There's been an average of 160,000 troops in combat theater during the last 22 months, -- a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our nation's capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington.
Wednesday, June 29
There They Go Again
We've come to expect strong, forceful rhetoric from the President concerning the war. Since his first warning that the war would be a long one in October, 2001 he has spoken candidly and frankly about the kind of war we face and he has told us specifically how we can help. So what interests me is the Democratic response to the President's speech last night.
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)says, "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
Nancy Pelosi seems to think that Bin Laden is the only terrorist with designs against America and the only terrorist involved in attacks on America. That makes it conveniently easy to overlook equal danger from not only Iraq but the Sudan, Iran, Egypt, Arabia and other viper nests. But let's look at the history.
Attacks by the Muslim terrorist community on Americans and the American military began in 1979:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Kh! obar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Pentagon 2001.
(During the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
The plans for war with Iraq were in place BEFORE George W. Bush was elected President. Bill Clinton began planning war with Iraq in 1998.IN EARLY 1998, the Clinton administration, following this same logic, prepared for war against Iraq. On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon to explain to the American people why war was necessary. The speech is worth excerpting at length, because it was then and remains today the fundamental case for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
President Clinton declared that the great threat confronting the United States and its allies was a lethal and 'unholy axis' of international terrorists and outlaw states. 'They 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.'"
Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. In an interview conducted in October, 2001 (one month after 9/11) he was asked, "After your service in the army, you worked for a secret part of the Iraqi government?" His reply: "Some of it is not very secretive. But there's another part, which has a lot to do with international terrorism and this kind of operation -- this is very secretive."
Interviewer:"What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?
"Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism."
AND, according to Iraq's own admissions, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we invaded.
Contrary to Pelosi's obvious belief in Bin Laden as the only threat to America, the danger is far broader and much more widespread. Our war is not a war against Bin Laden, but a war against ALL of those who would attack us and our way of life. President Bush began his defense (and the best defense, as any football fan knows, is a good offense) in Afghanistan and continued it in Iraq.
In another criticism of the President's speech last night, Democrats complained that the President did not offer more specifics about how to achieve success in Iraq. HEL--LO! We are fighting a war here, folks. We don't tell the enemy what we plan to do. During WWII there was a saying, "Loose lips sink ships." Announcing a pull out from Iraq before the insurgents quit fighting would be a primo example of "loose lips."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said it's because of the lessons of the Sept. 11 attacks that he opposes Bush's approach to keeping the troops in Iraq without any timetable for withdrawal. "The U.S. military presence in Iraq has become a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists, and Iraq is now the premier training ground and networking venue for the next generation of jihadists," Feingold said.
Mr. Feingold is either lying or he doesn't know what our troops are doing in Iraq. Our soldiers have become construction workers and community builders, not only building the roads, bridges, homes, shops and businesses but the total infrastructure needed for a free society. Read the military blogs and listen to what our troops say when they come home. We are doing FAR more than fighting in Iraq. As a young West Pointer said yesterday, "We are builders, not destroyers."
As for our presence being a recruiting tool -- it is their hatred of the "infidel" (us) that is the recruiting tool. Our presence in Iraq just keeps them fighting over there instead of here.
If President Bush had done all the things the Democrats wanted: Not referred to 9/11 at all, alerted the terrorists to how we plan to continue that fight and promised to bring the troops home in six months Pelosi, Feingold and their ilk would be howling criticisms about not being realistic about 9/11, about endangering our troops and about not getting out fast enough. You just can't please some people at all. So why listen to them in the first place?
And by the way, all we heard from the Democrats was carping. No suggestions for alternatives, no plans. Just carping.
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)says, "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
Nancy Pelosi seems to think that Bin Laden is the only terrorist with designs against America and the only terrorist involved in attacks on America. That makes it conveniently easy to overlook equal danger from not only Iraq but the Sudan, Iran, Egypt, Arabia and other viper nests. But let's look at the history.
Attacks by the Muslim terrorist community on Americans and the American military began in 1979:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Kh! obar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Pentagon 2001.
(During the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
The plans for war with Iraq were in place BEFORE George W. Bush was elected President. Bill Clinton began planning war with Iraq in 1998.IN EARLY 1998, the Clinton administration, following this same logic, prepared for war against Iraq. On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon to explain to the American people why war was necessary. The speech is worth excerpting at length, because it was then and remains today the fundamental case for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
President Clinton declared that the great threat confronting the United States and its allies was a lethal and 'unholy axis' of international terrorists and outlaw states. 'They 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.'"
Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. In an interview conducted in October, 2001 (one month after 9/11) he was asked, "After your service in the army, you worked for a secret part of the Iraqi government?" His reply: "Some of it is not very secretive. But there's another part, which has a lot to do with international terrorism and this kind of operation -- this is very secretive."
Interviewer:"What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?
"Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism."
AND, according to Iraq's own admissions, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we invaded.
Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:
* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.
* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).
Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.
