konane's Blog

"Meet the New Speaker

Live links.  Just a little background.


"Meet the New Speaker

By Joseph Farah

Source World Net Daily.com

"Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader certain to become the next speaker of the House, served for years on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber.

Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, (   http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14542  )    the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

(Story continues below)

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

In the last several years, the Progressive Caucus has been careful to moderate its image for mainstream consumption.

"The members of the Progressive Caucus share a common belief in the principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination and tolerance in America and in our relationships with other countries," the group's statement of purpose explains.

Most of the members of the Progressive Caucus, including Pelosi, opposed authorizing the war on Iraq.

Pelosi represents a liberal congressional district, taking in most of San Francisco. Her votes against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq and in support of such domestic initiatives as needle exchange programs for AIDS sufferers may not be far out of step with her district constituency. But some suggest the nation's pulse may be another matter.

Pelosi was 47 before she won her first election, after raising five children with her businessman husband, Paul. But she has been involved in politics all her life. Her father was a New Deal congressman from Maryland and later the mayor of Baltimore. Her brother also served as Baltimore's mayor. She was hand-picked to run for Congress by the dying Rep. Sala Burton, whose seat Pelosi won in a special election in 1987.

She has never lost an election. "
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52844

Entry #669

"Idaho state senator's sons arrested, cited in flag damage incident

"Idaho state senator's sons arrested, cited in flag damage incident


BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The adult sons of an Idaho state senator are in hot water with authorities in Idaho's capital city after two American flags dedicated to soldiers killed in Iraq were vandalized.

Twenty-four-year-old Michael Burkett was arrested and 22-year-old Thomas Burkett was cited for allegedly damaging flags and flagpoles on the grounds of the Idaho Capitol building this morning.

Police say Michael Burkett also resisted and obstructed officers."  .................................
Entry #668

Please Vote

Please get out and vote ...... or live with the decision someone else made for you. 

Entry #667

"Dirty Laundry (lyrics)

Great song ..... nails it. 


"Dirty Laundry
lyrics by Don Henley

 

"I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I dont have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em all around

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
Its interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry

You dont really need to find out whats going on
You dont really want to know just how far its gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry

Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre up
Kick em when theyre down
Kick em when theyre stiff
Kick em all around

Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybodys pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry

We can do the innuendo
We can dance and sing
When its said and done we havent told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry! "

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/don+henley/dirty+laundry_20042033.html

Entry #666

"Behind the call for Rumsfeld's head

I smelled a decomposing rat and found it.       


"Behind the call for Rumsfeld's head
Military Times editor accused of 'treason' at Stars & Stripes
Source World Net Daily

WASHINGTON – It makes for powerful imagery – an editorial appearing in the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Marine Times and the Air Force Times calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Many assume these publications are official or semi-official periodicals of the military branches, while they are actually under the same ownership as USA Today and under the management of an editor who has had his share of run-ins with the U.S. military in the past.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president has shrugged off an editorial by the Military Times Media Group to fire Rumsfeld. Bush feels it is merely "grandstanding," he added. The editorial says Rumsfeld has "lost credibility" with top officers.

Snow called the editorial "a caricature" and a "shabby piece of work" filled with inaccuracies. He said it implied the administration's made nothing but "rosy" predictions about Iraq. Snow said that isn't true, leading the president to "shrug it off."

Shortly after Gannett bought the papers in 1997, the media giant installed as editor Robert Hodierne. He is best known for teaming up in 1969 with then-Associated Press reporter Peter Arnett in Vietnam to bring attention to a small group of American soldiers who refused to fight.

As he tells the story himself: "During that late August battle, A.P. reporter Peter Arnett and photographer Horst Faas filed a story about five G.I.s who, for a brief time, refused to fight. A few days later I arrived at the battle to write stories and shoot photos for Pacific Stars & Stripes.

"The story and photos that follow enraged the top brass in the Army. Its chief spokesman, Col. James Campbell, calling Stripes 'the Hanoi Herald,' said my writing gave aid and comfort to the enemy, adding, 'such stories do not border on treason, they are treason.'"

The editorials were timed to come out in all four publications simultaneously today – the final Sunday before the midterm congressional elections.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52790
Entry #665

Video "Obsession" full version

Obsession video was yanked from Google videos shortly after I posted it.  Explains fully and graphically by people who are experts in the Middle East exactly what radical Islam's intentions are.  Also shows some subtitled speeches given by clerics spewing lies, inciting hatred toward anyone not of their belief calling for death to the US. 

