There was quite a lengthy question and answer period yesterday with State Department spokesman Sean McCormack at his daily press briefing. The key quote is that the admistration now believes it is "more likely than ever" that Iran will be referred to the U.N. Security Council for resuming their nuclear research program.

I'll excerpt some of the press conference in detail because Mr. McCormack expanded on a question I had been pondering myself regarding the diplomatic option: Assuming we get Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council, what good is that going to do? You tell me if his answer makes you feel any better.

QUESTION: When you say this is likely to go to the Security Council, what is the goal of . . . sending it to the UN Security Council? Is it an effort to institute some punitive measures against Iran? Is it an effort to increase pressure on Iran to get it back to the negotiating table? I mean, what is the aim of actually moving it to the Council?

MR. MCCORMACK: Thanks for your question. As we have talked about, the goal of these diplomatic activities is to address Iran's failure to live up to its international obligations. Under -- countries sign treaties and under those treaties they say that they have certain rights. Well, along with those rights come certain obligations, to live up to the -- what you have signed up to in the treaty. In this case, it's the Nonproliferation Treaty.

The IAEA Board of Governors has found that Iran is in noncompliance with its treaty obligations. The goal of this diplomatic exercise is to bring Iran into compliance with its treaty obligations.

Now, what they say is that they want to be able to develop a peaceful nuclear program to provide energy for the Iranian people. Now, put aside the fact that they have some of the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves, and I think it's a legitimate question to ask why they need nuclear energy when they have all these energy reserves. Put that aside.

So what the international community has done, the Russian Government in particular, they have laid out for the Iranian regime a proposal that addresses their desire to have peaceful nuclear -- to develop peaceful nuclear power while giving objective guarantees to the international community that they will not use the activities -- their peaceful nuclear power activities to develop a nuclear weapon. That is what the international community suspects that they are doing right now, that for the past 15-plus years, they have, under the cover of a peaceful nuclear program, sought to develop, systematically, a nuclear weapons program.

Now, finally, these activities have come to light. The IAEA has a long list of questions concerning these activities. The EU-3 has grave concerns about Iran's activities. Russia has serious concerns about Iran's activities. We have gotten to the point now where the world understands that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. That would be a destabilizing event.

So, over the past year, the international community has come together. They have come together to try to send a clear, strong message to the Iranian regime to negotiate in a serious manner, to get Iran back in compliance with its NPT obligations. And the EU-3, as well as the Russian Government, have laid out serious, fair proposals to achieve that. Thus far, the Iranian Government has chosen not to take them up on those offers, so we now find ourselves in the position where, because of Iran's actions, it is more likely than ever they will find themselves before the Security Council on this issue.

QUESTION: But to what end? I mean, I know you said you --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think I just went through a long --

QUESTION: No, no, no, but -- I mean, are you trying to change Iranian behavior or are you just trying to cite them for noncompliance? I mean, you can do that at the IAEA.

MR. MCCORMACK: ThatÂ’s what this has been about, changing their behavior.

QUESTION: So -- but through negotiations or through punitive measures?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have sought diplomatic -- to achieve a change in behavior and still seek to change Iranian's -- Iran's behavior through diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: So you still think there's a chance? (inaudible) made a rather strong speech about a month ago to a university in Virginia, I forget which, and -- you know, he was quite -- it was a quite ominous speech, that they have one more redline to cross. There are reports now that they got 5,000 centrifuges to go. ThereÂ’s already platforms built for them and a nuclear weapons center. Do you really think there's still a way to keep them from developing nuclear weapons?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's why we're working so hard on this, Barry.

QUESTION: I know.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's why the President and the Secretary and a lot of other people in this government are spending so much time on this issue, because it is so important. It's serious business and that is, I think, the shared realization and the shared view of the -- many European countries and a number of other countries on the IAEA Board of Governors. That's why we're working so hard at this, Barry.

QUESTION: How does getting Iran into the Security Council further your goal of bringing them into compliance?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it is a diplomatic next step, Saul. They've already been found in noncompliance and the hope is that once they have now found themselves before the Security Council, that that would be an incentive for them to engage in serious negotiations on this issue. There have already -- as we talked about at length yesterday, there have already been consequences for Iran, in the fact that they find themselves almost completely isolated from the rest of the world on this -- most of the world on this issue.

You want to account for the fact that perhaps they have miscalculated in the steps that they have taken, their failure to engage in serious negotiations. So, the thought, again, as it always has been with the possibility of referral to the Security Council, is to send an even stronger diplomatic signal to the Iranian regime that they need to comply with their international treaty obligations. And the world will not stand aside as they drive towards building a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: But Sean, they did everything they possibly could to push it to the UN Security Council, because you said that if they don't come back to the negotiations, that's exactly where it's going. And they did exactly what they said they were going to do, knowing that you were going to refer them to the Security Council. So, what makes you think moving it to the Security Council is going to change their behavior when they knew all along it was going this --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, we have not gotten to that point, but if, in fact, Iran does end up at the Security Council -- the very fact that you are there, that they have crossed those lines that have caused the international community to put that issue before the Security Council, perhaps that is a signal that is strong enough to the Iranian regime that would get them to the negotiating table, in a serious way, to address these concerns.

. . .

