London: Did Bush Lie?

I found an article written by Herbert London at the Hudson Institute. London reports on a largely ignored AP (MSM) report about the tons of YELLOW CAKE transported from Iraq to North America in 2008.

Yellow cake may not be a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) but it is the means to progress to nuke WMD.

Just because Saddam Hussein may have not progressed to make nuke weapons does not mean the yellow cake resource was not there to do so. Indeed, President Bush took down Saddam before the psycho genocidal Islamofascist dictator took advantage of his possession of yellow cake.

JRH 3/23/09

New Premises in Iraq

You can almost sense the German academic accent as one reads Kissinger's Op/Ed. If you take the time to dissect the academia Kissinger is saying a troop withdrawal from Iraq should not be based on scheduled timetable, rather a withdrawal should be based on conditions which include Iraqi responsibility and the capacity to support Iraq if or when jihads flare up.

That sounds like wise advice to me.

Kissinger in says to learn from the mistakes of the Vietnam War. Congress cut funding to support South Vietnam and Cambodia. The result was a bloody Communist victory, especially the genocide of the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia.

Kissinger urges the Congress or whoever the next Executive in Office to NOT make the same mistake with Iraq.

Cagey wise words if you ask me.

JRH 7/31/08

What is the Mystery about Iraq WMD?

Check this out:

Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria.

A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed "they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq."

This is not the first inklings of the actual existence of Iraqi WMD. Former high level military officials of Saddam Hussein like Georges Sada (Find Georges Sada on page) have said the WMD were moved to Syria. Dave Gaubatz which was part of a team sent to Iraq to look for WMD pointed the finger where to look; however he was mysteriously ignored.

Many of these people (American teams, former Hussein regime individuals, Israeli Intelligence and so on) have all had pretty credible evidence via spoken corroboration. Obviously most of these finger pointers have their own agenda for going public; nonetheless there are simply way too many people to ignore.

So here is the mystery I can’t wrap my mind around: With all the criticism the Bush Administration has been hammered with which led to the expulsion of Republican control of Congress in 2006; why has not the Bush Administration been more opportunistic to point to these sources for vindication?

Another mystery: What’s with the Duelfer Report that dismisses all this information as irrelevant publicly saying there were no WMD in Iraq?

Has the government become so polarized politically between Left and Right that a total lack of cooperation exists to mutually justify an Iraqi invasion? Is the Bush Administration the victim of American government scandal in the amount of support militarily given to Saddam Hussein prior to Iraq War 1 or prior to Iraq War 2 (or both)? Would the public information be so embarrassing to the American government (which would include Bush 1 and the Clinton years) that GW Bush is willing to be the target of a Left that knows it can get away with lies?

It is a mystery that I hope I live long enough for history to report all the cloak and dagger background concerning Saddam Hussein, America and WMD.

JRH 7/31/08

Leftist MSM still would have you believe Bush is a Goat

Five hundred and fifty metric TONS of yellow cake uranium was secretly removed from Iraq to a “port in Canada” which will be processed for use in energy producing nuclear reactors. The point is though the yellow cake is of the quality used to initiate the creation of nuclear WMD.

HUH?!

My God the Left has been blasting the Bush Administration that no WMD was found in Iraq thus the liar’s motto “Bush lied, people died.”

Hello! The Yellow Cake is smoking gun evidence that Saddam Hussein was at the very least preparing to make nuclear WMD.

And what of Valerie Plame’s husband Joe Wilson saying there was no deal between Niger and Iraq for Yellow Cake? Hmm … Iraq does not have Uranium naturally in it nation. Could Wilson and Plame be part of a Leftist propaganda machine to darken President Bush’s credibility when Bush could not respond in total to the lies for National Security reasons?

The war in Iraq is legitimate.

Now Iran is even closer to nuclear weaponry than Iraq was. What are we going to do about it?

I know what the Left wants to do about it. NOTHING!

Source Links:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_yellowcake_mission

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376747,00.html

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/05/saddam-uranium.html

These are all AP wire stories picked up by Yahoo News, Fox News and CBC News. I have read that the AP itself may have taken the story down on its own website. If that is true what does that tell you of one of the largest Wire Services of the Mainstream Media? It tells you that a front page news story might make Bush a hero instead of a goat and that the MSM does not want that to happen to make Republicans look good during Election 2008.

What a bunch of Leftist hypocrites!

JRH (Hat tip to a language colorful post at the Military Brotherhood)

Dems Use Senate to Launch BHO Campaign

I find it fascinating that the US Senate Intelligence Committee denounced President Bush as misrepresenting the Intel given him that he used to convince Congress to invade Iraq.

