1:28 PM (GMT+02:00)
The White House ordered Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to stay over in Jerusalem until the deal for the Gaza Strip’s international crossings was in the bag. She was almost there – “an accord is within sight” – Monday, Nov. 14. But she delayed her departure to join President Bush in South Korea until it was settled down to the last detail at issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The breakthrough was announced after she met defense minister Shaul Mofaz Tuesday morning. It was achieved after Israel backed down from virtually all its demands for security safeguards against terrorist incursions.
DEBKAfile’s political sources analyze some of the agreement’s salient features.
The Rafah crossing from Gaza to Egypt will reopen on November 25 as a Palestinian-Egyptian facility with a European presence. Video images will be transferred to a control center at the Kerem Shalom crossing which is on Israeli soil. It will be manned by Israelis and Palestinians with a European presence.
Israel will not be entitled to demand that suspected terrorists be kept out or detained. The Palestinians will only be required to report on the arrivals of VIPs, diplomats and humanitarian cases – no one else. Mofaz lauded this as “another stage in Egypt’s involvement.” He made no reference to the failure of Egyptian border police’s failure to secure the Philadelphi border enclave against the massive smuggling of arms and terrorists since the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
As for the crossings from Gaza into Israel, Israel surrendered the prerogative to shut down them down to secure personnel against terror alerts, although these facilities are notoriously prime terrorist targets. Jerusalem has undertaken to first notify the US embassy in Tel Aviv and back up its “request” with specific information, thus parting with its intelligence secrets. It must then wait for permission from Washington – or its refusal - to the closure.
Effective preventive action may well be held up by this delay.
By surrendering this point, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon relinquished a key element of Israel’s sovereign right to self-defense and agreed to hamstring its own army’s freedom to combat terror. The presence of Palestinian customs inspectors at Kerem Shalom makes an additional inroad on Israeli sovereignty.
From Dec. 15 to January 15, “secured Palestinian convoys” will start rolling across southern Israel from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. The Palestinians want their own forces to secure the trucks. All that has been settled is that the Americans and Europeans will determine the procedures for their passage through Israeli territory.
There is no sign of the Sharon government standing up to Washington’s demands on that point either, so it is more than likely that Palestinian “forces” will be let loose on a wide swathe of southern Israel to escort 150 trucks a day bound for Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Nablus.
The provisions for the Rafah crossing will also be applied to Gaza’s deep sea port construction of which begins without delay. Israel has therefore forfeited control and oversight over incoming goods and people to Gaza by sea as well as overland

counter free hit unique web

Monday, November 14, 2005 me...

bill clinton has some sage advice for the israeli's.. iran ?? don't worry about em.. they're no threat to you.. and i still didn't have sexual relations with that woman, ms. lewinski..

Ex-president Bill Clinton urged Israelis over the weekend not to overreact to comments by newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recommending that Israel be "wiped off the map."
Speaking at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on Saturday, Clinton acknowledged that the remark was "outrageous," but he cautioned that the Iranian leader was "not elected because of his hatred for Israel or the West."
"He was elected because of the economic distress of ordinary Iranians, and which he promised to relieve by giving them financial assistance," Clinton explained, according to the Jerusalem Post.
He warned Israel not to act unilaterally when reacting to terrorist threats, saying that "true peace and security can only come through principled compromise."

Clinton urged Israelis to "organize their politics" so "their search for peace can continue" regardless of domestic policies.
On Oct. 27, President Ahmadinejad told a "World Without Zionism" conference that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" on the Middle East that should be "wiped off the map."

counter free hit unique web

freedom of religion..

we debate the freedom of religion and freedom from religion a lot around this country.. people are tired of Christianity in this post modern world we live in.. we are to celebrate all religions.. we also hear how allah is the same as the God of the Bible.. we have our president add a koran to the white house.. we hear islam is a religion of peace and it has been hijacked by extremists.. then there are those people who call the united states a Christian theocracy..

this comes to us from saudi arabia - if you want to see what these types of things are like in real life, read on.. for the enlightened folks here who throw these terms around so carelessly, i'm sure your opinion would be well respected.