QUESTION: . . . So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, the short-term goal is, get them referred to the UN Security Council so that they realize they've miscalculated -- so that they realize the international community really is serious about this and the consequence of that is, they go back to the negotiating table.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, our hope has always been, Saul, to resolve this through diplomatic means through negotiation, so that -- and our hope is that Iran will change its behavior. That's why we go through these diplomatic processes. The process is not an end in and of itself. It's a means to an end. The end -- the desired end is to change Iranian behavior.
[emphasis added]

Posted by: annika at 11:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1428 words, total size 8 kb.

I suppose I should be happy that the "new media" is around to do this kind of thing and keep everybody honest, but the following post at Blogs For Bush horrified me:

As of 3:00pm today, Judge Alito has already answered more questions than Justice Ginsburg did in her entire hearing.

Judge Alito:

441 Questions Asked
431 Answered
Answered 98 %

Justice Ginsburg:

384 Questions Asked
307 Answered
Answered 80%

So much for the Democrats' claims that Alito hasn't been forthcoming.

It's reductio ad absurdum.

Posted by: annika at 05:38 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

From The Houston Chronicle, here's a history of Iran's nuclear mischief:

February-May 2003: International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors examine nuclear facilities in Iran, which the United States accuses of running a covert weapons program.

June 2003: IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says Iran kept certain nuclear materials and activities secret.

November 2003: The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says Iran acknowledged it produced weapons-grade uranium but there is no evidence a weapon was built.

December 2003: Iran formally signs the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to allow more intrusive inspections.

February 2004: Media reports say Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan delivered atomic weapons technology to Iran.

March 2004: The IAEA praises Iran's cooperation but criticizes past efforts to mislead the U.N. and urges Tehran to disclose all information concerning its nuclear program by June.

September 2004: Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell says Iran's nuclear program is a growing threat and calls for international sanctions.

November 2004: Iran announces the suspension of uranium enrichment and related activities amid fragile negotiations with European nations.

August 2005: Iran rejects a European Union offer of incentives in exchange for guarantees it will not pursue nuclear weaponry. Tehran announces it has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan, and the IAEA calls an emergency meeting to deal with the crisis.

Sept. 17, 2005: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tells U.N. Security Council it is Iran's "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel and rejects European offer of economic incentives to halt enrichment program.

Sept. 24, 2005: IAEA passes resolution calling Iran's nuclear program "illegal and illogical" and puts Tehran one step away from Security Council action on sanctions.

Nov. 11, 2005: Plans emerge for Russian offer to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian soil.

Nov. 24, 2005: The European Union accuses Iran of possessing documents used solely for the production of nuclear arms, warns of possible referral to Security Council.

Jan. 8, 2006: Iran removes U.N. seals from nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz, effectively ending a freeze on the process that can produce fuel for nuclear weapons.

First, the upcoming March date for Mohammed ElBaradei's report to the IAEA. The report should determine whether the U.N. Security Council will meet to impose sanctions, however impotent, against Iran.

Second, the March 28th special election in Israel, which will form the new government to replace Sharon's, and consequently determine Israel's response to the Iranian threat.

Third, the date Iran gets the bomb. Obviously, the third date is unknown, and therein lies the problem.

Update: On a theme that's more related to the title of my last post, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said today that sanctions against Iran would be imposed only as "a last resort." Wait a minute, I thought "military action" was always the last resort. I guess the unspoken but logical assumption here is that a military solution is off the table for the Europeans. Again.

Nice. Thanks guys.

I'm not advocating a military solution, which has many problems as some of my commenters have pointed out. But diplomacy without teeth is always doomed to failure.

Posted by: annika at 12:54 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 4 kb.

Here's a good one:

Each of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council has told Iran to drop plans for new nuclear activities or risk being hauled before the body for possible sanctions, the Bush administration said Monday.

Although the United States and European allies have been sending that message for weeks, China and Russia are now doing the same, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

'We are working very closely with Russia, China and France and Britain on sending a clear message to the Iranians,' McCormack said.

This is exactly what the Iranians want us to do. They have no intention of negotiating away their nuclear ambition. Despite their double-talk, they've been very clear about that. I can't be the only one who gets this.

The Iranians have been very clear about another thing too:

Iran with the bomb = nuclear war.

Given that fact, nothing else in the news matters these days. Alito don't matter. Spielberg don't matter. DeLay don't matter. Kobe don't matter. Brokenback Mountain don't matter. Pink and Carey don't matter. O'Reilly and Letterman don't matter. Stern on Sirius don't matter. Pat Robertson's latest brain-fart don't matter. Schwarzenegger's fifteen stitches don't matter. etc. etc. etc.

Commentators all seem to be standing around, watching as this ship goes over the cliff. Or whatever. It's infuriating. I'd like to hear some intelligent discussion about what we should do about this big problem.

Update: More detail may be found at Arms Control Wonk.

Posted by: annika at 03:13 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

From L.A. Times:

The mine's federal health and safety violations had nearly doubled over the last year, rising from 68 citations in 2004 to 181 in 2005. Nearly half of the 2005 totals were deemed "significant and substantial," the government's term for serious mine safety problems. The deficiencies included problems with the firm's ventilation and roof support plans.

At least 46 federal violations had been cited since October. And records from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration indicated that at least a dozen roof collapses occurred in the last six months.

In addition, Terry Farley, a West Virginia mine safety official, confirmed that the Sago Mine was also cited by state regulators for 208 violations in 2005, up from 74 the year before.

Posted by: annika at 09:33 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Now there's a problem with warrantless radiation monitoring? How could anybody possibly object to that?

i give up. i really give up.