Here is the fascinating thing: All the Left Democrats and two RINO Republicans (RINO = Center Left to Fringe Left) put their name on the Senatorial condemnation and the rest of the Republicans (including the ranking Republican on the Committee) denounced the Senate Intelligence Committee denunciation of President Bush.

Yes friends it is a pure ploy by the Cut-n-Run Party to give ammunition to their Democratic nominee to sway the public to NOT look at Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s bona fide connection to Marxism. O YES: The kind of Marxism that wishes to over turn the American Way of life!

President Bush’s invasion of Iraq may have used Intelligence meant to make him look bad; nonetheless the tyrant Saddam HUSSEIN was a supporter of terrorism even if that support could not be directly linked to al Qaeda. Let’s see, let me count the ways: HUSSEIN was a genocidal butcher of Sunni enemies, Shiite faithful and Kurds. He used chemical WMD on his own citizens and attempted to build a weapons grade nuclear site that only the Israelis had the cajones to prevent.

So if HUSSEIN did not have WMD, pick another reason. He had to go! If only the West would wake up about the rogue nations supporting or allowing Islamist terrorists to function in their reign of terror for whatever chauvinistic Islamic reason that can be come with.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s solution is to talk with Islamists who are noted for lying to stall for time to accomplish an agenda. O yes, this is where I bring up the much Leftist denounced Hitler/Nazi card. It may be cliché by now however it is cliché because it is true. Appeasement brings war, it does not prevent it. Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler and the Munich Agreement AGAIN are the historical proof.

So I say to the Senate Intelligence Committee: Pull up your pants legs for there is a load of horse manure being politicized to aid Barack HUSSEIN Obama and by association with President Bush, make Senator John McCain appear to have rolled out the manure.

I pray that McCain is wise enough to demonstrate just how much manure is plastered Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

JRH

Patraeus Highlights

I have impressed myself by stumbling upon a post of General Patraeus’ opening statement before Congress Today.

I am sure the grilling is in process by the Dems even as my fingers plunk my keyboard. Nevertheless, the Patraeus opening statement is powerful and for the Dems to criticize the accomplishments the General has overseen would be politically petty to pander to the anti-war movement and the poor Americans that believe the propaganda of the Mainstream Media.

Anyway, enough of my frustration of the delusional Left. READ General Patraeus’ opening statement:

JRH 4/8/08
************************************
Patraeus Highlights

Posted by Michael Goldfarb
April 8, 2008 10:49 AM (ET)
The Weekly Standard
The Blog

From Petraeus's opening statement:

· Security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq. A number of factors have contributed to the progress that has been made.

· First, of course, has been the impact of increased numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Forces. You are well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces.

· A second factor has been the employment of Coalition and Iraqi Forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue Al Qaeda-Iraq, to combat criminals and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.

· Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni “Awakening” in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected AQI’s indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq’s bounty if they didn’t participate in the political arena. Over time, Awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis—some, former insurgents—to contribute to local security as so-called “Sons of Iraq.” With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda-Iraq, the threat posed by AQI—while still lethal and substantial—has been reduced significantly.

· The recent flare-up in Basrah, southern Iraq, and Baghdad underscored the importance of the ceasefire declared by Moqtada al-Sadr last fall as another factor in the overall reduction in violence. Recently, of course, some militia elements became active again. Though a Sadr standdown order resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming, and directing the so-called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.

· Al Qaeda’s senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction, and foreign fighters to Iraq. Actions by neighboring states compound Iraq’s challenges. Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports AQI. And Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way, through its lethal support to the Special Groups.

· As we combat AQI, we must remember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq; it also weakens an organization that Al Qaeda’s senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability. Usama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri have consistently advocated exploiting the situation in Iraq, and we have also seen AQI involved in destabilizing activities in the wider Mid-east region.

· Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused on the Special Groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Qods Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and Coalition actions in response. Iraqi and Coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to promises made by President Ahmedinajad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the Special Groups. However, nefarious activities by the Qods Force have continued, and Iraqi leaders now clearly recognize the threat they pose to Iraq. We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead, as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor and the character of future Iranian involvement in Iraq.

__________________________

The Weekly Standard About Page

Moralnihilist has His Say, I Have Mine

I operate many blogs, some of a social nature and a few are just blogs for anyone to show up. My pet blog is SlantRight.com. My son has purchased the rights to the name and operates it on his servers for me for free. It is the Dad discount.