Contrary to Pelosi's obvious belief in Bin Laden as the only threat to America, the danger is far broader and much more widespread. Our war is not a war against Bin Laden, but a war against ALL of those who would attack us and our way of life. President Bush began his defense (and the best defense, as any football fan knows, is a good offense) in Afghanistan and continued it in Iraq.
In another criticism of the President's speech last night, Democrats complained that the President did not offer more specifics about how to achieve success in Iraq. HEL--LO! We are fighting a war here, folks. We don't tell the enemy what we plan to do. During WWII there was a saying, "Loose lips sink ships." Announcing a pull out from Iraq before the insurgents quit fighting would be a primo example of "loose lips."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said it's because of the lessons of the Sept. 11 attacks that he opposes Bush's approach to keeping the troops in Iraq without any timetable for withdrawal. "The U.S. military presence in Iraq has become a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists, and Iraq is now the premier training ground and networking venue for the next generation of jihadists," Feingold said.
Mr. Feingold is either lying or he doesn't know what our troops are doing in Iraq. Our soldiers have become construction workers and community builders, not only building the roads, bridges, homes, shops and businesses but the total infrastructure needed for a free society. Read the military blogs and listen to what our troops say when they come home. We are doing FAR more than fighting in Iraq. As a young West Pointer said yesterday, "We are builders, not destroyers."
As for our presence being a recruiting tool -- it is their hatred of the "infidel" (us) that is the recruiting tool. Our presence in Iraq just keeps them fighting over there instead of here.
If President Bush had done all the things the Democrats wanted: Not referred to 9/11 at all, alerted the terrorists to how we plan to continue that fight and promised to bring the troops home in six months Pelosi, Feingold and their ilk would be howling criticisms about not being realistic about 9/11, about endangering our troops and about not getting out fast enough. You just can't please some people at all. So why listen to them in the first place?
And by the way, all we heard from the Democrats was carping. No suggestions for alternatives, no plans. Just carping.
Tuesday, June 28
What Goes Around. . .
Everyone must be aware by now of the Supreme Court's decision last week to expand the concept of eminent domain to include giving privately owned land to companies if the government can generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefit from the company than from the private owner. That ruling is so destructive of basic property rights in America that it's hard to believe the Supreme Court isn't going to say "just foolin'" and move on.
But "what goes around comes around," they say, and so it has for Justice Souter, who voted in favor of the judgement. Freestar Media, LLC has applied to the city of Weare, New Hampshire for permission to build a hotel on the site of Justice Souter's home. And it gets better. . .
Clements claims that the site is particularly appropriate for the hotel because it has been the home of someone "largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."
Clements needs the votes of three city councilmen to begin construction of his hotel.
Here's to Mr. Clements -- best wishes for the success of his Lost Liberty Hotel.
But "what goes around comes around," they say, and so it has for Justice Souter, who voted in favor of the judgement. Freestar Media, LLC has applied to the city of Weare, New Hampshire for permission to build a hotel on the site of Justice Souter's home. And it gets better. . .
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements claims that the site is particularly appropriate for the hotel because it has been the home of someone "largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."
Clements needs the votes of three city councilmen to begin construction of his hotel.
Here's to Mr. Clements -- best wishes for the success of his Lost Liberty Hotel.
Why failing to teach history is bad for democracy
by John Fund
A few years ago, the National Constitution Center surveyed teenagers and found that while only about four in 10 could name the three branches of the federal government fully six in 10 could name all Three Stooges.
Everyone agrees we aren't teaching history well, but the direction of reform is controversial. Philadelphia's public schools have just announced they will mandate that all students take an African-American history course in order to graduate from high school. The theory is that the city's 185,000 public school students, two-thirds of whom are black, will finally become aware of their culture and gain self-esteem. Those who are not black will gain an appreciation of black history that is inadequately covered in current general social studies courses.
John Perzel is the GOP speaker of the Pennsylvania House and represents a largely white Philadelphia district. He isn't so sure this is the right approach. "I would like to see [students] master basic reading, writing and arithmetic," he wrote to city officials last week. "Once we have them down pat, I don't care what they teach. . . . They should understand basic American history before we go into African-American history."
Other critics note that schools already put on programs every February for Black History Month, something not done for other ethnic groups. They fear a separate course will diminish student understanding of the overall American experience. Back in the 1960s, novelist James Baldwin testified before Congress that the triumphs and tribulations of black history should be woven into all history courses, rather than segregated. Diane Ravitch, a leading education reformer, agrees that African-American history should be studied but hopes it will be "based on the best scholarship, not ideology or politics."
Dream on. What's more likely to happen is that the creation of a specific African-American history course will fuel demands from other groups, such as Hispanics or gays, for similar history mandates.
What will slip further down a memory hole will be the major reason why it is important for students to study our history: America is an exceptional country in that we were born out of a shared set of ideas--human liberty and opportunity, accompanied by a common set of values. It is often said that while being a Frenchman or German is bound up in ethnicity and ties to the soil, it is possible to become an American by adopting this nation's creed and beliefs.