Why don't we just propose a new law next year to quiet all the critics? The Unconditional Surrender Act of 2006. It might look like this:

<sarcasm>

AN ACT

To restore the United States of America to the safety of its pre September 11, 2001 status. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I

Section 101 FINDINGS

Congress makes the following findings:

(a) Life in the United States of America was easier when we didn't realize that there were people out there trying to kill us.

(b) Protecting the citizens of the United States from future terrorist attacks necessarily requires that difficult choices be made.

(c) Certain interest groups, including the news media, are very quick to criticize any every action taken by a Republican president, no matter how sensible such action may be.

(d) The elected members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America lack the collective guts to do the right thing in the face of media criticism or opposition by various nut-jobs such as Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan and their ilk.

(e) By returning to a strategy of doing nothing and ignoring its enemies, Congress can invite a future attack on the territory and citizens of the United States of America.

(f) Such a future attack can be blamed on the President of the United States of America, thus allowing the Senate and House of Representatives to escape blame and responsibility therefor, and making it more likely that a change of political party control will occur in the executive and legislative branches of the government of the United States.

Section 102 SENSE OF CONGRESS

It is the sense of Congress that:

(a) People who have nothing to hide, generally do not complain about surveillance as much as those who do.

(b) People who oppose the use of the United States military are generally louder than those who support the United States military.

(c) Critics in the media, academia, and the entertainment industry will be satisfied only when the government of the United States gets out of the way of the people who want to kill us.

TITLE II

Section 201 USE OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY

(a) Effective immediately, all operations by all personnel of the United States Department of Defense shall cease.

(b) All personnel and equipment under the authority and control of the United States Department of Defense, and located outside of the territory of the United States of America, shall be returned to locations within the United States of America as soon as practicable, and in no event later than thirty days from the date of enactment of this law.

(c) Hereafter, the use of any personnel, equipment or assets under the authority and control of the United States Department of Defense shall be limited to either of the following:

(1) The distribution of food, medicine and currency to the heads of state, or their representatives, of the following countries only: Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Brunei, Chad, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. For purposes of this subsection, the phrase "heads of state or their representatives" shall include warlords and/or members of the executive branch of the United Nations General Assembly.

(2) The evacuation of American citizens under violent attack or after release from hostage captivity in the above listed countries.

Section 202 FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES

(a) Effective immediately, all diplomatic relations between the United States of America and the state of Israel shall be severed and all diplomatic officers withdrawn and returned to their respective states.

(b) The 1949 Recognition of the State of Israel by the United States, is hereby rescinded, revoked and withdrawn.

Section 203 HOMELAND SECURITY

Effective immediately,

(a) The United States Department of Customs and Border Protection shall be renamed the United States Department of Welcome and Transit.

(b) Every person located within the United States of America, or within any of its territories or possessions, either now or at any time in the future, who is not already a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed a citizen of the United States with all the rights pertaining thereto. Citizenship conferred to any person under this section shall:

(1) automatically extend to all members of said person's family, whether located within or outside the territory of the United States, and

(2) shall remain irrevocable in perpetuity, regardless of any criminal acts, including treason.

(c) No person travelling on a commercial airliner within the United States of America shall be searched or in any way impeded or delayed from entry into any airport terminal or airplane, unless he or she:

(1) is over the age of 70 years, or under the age of 10 years, and

(2) cannot claim ancestry from any of the countries listed in Title II of this Act, Section 201, subsection (c)(1), and

(3) is not carrying any weapon, explosive device or apparatus for remote detonation of an explosive device.

(d) No interception of any electronic communications by anyone shall ever be conducted upon anyone, ever, for any reason whatsoever.

(e) No person shall ever be arrested, investigated, kept under surveillance, watched or glanced at in a sideways manner if that person:

(1) is an immigrant from, can claim ancestry from, or ever spent time in a terrorist training camp in any of the countries listed in Title II of this Act, Section 201, subsection (c)(1),

(2) advocates or encourages any act of terrorism against citizens of the United States, or contributes money to any terrorist organization or enemy of the United States.

Section 204 TREATMENT AND INTERROGATION OF PRISONERS

(a) No person shall ever be taken prisoner by any member of the United States Military, or any agent of a United States intelligence service, or any officer of any law enforcement agency operating within the United States if such person has committed, planned or conspired to commit a terrorist act, or in any way taken up arms against the military forces of the United States or those of any ally of the United States.

(b) All persons currently in custody for the above listed acts shall be immediately and permanently released, without interrogation, and after a full meal.

(c) All persons so released shall be provided legal counsel, at government expense, for the purpose of pursuing civil recovery for torts committed upon them while in government custody.

i'm still trying to think of an acronymic title for this bill.

Posted by: annika at 05:01 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1153 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Two words: Fucking brilliant

Posted by: Blu at December 23, 2005 08:01 PM (hQHZ1)

2 A name for the bill? How about: "America Last"? or, "The Contract Against America"? Or, "In God We Distrust"?

Posted by: shelly at December 24, 2005 02:17 AM (6mUkl)

3 I hope you don't mind that I have forwarded this "bill" to every congress critter(I'm in Missouri, we talk like that!) I could think of!