Saudi jailed for discussing the Bible
November 14, 2005
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) -- A court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for "mocking religion" after he discussed the Bible and praised Jews, a Saudi newspaper reported yesterday. Al-Madina newspaper said secondary-school teacher Mohammad al-Harbi, who will be flogged in public, was taken to court by his colleagues and students. He was charged with promoting a "dubious ideology, mocking religion, saying the Jews were right, discussing the Gospel and preventing students from leaving class to wash for prayer," the newspaper said. Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, strictly upholds the austere Wahhabi school of Islam and bases its constitution on the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. Public practice of any other religion is banned. A U.S. State Department report criticized Saudi Arabia last week, saying religious freedoms "are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam." The newspaper said Mr. al-Harbi will appeal the verdict. A similar case was cited in the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2004. "During the period covered by this report, a schoolteacher was tried for apostasy, and eventually convicted in March of blasphemy; the person was given a prison sentence of 3 years and 300 lashes. The trial received substantial press coverage," the report said. A 2003 report by the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, the world's only government-sanctioned entity to investigate and report religious-freedom violations, named Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest violator of religious liberties. The commission took the country to task for "offensive and discriminatory language" disparaging Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims found in government-sponsored school textbooks, in Friday sermons preached in prominent mosques, and in state-controlled Saudi newspapers. For example, in 2003, Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah reacted to the killing of six Westerners by terrorists in Yemen by saying he thought Zionism was behind them. In Saudi Arabia, the public practice of any religion other than Islam is illegal; only Muslims can be Saudi citizens; one of the Saudi king's titles is "custodian of the two holy mosques"; proselytizing for any religion other than Sunni Islam is barred; and Mecca, Islam's holy city, is forbidden to all non-Muslims. For years, Saudi Arabia also imposed restrictions, or persuaded the U.S. government to impose restrictions, on American troops defending the country during and after then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 1990-91 occupation of Kuwait. For example, U.S. postal and customs officials have barred mailing materials "contrary to the Islamic faith," including Bibles. The U.S. military also has required female service members to wear a long, black robe called an abaya when traveling off base in Saudi Arabia. Both regulations were rescinded or clarified after public outcry based on reporting in the U.S. media.

counter free hit unique web

this headline says it all..

Thai Tourists Warned Of Sedative-Spitting Transvestites
POSTED: 12:28 pm EST November 14, 2005
UPDATED: 1:44 pm EST November 14, 2005

BANGKOK, Thailand -- Thai police are warning tourists of a new scam.
Members of a Thai transvestite gang have confessed to hiding strong sedatives in their mouths and spitting them down the throats of victims during deep kissing. Then they rob the drugged tourists.

The confession came from three attractive transvestites arrested in Bangkok last week. Police say they'd robbed a Bangladeshi businessman of more than $7,300 in cash and valuables.
Police say the victim told investigators he met the transvestites in a bar and invited them all back to his apartment.
After kissing one, he said he felt dizzy and passed out. When he woke up, his cash, watch, mobile phone and notebook computer were gone.
A police lieutenant colonel has this warning for tourists: "Don't rush to kiss a stranger on the mouth or you will end up in a deep sleep."
transvestites, sedatives & business trips.. the new hunter s. thompson book

counter free hit unique web

dems want lower penalty on sex with animals..

schumer and dean keep preaching to us that we'll hear the democratic agenda in 2006.. after 5 years of bitching and moaning from the 'radical left wing,' you'd think these guys might have an idea of what they stand for.. obviously, it's taken this long to put the pretty packaging on abortion on demand - even late term, disdain for the military, celebration of terrorists (i mean 'freedom fighters'), appeasement of those who would kill us, higher taxes, removal of God, porn for children, celebration of all things gay.. just to name a few.

now we can add one more pillar to their platform.. a lower penalty for bestiality. with all the things going on in this world, teddy kennedy's dems in mass have nothing better to pass than legislation to lower the criminal penalty for sex with animals..

Lawmakers move to lower penalty for bestiality … seriously

More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind. Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday. Man-on-dog isn’t legal just yet, but if the Massachusetts State Legislature has its way, it might be soon. On November 1, cheerleading for bestiality was just one of a string of stunning pieces of legislation that converged on the legislature’s judiciary committee in a bizarre, post-Halloween orgy. The imminent collapse of the state cannot be far behind.Sponsored by Senators Cynthia Creem and Robert O’Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky, the bestiality measure was buried in a packaged assault on morality, disguised as “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes.” The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion. It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding “abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.”Archaic, indeed. The new law would continue to forbid “a sexual act on an animal,” but reduce possible penalties for committing such a crime, making it decidedly less illegal. Whereas the old law punished doggie-diddling and the like with hard time (a maximum sentence of 20 years) in state prison, the new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine. How badly has Massachusetts’ moral compass suffered since dudes started honeymooning with dudes? Not one legislator, nor a single member of the God-fearing public, appeared before the judiciary committee to denounce the proposed changes. But then again, who has time to worry about bestiality when teenagers are shoplifting and buying NyQuil?Though presumably more than willing to lower penalties for crimes against nature, Rep. Linsky demanded the judiciary committee get tough on the real criminals—mall thieves. It turns out that if shopping bags are lined with duct tape, any merchandise inside can be snuck past security tag sensors undetected. One shoplifting ring, Linsky testified, had recently been busted in Natick with $47,000 in stolen goods. Linsky’s bill would criminalize the possession of duct-tape bags and other shoplifting tools in malls, punishing offenders with up to two years in the clink and a $1,000 fine. Cold medicine, it appears, is also a greater threat to society than bestiality, as Falmouth Rep. Matthew Patrick denounced NyQuil and codeine, but remained silent about barnyard romance. Patrick’s bill would criminalize the sale of “cough syrup or a cold remedy containing alcohol or codeine … to any person under the age of 18.” Such medicine “wreaks a lot of havoc on young people,” Patrick argued. And the shoplifting and NyQuil bills were two of the tamer legislative initiatives before the committee; the rest of the docket amounted to a clearinghouse of insanity.Up for consideration was a measure, sponsored by Southie’s Jack Hart, to ban the advertisement of fireworks; a bill banning the sale of laser pointers to minors; a push to revamp the way the state punishes graveyard vandals; an examination of how to combat the epidemic of drunken riots; new punishments for drivers who steal gas; and—our personal favorite—a bid to make criminally liable anyone who knowingly allows their telephone to be used “repeatedly, for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying or molesting [another] person … or for the purpose of repeatedly using indecent or obscene language to that person or his family.” Hopefully, with those problems solved, we’ll all be able to marry our dogs and live in peace.