We are risking something very basic by failing to communicate the basic ideals of America and instead, as historian David McCullough told me, "raising a generation of students who are historically illiterate." But many of those students will eventually become curious, and without a solid grounding in the past, they could easily fall prey to revisionist history, whether it be of the Confederate or Oliver Stone variety.
Yale professor David Gelernter says that "ignorance of history is destroying our judgment." He points to Sen. Dick Durbin's ignorant comment comparing the actions of U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis and Soviets. His remarks went largely unremarked upon by fellow senators until talk radio made them an issue.
Future leaders may make even more horrific missteps: a 2003 survey of seniors at the top 55 liberal arts colleges found that over half thought Germany, Italy or Japan had been a U.S. ally in World War II. The concern about historical amnesia crosses the political spectrum. Bill Moyers, the liberal PBS pundit, has said "we Americans seem to know everything about the last 24 hours but very little of the last 60 centuries or the last 60 years."
When Ronald Reagan delivered his 1989 farewell address to the nation, he noted there was "a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells," and he would make no exception. He told his audience that the "one that's been on my mind for some time" was that the country was failing to adequately teach our children the American story and what it represents in the history of the world. "We've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion, but what's important," he said. "If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I am warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit."
As well-meaning as Philadelphia's attempt to raise the self-esteem of black students may be, we should take time this coming Fourth of July to realize that our failure to teach America's story demands far more strenuous solutions.
A few years ago, the National Constitution Center surveyed teenagers and found that while only about four in 10 could name the three branches of the federal government fully six in 10 could name all Three Stooges.
Everyone agrees we aren't teaching history well, but the direction of reform is controversial. Philadelphia's public schools have just announced they will mandate that all students take an African-American history course in order to graduate from high school. The theory is that the city's 185,000 public school students, two-thirds of whom are black, will finally become aware of their culture and gain self-esteem. Those who are not black will gain an appreciation of black history that is inadequately covered in current general social studies courses.
John Perzel is the GOP speaker of the Pennsylvania House and represents a largely white Philadelphia district. He isn't so sure this is the right approach. "I would like to see [students] master basic reading, writing and arithmetic," he wrote to city officials last week. "Once we have them down pat, I don't care what they teach. . . . They should understand basic American history before we go into African-American history."
Other critics note that schools already put on programs every February for Black History Month, something not done for other ethnic groups. They fear a separate course will diminish student understanding of the overall American experience. Back in the 1960s, novelist James Baldwin testified before Congress that the triumphs and tribulations of black history should be woven into all history courses, rather than segregated. Diane Ravitch, a leading education reformer, agrees that African-American history should be studied but hopes it will be "based on the best scholarship, not ideology or politics."
Dream on. What's more likely to happen is that the creation of a specific African-American history course will fuel demands from other groups, such as Hispanics or gays, for similar history mandates.
What will slip further down a memory hole will be the major reason why it is important for students to study our history: America is an exceptional country in that we were born out of a shared set of ideas--human liberty and opportunity, accompanied by a common set of values. It is often said that while being a Frenchman or German is bound up in ethnicity and ties to the soil, it is possible to become an American by adopting this nation's creed and beliefs.
We are risking something very basic by failing to communicate the basic ideals of America and instead, as historian David McCullough told me, "raising a generation of students who are historically illiterate." But many of those students will eventually become curious, and without a solid grounding in the past, they could easily fall prey to revisionist history, whether it be of the Confederate or Oliver Stone variety.
Yale professor David Gelernter says that "ignorance of history is destroying our judgment." He points to Sen. Dick Durbin's ignorant comment comparing the actions of U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis and Soviets. His remarks went largely unremarked upon by fellow senators until talk radio made them an issue.
Future leaders may make even more horrific missteps: a 2003 survey of seniors at the top 55 liberal arts colleges found that over half thought Germany, Italy or Japan had been a U.S. ally in World War II. The concern about historical amnesia crosses the political spectrum. Bill Moyers, the liberal PBS pundit, has said "we Americans seem to know everything about the last 24 hours but very little of the last 60 centuries or the last 60 years."
When Ronald Reagan delivered his 1989 farewell address to the nation, he noted there was "a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells," and he would make no exception. He told his audience that the "one that's been on my mind for some time" was that the country was failing to adequately teach our children the American story and what it represents in the history of the world. "We've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion, but what's important," he said. "If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I am warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit."
As well-meaning as Philadelphia's attempt to raise the self-esteem of black students may be, we should take time this coming Fourth of July to realize that our failure to teach America's story demands far more strenuous solutions.
Monday, June 27
We Won't Give Up on Iraq
As support for Iraqi freedom wanes in the USA, the Iraqi people claim more and more progress in their danger-frought attempts to gain political power and wrest the country from oppression. Here's some of what our mainstream media aren't telling us:
1. June 14: Iraq's Shiite-led government received a vote of confidence from the Iraqi National Assembly. "The 37-member government led by Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was overwhelmingly approved by a show of hands from the 275-member parliament."