Posted by: TBinSTL at December 24, 2005 02:52 AM (bYmT0)

4 If the Democrats ever get in, they will hire you to negotiate the surrender.

Posted by: Jake at December 24, 2005 06:47 AM (r/5D/)

5 i got one. How about the USA C.O.W.A.R.D. Act?: Control of Warlike and Republican Disfunctions

Posted by: annika at December 24, 2005 07:17 AM (TEscA)

6 Awesome, I'm linking it in my blog...

Posted by: Rob at December 24, 2005 08:52 AM (QFO16)

7 Annika, you fascist. I completely object to your proposal to provide Department of Defense personnel for the following activity: "The evacuation of American citizens under violent attack or after release from hostage captivity in the above listed countries." We absolutely, positively should NOT send violent military personnel into foreign countries under such pretenses. You're making the unwarranted assumption that the American citizens in the foreign country were peaceful people. Don't you realize that Americans in foreign countries are often threatening fascists, imposing Christianity and other Zionist movements on foreign nations? And you want to glamorize them by resucing these so-called "poor innocent" people? The governments of these countries are fully prepared to deal with problems within their own countries, and don't need Big Brother running in on some false pretense. And if the foreign government can't protect the American citizens, then...they were probably doing something bad anyway. With this one modification, I am fully prepared to support your bill, and hope it can be enacted soon after Kwanzaa. All praise to Doctor Oba Saint Stanley Tookie Williams, Ontario Emperor

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at December 24, 2005 09:38 AM (8Y5iE)

8 Annie, that's absolutely inspired! It's great to see you making the most of your brief respite from school!

Posted by: Matt at December 24, 2005 12:21 PM (mn52f)

9 How do I get on the list to get one of them there monitors in my neighborhood?

Posted by: Casca at December 24, 2005 12:43 PM (2gORp)

10 Casca, that's easy enough. Get a nuke from someone and store it in your back yard.

Posted by: shelly at December 24, 2005 08:23 PM (6mUkl)

11 That was excellent!

Posted by: Mark at December 25, 2005 11:03 PM (t4mqS)

12 Maybe you should give up. Nobody in their right mind is particularly concerned about the radiation monitoring. It was most likely dropped by the administration as a distraction. In your previous post you falsely implied that officers could not conduct electronic tapping without an immediate warrant. This is fasle, they had seevnty hours to get a warrant. They worked under roughly the same system as the DEA and the question is why police agencies were effective in doing this but intelligence agencies unable? Some reasoning has come out in recent speculations. It may be that the intelligence agencies were sampling huge numbers of messages looking for key words and patterns. These may have included many that were purely domestic. Obviously judges would be hesitant to warrant such searches. This would be a plausible explanation of why the administration claimed that the article was a violation of security. From a terrorist point of view the knowledge that agencies were listening in as soon as they had a lead with a 99.9% warrant approval rate within 72 hours is little different than knowing they didn't bother to get warrants, but if the terrorists believed we obeyed our own laws and did not engage in this mass sampling and data mining domestically though it was fairly well known we do it internationally then we might find a few things they didn't guard against. It is my suspicion that the terrorists are conspiracy buffs and do not believe we are much constrained by law. But I don't know. Personally I think the Bill of Rights is an important element of society, one which distinguishes us from other societies. Therefore I agree with the individuals who wish to study this more closely. You seem to despise this opinion, I suggest you go to a society where your idea of law and order is practiced. There are many of them.

Posted by: jen at December 26, 2005 03:55 AM (x/a7f)

13 You have built a strawman the size of Burning Man. I would suggest that you could address each of the issues in a rational manner, as sarcasm only works on those who already feel the same way you do. The "if you're not with me, you're against me" approach means all or nothing, which is not the way a democracy tends to work, even if the optimum answer is not perfectly achieved. Totalitarians crave more intelligence and power over individuals and organizations; libertarians strive to achieve greater freedoms, often to the other extreme. Each step towards a 1984 mindset is a step backward from democracy. However, a solution is needed. One way to reduce the turnaround in court-approved wiretaps would be to set aside a 24/7 judicial capability to provide instant review, tied into a collaboration system.

Posted by: will at December 26, 2005 06:17 AM (h7Ciu)

14 Since there are several active reactors within walking distance of my hooch, I'm certain that my neighborhood IS heavily monitored.

Posted by: Casca at December 26, 2005 07:49 AM (2gORp)

15 Jen, With all due respect, you have not a single clue about this topic. I'd suggest having a look at Powerline for a primer. In addition, perhaps you could provide just a single example of the type of country that engages in (Annika's) type of "law and order." Do you think these, yet as unnamed countries, review their programs every 45 days and confer with the legislative branch? Do you think that they put a self-imposed limited on their monitoring? And if any these country were trying to keep a program secret and it was leaked to the press, what would happen to the "leakers" and to the media people involved in publishing the report about the secret program?

Posted by: Blu at December 26, 2005 09:32 AM (hQHZ1)

16 im hopelessly confused by jen's comment, and i re-read it a few times before giving up. Here's an idea for next time: Topic Sentences! Try mixing them into each paragraph. It makes things so much easier for the reader. As for will, it never ceases to amaze me how humorless the left is. "sarcasm only works on those who already feel the same way you do" Yeah, annnnd??? Your point is???

Posted by: annika at December 26, 2005 11:43 AM (cTN3y)

17 Priceless. I don't jump into political topics too much, I usually let my buddy Rob do the talking. Jen, try spell check. It works wonders on those who have the brain capacity of a 5 year old.

Posted by: Eric at February 23, 2006 09:28 AM (PZk13)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mark Steyn:

These days, whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammed. A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammed Atta. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A sniper starts killing gas-station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A British subject from Hounslow, West London, self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif. A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.