It's worth anyone's time no matter how busy your schedule to view it in its entirety to get a graphic picture of who the enemy is and exactly how much evil is embodied within a totalitarian political system carefully cloaked as "religion"  ... which is one reason we in the west have trouble wrapping our minds around it. 

It's virtually impossible to fathom evil which all encompassing and there is nothing in recent history which can equate to it except Hitler's Nazis from which radical Islam sprang.  Don't believe me?  Do a search on Banna Nazi and see what you find.

______________________

Dr. Wafa Sultan in her debate with clerics on al Jazeera video posted here 

 http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

______________________

Wafa Sultan noted in my blog here 

https://blogs.lotterypost.com/konane/2006/10/syrian-psychiatrist-on-her-way-to-israel.htm

https://blogs.lotterypost.com/konane/2006/3/tribute-to-a-hugely-brave-lady.htm

 


From Powerlineblog.com this morning.

 

"Obsession

 

Reader Patrick Ishmael is proprietor of The News Buckit  http://newsbuckit.blogspot.com/2006/11/obsession-of-radical-islam.html  He writes:

We have posted an abridged version (Google Video) and a full version (YouTube playlist) of the "Obsession" movie showing on Fox News this past weekend. It's here.  http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9726F774AD4136AF  Everyone should see this before going to the polls, which is why we've linked to them. This is what we're fighting.
Posted by Scott at 06:56 AM 
Entry #664

"Cranking Up The Voter Fraud Outcry

Boortz discussing the 2000 presidential election said to the effect..... at 7 PM Eastern time the MSM announced that George Bush had won the election.  That was 7 PM in eastern Florida.  There was a military base (can't remember which one) in the pan handle where people were lined up to vote and when they heard that announcement by the all knowing news services, went home and did not cast their ballots ...... why because Bush had already won and their votes were not needed.   

However, Neal said he spoke directly with the person in charge of voting on that base and was told that due to the announcement Bush had won, at least 10,000 votes from that base which could have counted ..... did in fact not vote which would have removed all doubt about the results. 

Moral of the story don't believe anything the Lamestream Media says without checking it and rechecking it for yourself.

___________

Oh yeah and to get an early jump on a Democratic talking point ...........


"CRANKING UP THE VOTER FRAUD OUTCRY

"There seems to be a slight change in the fortunes for the Democrats in the last day or so.  Even Dick Morris, who was predicting a blow-out of the Republicans last week, is starting to hedge his bets. 

Well ... if the Democrats fail to at least win control of the House in two weeks, they're certainly going to need an excuse.  They can't simply admit that they had no agenda that truly appealed to the American people. 

So ... why not get a head start on the excuse-making?  How about voter fraud!  That's it!  They'll claim that the voting machines in key House races were all rigged!  Someone, probably Karl Rove, hacked into the voting machines and threw the whole election to the Republicans? 

Original?  Not really.  Democrats have used the voter fraud excuse in the last three elections.  In the final analysis it may be that, or admit you're just not all that appealing any more.  "

http://boortz.com/nuze/200610/10252006.html#fraud

Entry #663

The gift that keeps on giving ....

From Powerline, Kerry the gift that keeps on giving. Big Grin


"Piling On

 

At last night's Army-Air Force football game, someone unfurled this banner. It's reported that cadets on both sides cheered wildly. Click to enlarge:

John Kerry is a gift that hasn't stopped giving yet.

Via BlackFive, one of a number of excellent milblogs that we haven't linked to as often as we should.

UPDATE: And don't miss Austin Bay's superb meditation on military service, John Kerry and honor.

It's lengthy and multi-faceted. An excerpt:  "...............

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015764.php

Entry #662

"Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration

"Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 30, 2006


"The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol.  For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers.  They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.

 

 

So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?” 

 

 

Gilchrist did not stop there.  He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.”  But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.

 

Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration.  And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way.  As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care.  She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention.  And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.

 

 

At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements.  She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country.  She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005.  This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.”  She is dead wrong.  For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.

 

 

How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens?  Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections.  

 

 

Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens.  She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities.  Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens.  Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.

 

 

Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read:

"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."

Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda.  More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers.  So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located!   She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently.  She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House. 

 

 

Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out.   In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans.  Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals."    More protestors then stormed the stage.  Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective.  As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!"  They also put out a statement declaring:

 

 

 

            The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.”  (Emphasis added)

 

 

 

We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration.   Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right.  They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency.    They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities. 