2. June 22: Iraq restores diplomatic relations with four neighboring countries-- Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- for the first time in a decade."Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that Egypt would be the first Arab country to upgrade its diplomatic representation by appointing an ambassador."
3.June 21:"The president of the Iraqi constitutional committee Mr. Humam Hamudi announced that the constitutional committee has completed 80% of the Iraqi constitution and is determined to complete its mission before August 15th. He added that the committee meets daily to take advantage of the wide Arab Sunni participation. Jawad Alamleki (a Sunni member of the committee) said that constitution will emerge with strong Iraqi personality and there are no serious disagreements in dissertation over its contents."
4.June 21: Something I wish would happen in the US: Iraqis catch Constitutional Fever. "Public conferences and sessions in Baghdad and other provinces seem to be endless nowadays; municipalities, NGOs and forums are all very excited about Iraq's top topic which is writing the Iraqi constitution and they obviously don't want to miss the chance to take part in the historic event.
Such activities play a good role in educating the population and activating the concept of public involvement in the state's decisive steps through organizing sending the people's suggestions and thoughts to the authorities and making sure they're being considered."
5.June 27:
"In a statement, Sheikh Abu Manar Al Alami, president of the Council for Islamic Call and Guidance for the Salafi trend, called the Arab fighters to refrain from the martyr attacks. He confirmed the nullity of the religious opinions of Jihad in Iraq, which have been launched by some Salafi clergymen in Saudi Arabia. He strongly rejected accusing the Salafi trend of being extremist and adopting terrorism."
6. June 27:Steps are being taken to restore citizenship to Iraqis who were deprived of their nationality nationality under Saddam’s regime according to the "Bad Reputation 666 Act of 1980."
7. June 27: Even the European Union is getting into the act. The European Union mission for training Iraqi magistrates and senior law enforcement officials is set to begin on 1 July. The proposal was approved by the 25 EU members states in February, but the office of foreign policy chief Javier Solana has confirmed they have now received an official request from Baghdad. The request was made during a visit by three leading EU officials, including Solana, to Iraq last week."
8. June 20: Hussein left Iraq with a mind-boggling debt of $125 billion. So Iraq is negotiating debt reduction or forgiveness with a variety of entities. Canada signed the latest agreement and agreed to write off 80%, or US$470 million, of Iraqi debt. Slovakia will also forgive Iraq its debt amounting to 35.2 million koruna ($10.8 million).
9. June 10: The Iraqi stock market signs on more than 50 stock markets around the world and will join The International Federation of Stock Exchanges. "Taha Ahmed Abdul Salam, executive manager of the stock market, who participated in the conference, heading a delegation of the stock market, said that various participating international stock exchanges have expressed their desire to sign mutual agreements to develop the mutual work with the Iraqi stock market, which reinforces the chances of the latter to gain the necessary expertise in the electronic exchange and the modern methods of banking deposit."
10. June 12: And last in this list (but there's lots more), culture has returned to Iraq. It's not quite like attending a concert at the Kennedy Center but the symphony is back. "Iraqis packed the red upholstered seats in the darkened hall of the National Theater in central Baghdad on Friday night, while men with machine guns stood in the aisles. Two snipers perched outside on a second-floor balcony. Guards frisked concertgoers as they entered.
But as they listened with serene faces to the Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra playing the first sweet strains of Beethoven's 'Egmont' Overture, Opus 84, it seemed they had, even if only for an evening, defied the chaos and killing that has rearranged so many lives here."
So, in spite of the naysayers, freedom is dawning in Iraq. As always, the price of a free society is sacrifice and pain and blood but the new day will bring safety and liberty for us all.
In a press conference just weeks after the attack on New York City -- October 20, 2001 -- President Bush said, "I think the American people now fully understand that we are in an important struggle, a struggle that will take time." We must not give up until the job is done.
1. June 14: Iraq's Shiite-led government received a vote of confidence from the Iraqi National Assembly. "The 37-member government led by Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was overwhelmingly approved by a show of hands from the 275-member parliament."
2. June 22: Iraq restores diplomatic relations with four neighboring countries-- Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- for the first time in a decade."Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that Egypt would be the first Arab country to upgrade its diplomatic representation by appointing an ambassador."
3.June 21:"The president of the Iraqi constitutional committee Mr. Humam Hamudi announced that the constitutional committee has completed 80% of the Iraqi constitution and is determined to complete its mission before August 15th. He added that the committee meets daily to take advantage of the wide Arab Sunni participation. Jawad Alamleki (a Sunni member of the committee) said that constitution will emerge with strong Iraqi personality and there are no serious disagreements in dissertation over its contents."