Maybe all these Mohammeds are victims of Australian white racists and American white racists and Dutch white racists and Israeli white racists and Balinese white racists and Beslan schoolgirl white racists. But the eagerness of the Aussie and British and Canadian and European media, week in, week out, to attribute each outbreak of an apparently universal phenomenon to strictly local factors is starting to look pathological. "Violence and racism are bad," but so is self-delusion.

For more background on Sydney's problem, see The Rise Of Middle Eastern Crime In Australia.

Via A Western Heart.

Posted by: annika at 08:11 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Saudi journalist in London said this: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists,” he writes, “but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. ... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.”

Posted by: Jake at December 22, 2005 11:07 AM (r/5D/)

2 It's almost comical listening to the Left make excuses for the world's Mohameds--no matter how obvious the culpability while simultaneously being willing to blame GWB and Right for everything from hurricanes to the cost of gas.

Posted by: Blu at December 22, 2005 11:25 AM (hQHZ1)

3 Blu: After almost 50 years of holding the reins of America, the Democratic Party has become the dissident minority. The transformation of the former Blue Dog Democrats of the South to Republicans has changed the fate of the party dramatically. Literally overnight, The Contract with America and Newt Gingrich changed the course of America. Those who once held ALL the gavels now hold NONE. Can you blame them for being frustrated? Their ideas, or lack of them, have brought them low, and they refuse to believe that is is they who have caused their own demise, thus, it is necessary to blame someone else. The only place they can turn is to George W. Bush. They are desperate; if they lose the elections in 2006 and 2008, they will indeed become the PERMANENT minority. It is frightening to them, and they assume the stance of desperate losers. But the real losers are the people of America who are harmed by their obstructionism and foul tactics.

Posted by: shelly at December 22, 2005 01:06 PM (6mUkl)

4 While not every Italian is a member of the Mafia it is a certainty that every member of the Mafia is an Italian. Wanna bomb Sicily? You folks are simpletons of the most dangerous type: those that believe their own bullshit and are willing to burn the sacred texts of their culture to kindle the bonfires to incinerate their enemies. What's left when the fire is out? The extent that we protect the sanctity of our liberties in times of stress is inversely proportional to our understanding and committment to the ideas that make our liberty possible. Yours is the kind of thinking that has led time and again to the rise to power of the fellows that promise order and timely trains. Shelly, still wish Judge Luttig was on the short list? The egrigious crimes of this administration will not even be suffered by those professing allegience. Or how about the "breathaking inanity" of GWB's beliefe that ID be taught in schools as just another theory? He is rapidly becoming the Chuck Wepner of politics. Your wagon is tied to a team of madmen dashing towad the rim of the canyon and you don't have the sense to even look for the keys to you handcuffs. Good riddence to bad garbage.

Posted by: Strawman at December 22, 2005 01:12 PM (0ZdtC)

5 The distinction, though, Strawman is that nobody would argue with your clever little statement about Italians and the mafia. It is self-evident and only a fool would argue differently. In the case of Muslims and terroism, there are many, many fools despite the self evident fact of Abdel Rahman al-Rashed's statement. And as far as I know, the Italians never flew any planes into our buildings---(didn't you know it was those evil Jews who did that?)---nor have they committed themselves to wiping out Western Civilization. So, I feel confident that there is no need to bomb Siciliy. However, if any new intelligence shows up that directly links the Italians to 9-11 then I'm certain that we will have Sicily in our cross-hairs. God, you're an idiot.

Posted by: Blu at December 22, 2005 02:45 PM (hQHZ1)

6 Strawman: "Yours is the kind of thinking that has led time and again to the rise to power of the fellows that promise order and timely trains." No, your thinking consisting of ignoring threats or refuse to face reality that has caused the wars and millions of deaths. Europe and FDR ignored the threat of Germany's growing military in the 1930s. They refused to disarm Germany and even refused to arm to act as a deterrent to Germany and Japan. Thus Germany and Japan felt they could easily conquer the world. This failure of a Democrat who thinks exactly as you do resulted in WWII that caused 60 million deaths. When Clinton took office, Al Qaida was a gleam in Bin Laden's eye. He had initial successes against the US because of Clinton's cowardice and refusal to face reality. 6 attacks later with Clinton still ignoring the threat resulting in Al Qaida becoming a world-wide, well-funded organization. Because Clinton thought just as you do, Al Qaida has killed thousands and thousands of innocent people around the world. Democrats are only good at causing millions of people to die.

Posted by: Jake at December 22, 2005 04:37 PM (r/5D/)

7 Straw: Your gratuitous swipe at me drew no blood whatsoever. I never supported Luttig; I was always for Janice Rogers Brown (still am) and for several others not nominated, The Ediths, Collins, and of course Sam Alito. This war will not be decided in the courts. All the courts can do is delay and obfuscate the real issues. This war is being fought in the trenches, and we are so fortunate to have real men and women in those trenches, taking out the assholes one at a time. Were it only that you were in one of the trenches getting their skills applied to you on an up close and personal basis. The ACLU files suits and our boys and girls, the real ones, face the faceless enemy every day, every week, every month, 24/7. People like you are so concerned with their loss of power since the Southern Democrats finally admitted they were Republicans, that they cannot fathom losing the control of America. You root for us to lose, and rejoice when we have a setback. Take a good look at yourself, Mac. Do you really want America to win, or do you just want Bush to lose? I thought so. In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, "Suck my shorts".

Posted by: shelly at December 22, 2005 08:46 PM (6mUkl)

8 Strawman's mental masturbation about civil liberties tends to neglect the fact that civil liberties are meaningless when you are (ahem) dead. Good post, Annika. More please.