 

 

Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings.  It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal.  One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is.  Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here.  Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here.  A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you.  He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done.  Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves.  We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values.  Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around.  That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island.  Why should the law be thrown aside now?

 

 

What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty.  Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally.  They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place.  For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body.  Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders?  Do we really want to risk finding out?

It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker. "

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25180

Comments
Entry #661

"Government in Time of War

"Government in Time of War

By Josh Manchester

Source Tech Central Station Daily

"Recently President Bush met with a select group of opinion columnists. Their reports paint an image of a White House that is operating at a very different level than most news stories and Democratic critics have otherwise intimated. Even though the majority of the country still leads peacetime lives, and the majority of the opposition does not comport itself as though we are at war, President Bush is unmistakably fighting a war, day in and day out.

 

Daniel Henninger quoted Bush and described the atmosphere in his weekly column for the Wall Street Journal:

 

"I'm campaigning like mad, and I'm looking at people in the eye and saying, you better have a government that does everything in its power to protect you from attack. You're right here in the office where I get briefed every morning and I'm telling you it's on my mind, and I can't keep it off my mind. I was affected deeply by the attacks of September the 11th. It became clear to me that day that we were at war. I know we're at war . . ."

 

Admittedly, it is difficult to convey in public the urgency about the war on terror that Mr. Bush conveys in private. But it is obvious that he regards the threat to the American people as palpable.

 

"My biggest issue that I think about all the time," Mr. Bush says, "is the next attack on America, because I am fully aware that there are people out there that would like nothing more than to have another spectacular moment by killing American people. And they're coming. And we've got to do everything we can to stop them. That's why we need to be on offense all the time." This, he insists, is the justification for the terrorist wiretaps, the Patriot Act, the interrogations and the Iraq war.

 

Both the Republican Congress and President Bush have long been condemned for not living up to their conservative credentials, or for other errors that just didn't sit right: by letting spending grow; by not getting a Social Security reform bill passed; for nominating Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court; and so on. Perhaps such critiques, well-founded though they might be, are a little too swift to ignore the central feature of this Presidency: it's at war, and in such times, other considerations quite frequently fall to the wayside.

 

Some would probably place the blame for this at Bush's feet himself. "After all," they might argue, "he didn't take the entire nation to war. He asked us to go on shopping as usual." Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that in any endeavor and in any organization, leadership can only grasp hold of so many goals at a time, whether attempting to maintain situational awareness, developing a policy and creating a consensus around it, or rallying the public to a cause. In short, it is not absurd to think that one reason for the GOP Congress' seeming malaise is that the Presidential leadership, which often plays a very important role in congressional goal-setting and consensus-building, is entirely consumed with preventing the next attack on America.

 

Will anyone really care about Social Security reform the day after the next attack? Or how big the federal budget deficit is? Capable politicians, of whom the president is one, realize that such considerations, while important, will sink to the bottom the moment the next bombs detonate. Marine General Al Gray was once asked why he spent so much of the Corps' money on training, and not on quality-of-life initiatives like better housing. To paraphrase him, "the best quality-of-life is having one," - meant to imply that training keeps men alive.

 

Is it too much to think that Bush and most key members of his cabinet are so focused on preventing attacks and prosecuting the war that all other functions of government are on auto-pilot? Bureaucracies have an inertia of their own that allows them to function for a good bit of time even without detailed guidance. And Congress can certainly keep itself occupied without the President submitting new legislation, or rallying them to it - though it doesn't hurt to note that the main legislation Bush did work on in the last three months was that dealing with interrogations - in other words, he was focused on the war.

 

How long can this go on? Bush implies that the next President will be just as busy as he is in preventing attacks on the United States. If it's true that the presidential attention span will be concerned primarily with security for the foreseeable future - say ten or fifteen more years - this does not bode well for those who are most eager for large-scale domestic reforms. It might even augur an age of diminished capabilities for the federal government. Simplification of the government's role in life might make it easier for it to more effectively accomplish its remaining core competencies: those largely related to security.

 

Josh Manchester is a TCSDaily contributing writer. His blog is The Adventures of Chester (www.theadventuresofchester.com).

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110306A

Comments
Entry #660

Vote Democrat say Terrorist Leaders

"Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat
Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists to destroy Israel, America

By Aaron Klein
Source WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

 

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege."...........
................" Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal." .................

........."WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam." ..........

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

3 Comments
Entry #659

"Saddam .. year away from having nukes

Compilation from several news sources and blogs, quoted and properly credited.  Embedded live links on some.