4.June 21: Something I wish would happen in the US: Iraqis catch Constitutional Fever. "Public conferences and sessions in Baghdad and other provinces seem to be endless nowadays; municipalities, NGOs and forums are all very excited about Iraq's top topic which is writing the Iraqi constitution and they obviously don't want to miss the chance to take part in the historic event.
Such activities play a good role in educating the population and activating the concept of public involvement in the state's decisive steps through organizing sending the people's suggestions and thoughts to the authorities and making sure they're being considered."
5.June 27:
"In a statement, Sheikh Abu Manar Al Alami, president of the Council for Islamic Call and Guidance for the Salafi trend, called the Arab fighters to refrain from the martyr attacks. He confirmed the nullity of the religious opinions of Jihad in Iraq, which have been launched by some Salafi clergymen in Saudi Arabia. He strongly rejected accusing the Salafi trend of being extremist and adopting terrorism."
6. June 27:Steps are being taken to restore citizenship to Iraqis who were deprived of their nationality nationality under Saddam’s regime according to the "Bad Reputation 666 Act of 1980."
7. June 27: Even the European Union is getting into the act. The European Union mission for training Iraqi magistrates and senior law enforcement officials is set to begin on 1 July. The proposal was approved by the 25 EU members states in February, but the office of foreign policy chief Javier Solana has confirmed they have now received an official request from Baghdad. The request was made during a visit by three leading EU officials, including Solana, to Iraq last week."
8. June 20: Hussein left Iraq with a mind-boggling debt of $125 billion. So Iraq is negotiating debt reduction or forgiveness with a variety of entities. Canada signed the latest agreement and agreed to write off 80%, or US$470 million, of Iraqi debt. Slovakia will also forgive Iraq its debt amounting to 35.2 million koruna ($10.8 million).
9. June 10: The Iraqi stock market signs on more than 50 stock markets around the world and will join The International Federation of Stock Exchanges. "Taha Ahmed Abdul Salam, executive manager of the stock market, who participated in the conference, heading a delegation of the stock market, said that various participating international stock exchanges have expressed their desire to sign mutual agreements to develop the mutual work with the Iraqi stock market, which reinforces the chances of the latter to gain the necessary expertise in the electronic exchange and the modern methods of banking deposit."
10. June 12: And last in this list (but there's lots more), culture has returned to Iraq. It's not quite like attending a concert at the Kennedy Center but the symphony is back. "Iraqis packed the red upholstered seats in the darkened hall of the National Theater in central Baghdad on Friday night, while men with machine guns stood in the aisles. Two snipers perched outside on a second-floor balcony. Guards frisked concertgoers as they entered.
But as they listened with serene faces to the Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra playing the first sweet strains of Beethoven's 'Egmont' Overture, Opus 84, it seemed they had, even if only for an evening, defied the chaos and killing that has rearranged so many lives here."
So, in spite of the naysayers, freedom is dawning in Iraq. As always, the price of a free society is sacrifice and pain and blood but the new day will bring safety and liberty for us all.
In a press conference just weeks after the attack on New York City -- October 20, 2001 -- President Bush said, "I think the American people now fully understand that we are in an important struggle, a struggle that will take time." We must not give up until the job is done.
Friday, June 24
Hoo Ah, General Patton!
I wouldn't use the same language, but here's what's in my heart: Click on YOU GO, GENERAL. If that link doesn't work, copy and paste the following URL into your browser: http://patriotfilesannex.org/and click on "A Message From The Ghost of General Patton."
That says it all as far as I'm concerned. I just wish the Old Guy was here to say it himslf. Thank God (and that's a prayer, not an oath) we have men today who are just as tough and just as realistic. God Bless Them All and God Bless America.
That says it all as far as I'm concerned. I just wish the Old Guy was here to say it himslf. Thank God (and that's a prayer, not an oath) we have men today who are just as tough and just as realistic. God Bless Them All and God Bless America.
Wednesday, June 22
You Rock, Rep. Hostettler
This past Monday I just happened to be tuned in to C-Span when utter chaos broke loose on the floor of the US House of Representatives. Now, the US House is typically so dull that the casual observer tends to despair for the fate of the country. How can anything truly significant happen with most of the Representatives elsewhere, one wonders, while s/he yearns for the lively, noisy Parliament TV of Great Britain.
On Monday, however, the lazy leviathan suddenly sprang to life.
John Hostettler (R-IN) stood to take to task the Democrats for adding an amendment to trying to the $409 billion defense spending bill accusing Christians of "coercive and abusive" proselytizing at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
In a rare display of cognizance, emotion and temper, Rep. Hostettler accused Democrats of waging a "long war on Christianity." (He has obviously been reading Democratic blogs! And paying attention to the darlings of the Democrats, the ACLU.)"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," he said. That statement is perhaps the truest spoken on the floor of the House in the past 50 years.