Posted by: Mark at December 23, 2005 12:46 AM (q4t6j)

9 Stawdog Must hate that goose stepping monster FDR who suspened civil liberties in WW2 or that Horrible Nazi scumbag Lincoln who did so during the civil war. Oh, BTW, ID is indeed simply a theory just as easy to prove as it is to disprove, so what pray tell would be so bad about teaching children that there exists such a theory which some people ascribe to? Only a radical extremist would call it a Breathtaking Inanity.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 23, 2005 03:38 AM (bEnmE)

10 Kyle, Just too dumb for words. Please give me the easy proof for ID? In six weeks of trial not one of the blowhard ID supporters could answer a single question concerning their attempts to prove ID. Not one experiment was attemted which could have an outcome that would support the "theory". It is not, you dolt, a theory. A theory has a hypothesis that can be put to a test, tested again and again. If the results match with statistical significance then we have some information about how the natural world works. We can then teach that description of the natural world since it will help those seeking the truth get closer tot their goal. Not truth, just a better undestanding of the natural world. Tell me where ID fits into this picture and rises above "breathless inanity"? And how GWB also rises above this descriprion. Shelly, You give me little room to sit when you tell me my options are only Bush loosing and America winning but that is like you give me my options and tell me I'm wrong . Your total vision of this struggle with the radical and hateful elememts of Moslem world, is simplistic and viewed through the yellow tinted lenses of DIck the dick President Chainy's glasses. I have never denied the struggle and the threat, although I don't preceive it as less pervasive. Yes 911 was a viscous thing, as has been all the bombings around the world over the last decade. Absolutly heinous acts of cowardliness. It is so easy for the RW to impune liberals as those who want AMerica to loose, or aren't supporting our troops, or doing things to give the enemy comfort but alas, it is not true, it is just the shrill debating posture of the side whoses only tool is a hammer and has a view of all problems as nails. You see SHelly, we disagree over tactics and stratagy and the definition of the enemy not whether or not there is an enemy. We disagree over the powers of the presidency and the value of what America can loose pursuing this enemy. We disagree over the motives of the men who are running this country and their honesty. You think raising a democracy is worth the new foreigh policy paradigm of "regime change" becoming acceptable. I don't. Was Saddam a bad man, sure. But talk like that is childish. Is killing 30,000 Iraqi's good? Is creating the playing field for a decades long internicine religious struggle in Iraq a good thing? Will a reasonable democratic government eventually be in controll of this country and the right of all the people and women protected? I doubt it. Will the establishment of this government lower the possibility of committed Islamic jihadists attacking America? Of course not. So whats the point? You think that whether Iraq and Saddam had anything to do with 911 and AL Quiada it was imperative that we retaliate and that Iraq was a good place to do it. I don't. I think it resulted in the deaths of far too many Americans and Iraqi's and was not an oppropriate place to confront the soldiers of Al Quiada, Yes, many Jihadists have joined the fray but SHelly, there are a billion followers of Islam on this planet, we cannot hope to eradicate those willing to become mujahadeem(sp). What we can do is create more or fewer of them by our policies. COnquering Iraq, IMHO, did more harm than good in this regard. True, those who come to Iraq to fight may be killed, and that's not a bad thing, but I think millions more are radicalized and will fight some day some where else. All in all a net gain for their side. I have a short day today and cannot get into all things we see differently but rest easy fella, I don't wish harm to come to this country or our troops. Have a nice holiday.

Posted by: Strawman at December 23, 2005 08:00 AM (0ZdtC)

11 Sure you do. You're just too intellectually dishonest to publicly admit your treason. After the first revolution we ran most of you people out of this country. That's why Canada is so confused.

Posted by: Casca at December 23, 2005 09:05 AM (y9m6I)

12 Sorry this doesn't have anything to do with the post, but...Merry Christmas Annika! Hope you and yours have a wonderful one!!

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at December 23, 2005 10:17 AM (Wz2Gp)

13 cASCA, why do you bother to put digit to key. (thankfully for you it doesn't take an opposable thumb to type) You are smug, angry and ignorant (I also wouldn't be surprised to discover you have stature issues) and with each key stroke you offer a new iteration. You are an arm-chair warrior who has sent no one packing except other peoples' sons and daughters with ill conceived policy, bad intelligence, and a cowards heart but hey, so has George Bush, our "breathlessly inane" commander. Remember Casca, the man to distrust is the one attempting to convince you of his honesty. The same is true of warriors.

Posted by: Strawman at December 23, 2005 10:23 AM (0ZdtC)

14 Strawman, You wrote the following: "A theory has a hypothesis that can be put to a test, tested again and again." In other words, others can take the proposed hypothesis and in testing it can come up with the same (i.e. repeatlable) results. Please send me a link showing where the hypothesis of evolution has been repeatedly tested time and again in a controlled setting thus proving the theory. I suspect that I'll be waiting...and waiting....and waiting. I'm not here to say evolution is absolutely not true, but those who believe it as 100% truth would be better served by showing some scientific humility. There are far too many gaps in the theory. While you may not believe in ID, the main intellectual force behind the movement, Phillip Johnson, pokes all sorts of holes in evolutionary theory as do a number of other competent intellectuals.