 

Powerlineblog.com

Saddam was a year away from having nukes -- Bush to blame

 

The defining characteristic of partisan attacks on President Bush has been their unthinking and indiscriminate nature. For example, Bush is to blame for not halting the development of nukes by Iran and North Korea, but he's also to blame for toppling Saddam Hussein on the grounds, in part, that Saddam was interested in and capable of developing nukes. Critics point to Iran's rise as evidence that Bush misplaced his focus on Iraq but they don't consider how Saddam would have reacted to Iranian nuclear progress.

The New York Times now has carried unthinking Bush-bashing to a point beyond carricature. Today, as Tiger Hawk notes, it quotes with apparent approval "experts" who say that Saddam was as little as a year away from building an atom bomb. The Times does so in order to show that the Bush administration acted recklessly when it published captured Iraqi documents that describe that country's WMD programs, because those documents might be used by another country in furtherance of building WMD.

Did the Times just say that Saddam's Iraq was a year away from building a nuclear weapon? I guess so. Good thing Saddam's no longer in power.

As Tiger Hawk puts it, "the New York Times owes Judith Miller an apology. Or at least a hat tip." Not to mention President Bush.

See Jim Geraghty for more.

Posted by Paul at 08:29 PM |      http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015749.php

National Review Online

"Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

"11/02 10:39 PM
When I saw the headline on Drudge earlier tonight, that the New York Times had a big story coming out tomorrow that had something to do with Iraq and WMDs, I was ready for an October November Surprise.

Well, Drudge is giving us the scoop. And if it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have overthunk this:

U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN...

NYT REPORTING FRIDAY, SOURCES SAY: Federal government set up Web site —
Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal — to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic guide to building an atom bomb'... Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums...

Website now shut... Developing...

I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?

What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been  "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.

Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.

I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda."........

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y


"JVERITAS - TRANSLATING THE IRAQ DOCUMENTS

"Original translations of the documents captured in Iraq from Arabic to English.
Contact me if you wish to contribute to these efforts, and speak both Arabic and English.

"JVERITAS Responds to the 11/3 NYT Article Regarding Iraq Nuclear Program.

 

The New York Times article to be published on November 3rd 2006 is about the US putting some captured Iraqi documents on the Foreign Military Intelligence Office (FMSO) website that talks about what the NYT and the IAEA call sensitive information from Iraq 1996 "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration FFCD presented to the UN and IAEA in 1996 and that talks about Iraq nuclear clandestine program. The IAEA and the New York Times claim that Iran may be using some of the technology in this FFCD which is a laughable idea as shown below.

That is from the IAEA website regardinf their report on Iraq FFCD presented to them by the Iraqis in 1996: “ 3. On 7 September 1996 in Baghdad Iraq delivered what it considered to be the definitive version of the "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration" (FFCD-F) of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear programme. The IAEA with the assistance of technical experts from Member States undertook a comprehensive review of the document.” Link: http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC41/Documents/gc41-20.html

So the FFCD was discussed with member states experts of the IAEA. There are 142 members in the IAEA including Iran. I am not saying that the IAEA discussed the Iraqi FFCD with Iranians but the FFCD was not such a secret document and the Iranians would have been able to access it in one way or another if it really provide them with any useful information.

What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.

On the subject of nuclear program, I translated and posted a document last month dated January 2001 that shows with a shadow of doubt that Saddam was personally involved with his nuclear scientist to re-build the nuclear program. In this document it states that Saddam personally approved his Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency to re-use nuclear equipments that include something called “Degussa Furnaces” that were used in the previous and prohibited Iraq nuclear program. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities. The Degussa Vacuum furnaces were supplied to Iraq in the 1980’s by a German firm (Degussa AG based in Frankfurt Germany) and these furnaces later on became the subject of investigations of the German firm in the early 1990’s where the company claimed that they did not know that Iraq would have used them in its nuclear program.

The New York Times had an article in 1998 titled “An Iraqi Defector Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Research” where the Degussa furnaces were mentioned as part of “previous” Iraq nuclear program and the controversy surrounding the sale of these furnaces and the investigations later on(link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.html ). The irony is that this is not only a New York Times article but also it was written by JUDITH MILLER and JAMES RISEN once of the worst accusers (liars) that the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMD. Where are you Scott Shane????