Suddenly the entire House leapt from their lethargy. Rep. David Obey (D-WI)demanded Hostettler's remarks be stuck from the record, calling it "coercive and abusive." (What happened to freedom of speech? The very amendment that Hostettler was objecting to had stronger language against Christianity, striking out against "abusive religious proselytizing" and accusing people at the Academy of forcing Christianity on innocent victims.)Since the Academy has not experienced a recent surge in Christian converts, it would seem that Obey's amendment was more out of line than Hostettler's accusations.
Certainly no one, hearing John Dean's rant against the Republicans and sneeringly calling them a "white, Christian party" and no one reading the Democratic blogs with their foul language slurs of "fundamentalist Christians," and no one who followed the actions of the ACLU and its ilk could or would object to Hostettler's characterization of the Democratic party.
The outcome of it all -- and even Sen. Barney Franks spoke out against Hostettler's remarks!-- was the Obey's amendment was defeated and Hostettler asked to have his remarks struck from the record.
Kudos to Rep. Hostettler for calling the spade what it truly is. Thanks for, in doing so, demonstrating that Republicans recognize the truth of the situation that not only exists but is becoming more and more abusive and oppressive. The very fact that he was pressured to remove his remarks from the record (and they were not personal remarks directed at Obey, but true and honest perceptions aimed at the Democratic Party) shows just how far the Democrats have gone to destroy the rights of Republicans and Christians.
On Monday, however, the lazy leviathan suddenly sprang to life.
John Hostettler (R-IN) stood to take to task the Democrats for adding an amendment to trying to the $409 billion defense spending bill accusing Christians of "coercive and abusive" proselytizing at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
In a rare display of cognizance, emotion and temper, Rep. Hostettler accused Democrats of waging a "long war on Christianity." (He has obviously been reading Democratic blogs! And paying attention to the darlings of the Democrats, the ACLU.)"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," he said. That statement is perhaps the truest spoken on the floor of the House in the past 50 years.
Suddenly the entire House leapt from their lethargy. Rep. David Obey (D-WI)demanded Hostettler's remarks be stuck from the record, calling it "coercive and abusive." (What happened to freedom of speech? The very amendment that Hostettler was objecting to had stronger language against Christianity, striking out against "abusive religious proselytizing" and accusing people at the Academy of forcing Christianity on innocent victims.)Since the Academy has not experienced a recent surge in Christian converts, it would seem that Obey's amendment was more out of line than Hostettler's accusations.
Certainly no one, hearing John Dean's rant against the Republicans and sneeringly calling them a "white, Christian party" and no one reading the Democratic blogs with their foul language slurs of "fundamentalist Christians," and no one who followed the actions of the ACLU and its ilk could or would object to Hostettler's characterization of the Democratic party.
The outcome of it all -- and even Sen. Barney Franks spoke out against Hostettler's remarks!-- was the Obey's amendment was defeated and Hostettler asked to have his remarks struck from the record.
Kudos to Rep. Hostettler for calling the spade what it truly is. Thanks for, in doing so, demonstrating that Republicans recognize the truth of the situation that not only exists but is becoming more and more abusive and oppressive. The very fact that he was pressured to remove his remarks from the record (and they were not personal remarks directed at Obey, but true and honest perceptions aimed at the Democratic Party) shows just how far the Democrats have gone to destroy the rights of Republicans and Christians.
Monday, June 20
Democrats: J'accuse
"I'll take the high road and you take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye." Old Scottish Tune
As an American Voter, I have one wish.
I wish politicians and pundits would commit themselves to telling the truth; take the High Road, if you will. That one thing would make all the difference in quality of life in America. Everyone would gain. As it is, the Democrats, especially, seem to prefer the Low Road. Lies and misinformation. They loudly accuse the Republicans of lying, but a look at the facts turns the spotlight back to the Democrats.
Let's look at the economy, for example.
The official Democratic line on President Bush's fiscal policies is that they're a disaster. They claim that "Bush plans devastating cuts to America's top priorities, from homeland security to health care to education to benefits for veterans and much more. Despite these cuts, this budget is a fiscal disaster, with Bush's trademark irresponsibility pushing America deeper into the red with another record deficit." The quote is from the Democratic Party website.
But look at the truth:
"Federal tax revenues surged in the first eight months of this fiscal year by $187 billion, writes Stephen Moore in OpinionJournal.com. "This represents a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have exploded like a cap let off a geyser, up 30% in the two years since the tax cut. Once again, tax rate cuts have created a virtuous chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, higher corporate profits, and finally more tax receipts.
"This Laffer Curve effect has also created a revenue windfall for states and cities. As the economic expansion has plowed forward, and in some regions of the country accelerated, state tax receipts have climbed 7.5% this year already. Perhaps the most remarkable story from around the nation comes from the perpetually indebted New York City, which suddenly finds itself more than $3 billion in surplus thanks to an unexpected gush in revenues. Many of President Bush's critics foolishly predicted that states and localities would be victims of the Bush tax cut gamble."