Posted by: Blu at December 23, 2005 11:43 AM (hQHZ1)

15 Strawman: Do you feel that adding a pejorative name to every person with whom you disagree adds anything to the argument? You don't know a damn thing about any of us, but I know that Casca is a man who has been in harm's way and who has a son who is headed that way. What the Hell have you done that gives you some moral superiority over those of us who have been doing positive things our entire lives? I for one, am getting tired of your treasonous tripe and this is the last I shall bother responding to your inanity. Why don't you join someother blog where the people think the same as do you, and you can find some reinforcement for your feelings? No one around here really agrees with anything you say, nor do we believe that you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever. I earnestly impore others who share my thoughts to join me. To quote one of my heros, Darryl F. Zanuck, "Include me out".

Posted by: shelly at December 23, 2005 11:58 AM (6mUkl)

16 Blu, It is a fools gambit to suggest that scientists think there are no holes in such a complex theory and that it is 100% complete. That there are no holes in a theory as far reaching and complex as "evolution", is not surprising. It has many facets and covers an entire spectrum of natural science. To poke holes is not hard. ALL evolutionary biologists believe the fossil record and genetic data is incomplete and the effects and influence of various forces are hotly debated. No competent scientist ever says something as dull witted as "100% explanation". Only folks like you who start an aguments by putting words in someones mouth. It is quite another thing after poking a hole to come up with a cogent alternative. ID is not it. As a non scientist judge put it, the arguments for ID were "breathlessly inane" and patently motivated by relious belief. He said that because competent intellectuals as you call them could put NOTHING on the table that made a bit of sense as an alternative. Evlolution is universally accepted as the best explanation availabe and it has the automotive equivalent of a door misfitting by 2 mm on a Benz 600SL as "holes" in it. If Newton could have recorded the changes to the rate time pieces record at differing velocieties he would have had seen a falacy in his theory of gravity. He would review his data, review his experiments, rethink his premises, devise new experiments, collect new data and on and on. But, if after all that he settled on the HOG conclusion, he would have been the first to tell you there is no test for god's hand and you are going to believe it on faith or not at all. Blu, the HOG theory may be what you need to sleep at night but don't go calling it science or insisting it be taught to my kids. I am, as are my kids, able to sleep as they wait for the holes to be filled or a new theory devised to explain them. You on the other hand seem to have the intelectual acuity of the Mayan farmer who worshiped the priest who could predict the seasons and told him when to plant his crops. Cave dwellers couldn't explain fire either. If it pleases you that god is the answer to the difficult questions of our existance so be it, just keep it to yourself. Please don't involve my school system with the promulgation of your primative desire for answers to everything instantly. I saw a good tee shit the other day. it said "Fine, I evolved, you didn't"

Posted by: strawman at December 23, 2005 12:49 PM (0ZdtC)

17 Who said I believed in ID? I didn't. Nor did I suggest that it ought to be taught in science class. (Perhaps, you had me confused with another person.) I just asked for some perspective from those on the other side. By the way, have you even read any of the arguments presented by ID? If you have, then good for you. But, I doubt it. To describe these people as inane is just plain silly. I'd love to you debate Phillip Johnson and demonstrate just how "inane" he is. Unfortunately for you, name-calling doesn't win many points in a debate. Interestingly, despite the arrogance of the evolutionsists, there are very few who are willing to debate Johnson. Reason: he makes them look silly on stage. Now, don't misundertand me, winning a debate doesn't make a person right. (See Kerry v. Bush) It is ironic, though, that the evolutionsists are afraid to stand toe-to-toe with him. Have you ever noticed that you have a tendency of over-reaching when you debate? And if you feel really threatned you like to bust out the ad hominem fallacy. Please, Strawman, engage in reasoned debate. Writing that I have the "intelectual acuity of the Mayan farmer" is not exactly the sort of argument that's going to persuade anybody. (Although, I am impressed with your willingness to denigrate a "conquered" people.) Bit of trivia for ya Strawdude, I have two graduate degrees, which I suspect is two more than you have. So, your bitter and presumptuous rants about my intellect amuse me. I've spent years in and around higher education. So, I've come across my share of know-nothing blow-hards, who can do little more than parrot the words and ideas of other, better minds. Generally, these types undermine themselves. So, keep it up Strawdude.

Posted by: Blu at December 23, 2005 01:29 PM (hQHZ1)

18 Shelly, The name calling and death wishes always start with Casca. When people tell me my kind should be dispensed with I get a bit testy. I am sorry I get baited into replying in kind. I do not claim moral superiority but rather I claim that I will kill others with great difficulity and rue the day I must. Men like Casca and yourself seem to me to be far too complacent with the entire process of killing and far too assured that their government knows best. Putting ones self in harms way in the cause of destroying the freedom of others or subverting the will of another nation, or enacting the deceits of our current administration is not going to get me to salute. It does get my sympathies. Whatever Casca did or whatever his son will do they did of their own free will with their eyes if not their brains open. Nobody twisted their arm and no Iraqi seriously threatened America. This was a soverign nation of 15 million peole, run by a dictator no worse than many we have installed or supported elswhere, that did not need to be destroyed to be given "freedom". There were other choices and You wish to ignore them and engage in the purile rhetoric of GWB. What ever happened to patience, planning, intellegence and subversion? Why does America think only with guns? We are men and have an obligation to moral standards, ethical treatment of our fellow man, and decency toward all, be they christian, jew, moslem or other. The political agendas of the lying scum running our country demand that we do something other than follow orders. You may call it treason I call it something else. I have no illusions as to what people around here think but what is the point of sharing my thoughts with a group that shares my thoughts? Pretty boring, right? I have in fact heard many things around here that have given me food for thought and I argue vociferously against many who find the whole idea of the conflict wth radical Islam an abberation. It is not, as I said to you before, we differ less than you think about this matter.