woof woof

counter free hit unique web

Who Is Lying About Iraq ?

a very, very good read..

Who Is Lying About Iraq?
A campaign of distortion aims to discredit the liberation.
Monday, November 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

The main "lie" that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary "lie" that Iraq under Saddam's regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even "imminent") possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.
This entire scenario of purported deceit was given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had "outed" Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Mr. Wilson for having "debunked" (in his words) "the lies that led to war."
Now, as it happens, Mr. Libby was not charged with having outed Ms. Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that "this indictment is not about the war":

This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.

No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host of other opponents of the war in insisting:

This case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of argument--that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.Mr. Blix now claims that he was only being "cautious" here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration "misled itself" in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.

So, once again, did the British, the French and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he presented to the U.N. in the period leading up to the invasion. Mr. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as secretary of state. But Mr. Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:

I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Mr. Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, was convinced:

People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.In explaining its dissent on Iraq's nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about:

Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program.But, according to Wilkerson:

The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this rpm, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, "the consensus of the intelligence community," as Mr. Wilkerson puts it, "was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002," Pollack has written:
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with "high confidence" was that "Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material." (Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: "I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.")

But the consensus on which Mr. Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.Finally, Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Byrd: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again."
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country's salvation."
So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with this admonition:

Of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous--or more urgent--than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.

All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Mr. Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam's stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Mr. Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the 16 resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?

Another fallback charge is that Mr. Bush, operating mainly through Mr. Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Mr. Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as "imminent." But this, too, is false: Mr. Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war. Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared that he would "not wait on events while dangers gather" and that he would "not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: "If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long." And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word "imminent" itself precisely in order to repudiate it:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.What of the related charge that it was still another "lie" to suggest, as Mr. Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee's report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to "meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives."

Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.
The story begins with the notorious 16 words inserted--after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department--into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.This is the "lie" Mr. Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Mr. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the vice president's idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Mr. Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Mr. Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Mr. Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed nonrole in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:

My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . ., both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.More than a year after his return, with the help of Mr. Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Mr. Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the 16 words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Mr. Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the president's statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary--for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the 16 words at issue was true.

That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore--and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited--Britain's independent Butler commission concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Mr. Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing), actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:
He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Mr. Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.And again:
The report on [Mr. Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research--which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons--found support in Mr. Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it--which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Mr. Bush in the famous 16 words.

The liar here, then, was not Mr. Bush but Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report:

The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].More damning yet to Mr. Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Mr. Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' " Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.To top all this off, just as Mr. Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Mr. Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Mr. Wilson "confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President's office," thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." Yet--the mind reels--if Mr. Cheney had actually been briefed on Mr. Wilson's oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

So much for the author of the best-selling and much-acclaimed book whose title alone--"The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity"--has set a new record for chutzpah.

But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Mr. Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Mr. Wilson--who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated--is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution.

And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq--the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy--have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.

counter free hit unique web

Sunday, November 13, 2005

a Christmas gift for europe..

just in time for the season, just for our friends in europe, iran is cooking up a nice Christmas present.. with technology no doubtedly obtained from the chinese and north koreans, iran will soon have another missile capable of hitting the majority of european capitols. if the parties of appeasement in europe don't get ahold of the situation in iran, there could be significant trouble brewing for them.. for all of us, frankly.

from middle east newsline:

LONDON [MENL] -- Iran was said to have nearly completed another intermediate-range missile capable of striking most of Europe.
The Iranian opposition asserted that Teheran has completed most of the development for the so-called Ghadr missile. The Ghadr was said to have a range of up to 3,000 kilometers and could strike most European capitals.
"The Revolutionary Guards are working on another type of missile named Ghadr with 2,500-3,000 kilometer range, which could reach Berlin, Rome, Athens, Vienna and some other capitals," Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said. "More than 70 percent of Ghadr project has been completed so far."
Mohaddessin told a European Parliament conference on Nov. 9 in Strasbourg, France that the Ghadr was one of three Iranian intermediate-range programs that could harm Europe. He said Teheran has already been producing Shihab-3 missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers.

counter free hit unique web