The Laffer Curve is an economic theory that Democrats disparage despite proven results. Reaganomics, it turns out, was based on the theory. When President Reagan lowered the tax rate in the highest income tax brackets from 70% to 20%, the result was an economic burst that almost doubled federal tax receipts: from $517 billion to $1,032 billion.
The idea is that lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and leads to more tax revenue collections for the government.
All is not sweetness and light, however. Congress is on a spending spree -- federal expenditures are up $110 billion, or 7.2%, so far this year. However, it's now projected that the budget deficit will be at least $60 billion lower than last year.
States and cities, led by California, which a few years ago were awash in debt themselves, will enjoy net surpluses of at least $50 billion. Total government borrowing will come in at below 2.5% of national output -- hardly a crisis level of debt.
Opponents of the tax cut maintained that interest rates would soar, but today long-term rates are lower than ever.
All of this is public information, folks -- at the US Department of Labor . Everyone has access to it. So why do the Democrats continue to lie about the condition of the economy? Because they know most people won't do the research to find out the truth and they don't care to be honest and tell the truth.
And the truth gets even better: In the private-sector, we now have an investment boom. Lower capital gains and dividends taxes capitalized into higher stock values, which is partly why the Dow is up 24% since May 2003 while the Nasdaq has risen 39%.
Dan Clifton of the American Shareholder Association, Moore writes, estimates that this rise in stock values has translated into roughly $3 trillion in added wealth holdings of American households. The severe slump in business capital spending in 2001 and 2002 has now taken a U-turn, with spending on capital purchases up 22% since 2003. Because higher wages and new job creation depend on business capital investment, the so-called 'Bush tax cut for the rich' has enormously benefited middle-income workers.
Honest people in an honest Democratic Party would simply admit the truth and find another issue -- preferably a valid issue not being addressed -- to work on. I just don't understand why they have to take the Low Road.
As an American Voter, I have one wish.
I wish politicians and pundits would commit themselves to telling the truth; take the High Road, if you will. That one thing would make all the difference in quality of life in America. Everyone would gain. As it is, the Democrats, especially, seem to prefer the Low Road. Lies and misinformation. They loudly accuse the Republicans of lying, but a look at the facts turns the spotlight back to the Democrats.
Let's look at the economy, for example.
The official Democratic line on President Bush's fiscal policies is that they're a disaster. They claim that "Bush plans devastating cuts to America's top priorities, from homeland security to health care to education to benefits for veterans and much more. Despite these cuts, this budget is a fiscal disaster, with Bush's trademark irresponsibility pushing America deeper into the red with another record deficit." The quote is from the Democratic Party website.
But look at the truth:
"Federal tax revenues surged in the first eight months of this fiscal year by $187 billion, writes Stephen Moore in OpinionJournal.com. "This represents a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have exploded like a cap let off a geyser, up 30% in the two years since the tax cut. Once again, tax rate cuts have created a virtuous chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, higher corporate profits, and finally more tax receipts.
"This Laffer Curve effect has also created a revenue windfall for states and cities. As the economic expansion has plowed forward, and in some regions of the country accelerated, state tax receipts have climbed 7.5% this year already. Perhaps the most remarkable story from around the nation comes from the perpetually indebted New York City, which suddenly finds itself more than $3 billion in surplus thanks to an unexpected gush in revenues. Many of President Bush's critics foolishly predicted that states and localities would be victims of the Bush tax cut gamble."
The Laffer Curve is an economic theory that Democrats disparage despite proven results. Reaganomics, it turns out, was based on the theory. When President Reagan lowered the tax rate in the highest income tax brackets from 70% to 20%, the result was an economic burst that almost doubled federal tax receipts: from $517 billion to $1,032 billion.
The idea is that lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and leads to more tax revenue collections for the government.
All is not sweetness and light, however. Congress is on a spending spree -- federal expenditures are up $110 billion, or 7.2%, so far this year. However, it's now projected that the budget deficit will be at least $60 billion lower than last year.
States and cities, led by California, which a few years ago were awash in debt themselves, will enjoy net surpluses of at least $50 billion. Total government borrowing will come in at below 2.5% of national output -- hardly a crisis level of debt.
Opponents of the tax cut maintained that interest rates would soar, but today long-term rates are lower than ever.
All of this is public information, folks -- at the US Department of Labor . Everyone has access to it. So why do the Democrats continue to lie about the condition of the economy? Because they know most people won't do the research to find out the truth and they don't care to be honest and tell the truth.
And the truth gets even better: In the private-sector, we now have an investment boom. Lower capital gains and dividends taxes capitalized into higher stock values, which is partly why the Dow is up 24% since May 2003 while the Nasdaq has risen 39%.
Dan Clifton of the American Shareholder Association, Moore writes, estimates that this rise in stock values has translated into roughly $3 trillion in added wealth holdings of American households. The severe slump in business capital spending in 2001 and 2002 has now taken a U-turn, with spending on capital purchases up 22% since 2003. Because higher wages and new job creation depend on business capital investment, the so-called 'Bush tax cut for the rich' has enormously benefited middle-income workers.