I rarely spread comments from one blog to the others; however I received a comment from “More Democrat ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy” on my Mindsay blog which is more of a social blog. The comment was made by a person that goes by the moniker of Moralnihilist. Moralnihilist said little but it irked me a lot. So I am sharing my distinct charm around in my reply.

Moralnihilist said:

The purpose of the Iraq war was to line the pockets of George W Bush's oil buddies, nothing more. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was no threat. ...

We've already spent 10 times what we spent in Vietnam, and the cost in lives has been tragic.

I guess Ann Coulter is correct: Liberals Lie!

The Dems and Bush reacted to the same Intelligence of the time. Even President Clinton understood that Saddam Hussein was dangerous but did not have the cajones to do what GW did. Clinton's awareness of Iraq and transnational terrorists may never be completely known because the treasonous Dem used his security clearance to destroy classified material related to Clinton.

Whether or not the validity of WMD in Iraq is actual or mystified is irrelevant. The fact remains Hussein has shown in the past no hesitation to attack his neighbors for hegemonic gain and profit (with Iran the US aided him and with Kuwait we were against him). This is not to mention the brutality that Hussein and his psycho-sons inflicted on Iraqi citizens. Even now in 2008 mass graves of slaughtered men, women and children are haphazardly stumbled upon.

The only reason the U.S. does not send a military force to remove the butchering Arab Muslims from Sudan is the Islamic world would wrongly perceive it as an attack on Islam. Western nations even with the potential of their combined power to remove the current Sudanese government fear the Islamic reaction (The West is dominated by Left Wing cowering dhimmis). The genocide against Black Muslims in Darfur and Black Christians in Southern Sudan is enough reason to take out the regime. It is a demonstration of dhimmification of the U.N. and the protection of Communist Chinese that such action is not even close to being a consideration.

As far as oil goes: duh!! Are you an American or a dimwitted American? Islamists (though a growing minority in the Middle East) run the perceptions of America. If Islamists control oil in Iraq as well as oil in Iran and the Saudi Monarchy is a sneeze away from joining the Shah of Iran's fate. How do you think the National Interests of America would be affected if Islamists controlled the life blood of the World's economy? Can you say convert or no oil? That would mess up the Dems utopian delusional vision on how we should respect what happens in another nation's internal affairs.

As for the Iraq and Vietnam comparisons, the only thing valid that you have asserted is the unpopularity (forged into the minds by a Leftist MSM ignoring other facts and the Dems exploiting the non-reported facts) of the Iraq War in America.

So in essence Moralnilhilist, you are full of manure. I leave it to you decide what kind.

Where We Stand on Iraq and the Election

Victor David Hanson gives a speech at the Wednesday Morning Club. The theme is the Iraq War and how success is occurring and that the Democrats are in denial.

JRH 3/27/08

A soldier speaks

A yeah, I doubt you will find this video on a Democratic Party campaign ad. The success this soldier speaks about is totally ignored by Obama and Hillary would wish a defeat over a victory.

Frank Rich's War

MSM are continuing to scream about the Bush Administration is lieing. Facts are coming out that it is just the influence of liberals apparently attempting to topple the credibility of President Bush to the voting public. The Liberal media are planting seeds in the publics mind to sway future elecitons of 2006 and 2008. However when testimony is examined in both the press and Congressional committee reports it is a different story.
Read this rebuttal from the NY Sun Editorial Staff:
-------

New York Sun Staff Editorial
November 28, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/23556

Those who charge President Bush and Vice President Cheney with lying to get America involved in the war in Iraq, as the New York Times columnist Frank Rich did yesterday, have a special obligation to get the truth correct themselves. It's one thing for Mr. Rich to disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq and to blame Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for the decision. It's another for Mr. Rich to accuse our elected leaders of misleading the country while the columnist himself goes about misleading readers of The New York Times.

The Niger Uranium

Mr. Rich's New York Times column yesterday refers to Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address with the "bogus 16 words about Saddam's fictitious African uranium." Those words were, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But those 16 words are neither bogus nor fictitious. They were and are true. A July 2004 report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported that an Iraqi delegation visited Niger in June of 1999 and met with Niger's then-prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki. The committee relayed that Mr. Mayaki said the meeting was about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries, which Mr. Mayaki interpreted to mean "that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales."

A July 2004 report by the British government's Butler Commission found that Mr. Bush's State of the Union comment was "well-founded." As the Commission put it, "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.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. ... 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 it."