Link to the translated document on FR: 2001 Iraqi Document: Saddam Approved the Re-Use of Nuclear Equipment http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725141/posts

Moreover, there are documents dated 1999-2001 that talk about Saddam regime projects to re-build some of the nuclear program facilities like RWTS (Radioactive Waste Treatment Station) and Radio-Chemistry laboratories which were part of Iraq previous clandestine nuclear program. Link to the translated document on FR: Iraqi Documents: Projects to Rebuild Saddam Nuclear Facilities http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718125/posts .

Also this one

Iraqi Documents Show Plans for Prohibited Nuclear Projects http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709390/posts

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

  The New York Times' November Suprise   H/T Drudge Message that the New York Times wishes to convey with this article - days before the mid-term Congressional elections:. Those idiotic GOP Congressmen and right-wingers in the Bush Administration and the blogosphere helped ...
posted by St Wendeler @ 8:13 AM   On the documents story...   My partner-in-blogging has discussed the New York Times story. I, too, will add some thoughts - and give out some well-deserved praise. Blogger jveritas, who has been doing yeoman's work translating a very small fraction of the ...
posted by Harold C. Hutchison @ 8:06 AM   JVeritas comments on NTY article...   Blogger jveritas, who has been doing yeoman's work translating a very small fraction of the documents recovered during the liberation of Iraq, has responded to the New York Times article. At the very least, these documents should lift a ...
posted by Harold C. Hutchison @ 8:06 AM

<< Home



http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/2006/11/jveritas-responds-to-113-nyt-article.html#links

3 Comments
Entry #658

"Rest Of The Story On The Allen 'Assault'

A group of still photos done by the Fredricksburg Free Lance Star which are on site and running in sequence show an assault which lead up to the removal of leftist activist Mike Stark from Sen. George Allen's campaign rally.

If CNN had shown the whole thing it would have been apparent why he was ejected, but guess that didn't fit their agenda.


"The Rest Of The Story On The Allen Assault'

Ed Morrisey, Captain's Quarters
"Various left-wing bloggers voiced their outrage when blogger/activist Mike Stark got leveled after trying to push his way through to George Allen at a hotel this week. CNN video showed Stark trying to get around campaign staffers to shout at Allen about spitting on his first wife, a charge Allen's former spouse denied and called "baseless". The same staffers tossed Stark to the ground when he refused to back away, prompting accusations of goonery by Allen's campaign.

However, a series of photographs 
http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/2006/102006/1031allen/index2_html?qstart=1 
from the event by the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star shows that Allen's staff had good reason to worry about Stark. He assaulted one staffer in his attempt to get to Allen, something that the CNN cameras wouldn't have caught. Here's a slideshow of Stark's actions before the confrontation that everyone saw on the video.

Very obviously, Stark had become violent before the altercation we saw on CNN. The staffers afterwards closed ranks around Allen to keep Stark from committing violence against the Senator, and when he continued to push and shove, they physically removed him from the scene. The CNN video provided plenty of justification for the concerns of Allen's staff, and these pictures show that they acted rationally to Stark's irrational behavior.".........

.........."Allen has made mistakes in this campaign, but the Democrats have been nothing short of vicious. They've attacked Allen's mother, they've tried to pry open his divorce records, and they've tried to imply that a couple of summonses for minor infractions amounted to a secret arrest record from 30 years ago. The Democrats have done everything in Virginia except talk about the issues, and that should inform Virginians of what their votes will endorse next Tuesday. I believe Virginians are too smart to support these kinds of electoral tactics, and they will make the right choice -- to return George Allen to the Senate and James Webb to the private sector. "

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/ 
Comments
Entry #657

"What The MSM Doesn't Know And Doesn't Care To Find Out

John Kerry ...... Democrat Party's nomination for President in '04 ......... the one who best represents their PARTY PLATFORM.  [insert red star] 

Telling, indeed especially that the dinosaur media is totally complicit.

I personally wonder who or what is the real background funding source for the MSM. 

Sure makes you wonder considering al Reuters photos of the green helmet guy awhile back. 


"What The MSM Doesn't Know And Doesn't Care To Find Out

By Hugh Hewitt

Source Townhall.com

"When unique visitors to HughHewitt.com crashes through 125,000 on a single day, I know the public is engaged.

 

That's what happened yesterday, and my guess is that Townhall.com traffic was also off the charts.".....

 

....."And yesterday's numbers were no doubt helped along by lefties eager to read my interviews with Mark Halperin of ABC News. (Interview one here and interview two here.) Halperin and co-author John Harris have written a book, The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008, and was eager to promote it while talking politics with me. We disagreed sharply on many issues though the long conversation was for the most part very civil, and the left was as a result feverish beyond belief and fired with rage against Halperin. Generated a lot of traffic too.