Honest people in an honest Democratic Party would simply admit the truth and find another issue -- preferably a valid issue not being addressed -- to work on. I just don't understand why they have to take the Low Road.
Sunday, June 19
Hawkins: Way To Gitmo
I wonder if one of the reasons Conservatives are doing so well politically (other than the fact that they espouse traditional American values like faith, patriotism, tradition, morality, honor, duty, honesty and all that politically incorrect, dull, unintellectual stuff) is that Conservatives can write funny, intelligent articles without cursing. Here's one published today by Dustin Hawkins, a graduate student at one of the Florida universities, that ranks right up there with the best, IMHO:
You know things aren't going well for the Democrats when their main fighting issue is what the room temperature is at Guantanamo Bay’s Motel 6. Among the brilliant ideas of the "We Support the Troops" party is to close down the island-resort prison center affectionately referred to as Gitmo. The people most upset about the "torture" are mainly a bunch of leftwing, bed-wetting socialists who have never supported the war in any form or at any stage, but who we are now supposed to take as objective, credible persons.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Idiot) breathlessly announced the extent of the torture found at Gitmo, which included 1) a room that was too cold, causing a detainee to shake; 2) a room that was too hot, causing a detainee to sweat; and 3) a room that was filled with loud rap music. Anyone learning of this information would undoubtedly, according to Durbin, compare this to the slaughter of several million non-terrorist Jews in Hitler's death camps, around three million persons murdered in Stalin's gulags, and a few million more massacred by Pol Pot's rampage in Cambodia.
Not only is such a comparison stupid but also it is irresponsible. If it is true that such situations create terrorists, as Durbin suggests, then it probably doesn’t help to exaggerate a point beyond believability. Al-Jazeera was originally going to use a headline that read "Infidels torture prisoner with bad music and Florida-like weather," but now they can use more entertaining headlines like "U.S. Senator likens torture of Muslims to Holocaust, millions of Muslims likely incinerated by giant oven." Hey, Durbin, thanks! You make us proud.
But the idea that liberals have of normal Arabs sitting around just waiting for that breaking point as to where they decide to check into a terrorist training camp and blow themselves to pieces because they are super-angry is rather absurd. Normal Arabs don't do that; the crazy ones do. And the crazy ones are already terrorists.
But that is beside the point. Americans are bad. Bad, bad, bad! Among the other things we do to American-hating terrorists and 9/11 co-conspirators is: feed them seven-course, culturally-aware meals, allow them to pray six thousand times a day, and give them prayer beads and prayer oil. (As opposed to mass starvation, denial of religious services, or random removal of bodies from heads.)
Inasmuch as hundreds of thousands of people risk their lives just to sneak into our country, which they sometimes call the Great Satan, it is rather obvious that our atrocities aren't quite atrocious enough. If we are going to be accused of doing really, really mean things to ruthless savages we might as well do them already. No offense, but putting on puppet shows and playing Christina Aguilera CDs (our other documented forms of "mistreatment") sounds less like the activities of hardened torture facility and more like those of Neverland Ranch.
My personal choice would be the Saddam Treatment, a unique brand of torture developed and tested by the former dictator himself, which would be equally suitable (and oh, how ironic!) for testing on his Gitmo-detained former subordinates. If Arafat was the Father of Modern Terrorism then Saddam is the Father of Modern Torture. In his pre-dictator days, Saddam worked at perfecting torture techniques. Such innovative torture ideas included eye-gouging, the drilling of holes in a person's hands and pouring acid on the open wounds, raping women with broken glass bottles, tying victims up and slowly lowering them into pools of acid, cutting off ears and tongues, ripping out finger and toenails, and among many other things, giving heavy electric shocks to the body and genitals. But hey, at least he didn't make them watch re-runs of the Golden Girls.
I'm sure that Congress will continue to argue for closing down the prison for absurd reasons, most likely with a brave bipartisan effort including liberal Republican Arlen Specter and liberal drunk Ted Kennedy. But if we must close Gitmo down, can we at least send the prisoners to Abu Ghraib?
Friday, June 17
Democrats Who Backed Going To War in Iraq
After two days of trying to get me to download a virus (you get me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me. It's not going to happen again, fellas and gals), some of my Lib friends are now blitzing me with Emails about how President Bush lied and got us into war. Nevermind the terrorists hit us first; nevermind that every Democrat on the planet was as fooled as the Republicans by the intelligence about WMDs (which turned out to be there after all). So I'm going to treat you to a list of things prominent Democrats said before we went to war in Iraq:
"[W]e urge you, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"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." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. 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." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Democrats don't seem to be able to take responsibility for their own words and behavior. That's clear evidence that they are not responsible enough to run the country.
"[W]e urge you, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"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." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. 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." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Democrats don't seem to be able to take responsibility for their own words and behavior. That's clear evidence that they are not responsible enough to run the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