According to the Butler Commission, Saddam Hussein's government claimed that a 1999 mission to Niger by Iraq's ambassador to the Vatican was for the purpose of conveying an invitation to the Nigerian president to visit Iraq. Now, it's possible that, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, if Frank Rich were president, he would have concluded that the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican probably just had jetted down to Niger for the purpose of hand-delivering an invitation. But the British concluded otherwise, and it's hardly "bogus" or "fictitious" for Mr. Bush to have said so. Given Saddam's known nuclear ambitions - remember Osirak? - and Niger's main export, would it have been prudent for Mr. Bush to take the word of Saddam's envoy over that of the British?

Two Commissions

Mr. Rich's New York Times column yesterday accuses Messrs. Bush and Cheney of "falsely claiming they've been exonerated by two commissions that looked into prewar intelligence - neither of which addressed possible White House misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence." Yet two major reports that looked into the matter of the administration and intelligence did exonerate the president. Here is a quote from the report of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

Here is a quote from the report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "The Committee 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." Yet, in contravention of those conclusions - reached by groups that included Democrats such as Senators Edwards, Levin, Wyden, and Durbin and Clinton administration officials Lloyd Cutler, William Studeman, and Walter Slocombe - Mr. Rich speaks of "the administration's deliberate efforts to suppress or ignore intelligence that contradicted its Iraq crusade."

September 11 and Iraq

Mr. Rich accuses Mr. Cheney of dissembling by conflating the terrorists of September 11, 2001, with those we are fighting in Iraq. As evidence that Mr. Cheney is lying he cites an American general who says the Iraqi insurgency is 90% homegrown. But it's undisputed that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Jordanian, Zarqawi, who shares with the rest of Al Qaeda, including the September 11 terrorists, the goal of re-establishing the caliphate. Certainly in their violent targeting of civilians and their jihadist rhetoric, those who attacked New York office buildings on September 11 and those who are blowing up restaurants and hospitals in Iraq have a lot in common. One may choose to emphasize or de-emphasize the similarities, but emphasizing the similarities as Mr. Cheney has done hardly amounts to dissembling.

The DIA Report and Senator Levin

Mr. Rich references a report of the Defense Intelligence Agency released by Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, which Mr. Rich said demolished the credibility of a source the administration used "for its false claims about Iraq-Al Qaeda collaboration." Here's how Mr. Levin hyped the report in a press release. "In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which has remained classified until now: 'Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.' That DIA finding is stunningly different from repeated Administration claims of a close relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Just imagine the impact if that DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war."

The only stunning thing here is the disingenuousness of Messrs. Levin and Rich. First of all, the DIA report is not much different from what Bush administration officials were saying publicly at the time. On February 6, 2002, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, made a similar argument in public testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying, "Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al-Qa'ida. Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides' mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible - even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences."

Moreover, the notion that the secular Baathists and the Islamic jihadists are so ideologically divergent that they will not work together has been disproven by what is going on now in Iraq, where they are cooperating against Iraqi moderates and American troops.

James Bamford

Mr. Rich cites the reporting in Rolling Stone of James Bamford. Yet even Mr. Rich's own newspaper, the Times, in reviewing Mr. Bamford's 2001 book, remarked on Mr. Bamford's "palpable distaste for the Israeli state." Said the Times review, "Rather too credulously, Bamford sides with the conspiracy theorists."

The Truth

Mr. Rich writes that the White House's record on the road to Iraq recalls the saying, "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" Here is what Mr. Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, the one whose 16 words about Uranium in Africa caused such a storm. "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages - leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained - by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

That the president spoke the truth has been sadly confirmed in free Iraq. The Associated Press's Nadia Abou El-Magd interviewed Firas Adnan, whose tongue had been cut off with a box cutter by a Saddam loyalist. Mr. Adnan, "his slurred words barely comprehensible," said of Saddam, "He is a despot, the biggest despot, Iraq will be much better without him." Susan Sachs of Mr. Rich's own New York Times reported from the mass graves of Hilla: "On April 11, 1991, a few weeks into the Shiite rebellion, Iraqi helicopters dropped leaflets over Karbala ordering everyone to leave or be attacked with chemical weapons. Mr. Mohani piled his relatives into a pickup truck and a car and fled. About four miles south of the city, the escape route was blocked. There, he said, he saw Mr. Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, executing people randomly at a checkpoint. 'He was telling people to get out of their cars and then he would shoot them, shoot them until his arm was too tired to do it anymore.'"

Does Mr. Rich think his own colleague and the Associated Press are also part of what he derides as "propaganda" and "the disinformation assembly line"? And when it comes time for a new generation to ask their elders what they did during the war to end the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, what are the editors of the Times going to have to say for themselves?

http://www.slantright.com