 

But that doesn’t explain the Wednesday surge. The surge was Kerry's doing.

 

During the day I posted often on Kerry's slander of the military, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and finally here. So did Dean Barnett, here and here."..........

.........."Even as the men and women in uniform heard the sneer and felt the slur, they also watched as elite media dismissed their anger and participated in the diminishment of their right to be incensed."
.............." Within the Manhattan-Beltway media machine there was utter cluelessness as to opinion about Kerry's statement, Kerry's refusal to apologize, and then Kerry's non-apology apology, a cluelessness so profound as to be easily mistaken for contempt.

No other group would be treated with such casual disregard than the American military. They were the target of the barb, but their opinions about it and the man who hurled it were not consulted, and indeed, positively avoided. Much more important in the eyes of the MSM is what elite pundits and prestige reporters thought of what Kerry said and what Kerry did.

Why were so many so eager to defend Kerry instead of the troops?

A handful of Democrats instantly understood that Kerry had crossed an unacceptable line, though many including Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Ohio's Sherrod Brown rushed to defend their patron as opposed to the military they soon hope to represent.

In MSM, there were almost no voices willing to recognize the slander and demand an apology.

New media moved to make sure the military's view was heard, but it was the military itself that ultimately settled the issue.".........

......"

One picture -- now a famous picture-- utterly routed the MSM. It did so because it came from the military that had heard and understood what Kerry had said, and what he had not apologized for. Whether or not the old media carries the picture on front pages today (which would have been an obvious decision in any newsroom not deeply biased against the military and in favor of Democrats) most Americans will have seen it and laughed and laughed at John Kerry. Ridicule is the best revenge, and the troops have it.

But the American electorate also has a very clear example of how the media has been covering the war, the 2006 campaign, and, yes, the military for the past few years. The big MSM names want another Vietnam, and they pursue that storyline with a relentlessness that isn't deterred even by plummeting circulation and declining viewership.

It is surpassingly strange to watch an industry will its own destruction. But stranger still if the culture within which it lives does not object to the design."

Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_the_msm_doesnt_know_and_doesnt_care_to_find_out&ns=HughHewitt&dt=11/02/2006&page=full&comments=true

Comments
Entry #656

"Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest

Yes I posted this pic another blog entry but it deserves posting again.  Big Grin


"Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest
 WASHINGTON (AP) - During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061102/D8L4QH580.html

GIS DROP SMART BOMB ON KERRY

"HILARIOUS HEROES FIRE BACK OVER DEM AND DUMBER CRACK ABOUT IRAQ

By TODD VENEZIA in N.Y. and IAN BISHOP in Washington

Slideshow image
WACKY IN KHAKI: A group of sharp-witted soldiers gives Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry a Memorable rebuke for his so-called "joke" advice to students to study or else end up "stuck in Iraq." The devastating photo raced around the Internet yesterday after being posted ona Milwaukee talk-radio host's blog.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
November 2, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A group of GIs showed they are smart enough to take on condescending Sen. John Kerry - by deploying a hilariously misspelled sign mocking the failed presidential candidate's comments about their education.

"Halp us Jon Carry - We R stuck hear n Irak," read the sign, which was apparently the brainchild of a group of service members from the Minnesota National Guard.

The picture was first revealed yesterday on the blog Web site of Milwaukee talk radio host Charlie Sykes, who said he got it from a listener who had a buddy in the unit.

The picture soon raced around the Internet, and it got much of the nation chuckling when it went up on Drudge Report later in the day.

Staff Sgt. Erik Holtan, a member of the Minnesota National Guard, says he saw the picture and recognized the insignia as that of his fellow Minnesota guardsmen - and he immediately put it up on his own blog site.

"It's awesome," he told The Post. "The troops over there have to be livid because of what [Kerry] said. I don't know why he would say that."

Holtan, who works at Guard headquarters, said he believes the troops behind the Kerry sign are in Iraq, since all the members of the unit in the shot - the 1/34 Brigade Troops Battalion - have been deployed.

He said he can see a unit insignia on one of the vehicles in the background and those vehicles have also gone to Iraq.

Fox News Channel quoted Army officials saying that the picture looked authentic and appeared to be taken in Iraq.

"We are always amazed at the creativity of our troops," one Army official told Fox.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022006/news/nationalnews/gis_drop_smart_bomb_on_kerry_nationalnews_todd_venezia_in_n_y____and_ian_bishop_in_washington.htm

Comments
Entry #655
Page 549 of 593
Guest