Posted by: strawman at December 23, 2005 01:31 PM (0ZdtC)

19 I win a big pot on two pair (Q9) against a guy in Houston named Mohammad--nickname "Mo"--who sucks a sa Hold 'em Player, but supposedly plays a decent Omaha game. What does this prove? Nothing, really, other than the fact that this guy is one of the biggest Donkey players in the Houston club scene and when he shows up I know I'll be leaving up.

Posted by: Roach at December 23, 2005 01:42 PM (FH3dM)

20 That's a damn good thing to know Roach. Shit Shelly, it's damn sweet of you to defend my honor, but there's no ground to be gained with the likes of straw. Truly, I'm sorry for deceiving him into thinking that anyone reads his bile. As for the rest of you folks, Merry Christmas, and the blessings of the season to you all.

Posted by: Casca at December 23, 2005 03:24 PM (2gORp)

21 Well, back from work so I will now destroy Strawmans straw arguments. You see jerk, ID can be proved just as much as it can be disproved, that is to say not at all. In fact ID does not go against the big bang, or evolution or anything else in science it merely says "It seems that an intelligence is as believable as randomness" Now, I am all for teaching children the TRUTH, and it is the TRUTH, that some people, in fact even some scientists believe this. So, that is what should be taught, that here is the accepted scientific theories, and some people think that randomness is not enough to explain it. If you disagree with this then YOU are an extremist and a censor. Furthermore, if you say that ID should not be taught because in your opinion it could NOT be true, then you are essentially saying that there COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A GOD, and science simply cannot make that claim. Also, you would be in violation of the free excercise clause since that would not be neutral in regard to religion. See, its all really simple if your mind is not dumbed down with extreme left wing hatred.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 23, 2005 03:57 PM (rSfbK)

22 Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah to all of you. But I once again implore you, "Include me out" was a wise thought from a great man. There is a time for everything, and it is time to enjoy our lives and what blessings we have, because thousands of our sons and daughters are on guard in the blowing sands of Iraq eating MRE's tonight so that we can be free from attack by these murderous fanatics. So join me in a prayer please, for each and every one of them, that they soon return and have the satisfaction of having established a democracy in the center of the most chaotic part of the world that will surely change history for the better. God Bless all of our fighting men and women, and God Bless George W. Bush, and may God continue to Bless The United States of America.

Posted by: shelly at December 24, 2005 02:31 AM (6mUkl)

23 Kyle, Please spare me. Your post does nothng but prove onece again that those who support ID do so based on their deep seated regligious beliefs and nothing more. Read a little by Stephen J. Gould on this matter. He is far better at explaining the falacies of your construction than I am. Also, read the New Yorker article about the PA trial (about two weeks ago) and you will clearly see the disparity between the reasonable sounding statements of the ID proponents and their real agenda. A blight on our school system is what people like yourself would inflict if your all to reasonable but religious arguments were allowed to prevail.

Posted by: Strawman at December 24, 2005 05:35 AM (LuOXe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mike Chertoff today:

I spent a lot of years as a line prosecutor at the Department of Justice, and as the head of the Criminal Division in this building. Many of the tools which we are talking about using in the patriot act against terrorists are tools that have been used for years in the decades against drug dealers, or people involved in white collar crime. And they've been used effectively and they've been used without there being a significant impact on civil liberties.

The question I ask myself when I hear people criticize roving wiretaps, for example, is, why is this something that we use successfully and prudently in the area of dealing with marijuana importers, but yet a tool that people want to deny us in the war against people who want to import chemical weapons or explosives. That makes no sense to me.

Why is it, for example, that delayed notification search warrants, which again, we use in all kinds of garden variety criminal cases, with the supervision of a judge, why should that tool be denied to our investigators when they're seeking to go into a house with a search warrant to see if there are explosives there, or other kinds of weapons that can be used against Americans.

[It's] Common sense [that] the tools that have been used without any significant impact on civil liberties in a wide variety of cases over the last 10 or 20 years, ought to continue to be available here against perhaps the greatest threat we face in this country, which is the threat of terror.

Posted by: annika at 07:27 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Germany has "secretly" released the Hezbollah murderer of an American Navy diver.

Apparently ignoring Washington's extradition request for Mohammed Ali Hamadi, German authorities have secretly released the Lebanese Hezbollah member who was serving a life sentence in the country for the hijacking of a TWA jet and for the murder of a US navy diver.

German prosecutors confirmed the release of Mohammed Ali Hamadi, now in his late 30s, to the Associated Press and said he was flown back to Lebanon last week.

Hamadi was convicted in 1989 by a German court of killing US Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem during the 1985 hijacking of a TWA flight diverted to Beirut. He was sentenced to life without parole. His sentence is one Germany reserves for the most serious and cruel crimes. It is difficult but not impossible to release someone who receives such a sentence after 15 years.

Two observations occur to me. One, this secret release is not so secret, is it? Nice to see that leaks are not something unique to the American government.

Second, this guy was supposedly sentenced to the worst sentence you can get in a place without the death penalty: life without the possibility of parole. Except NOW HE'S FREE!

That's kind of an argument for the death penalty, don't you think? At least in cases of international terrorism, where the continued earthly existence of the criminal becomes a blackmail opportunity for terrorists.

Germany, an entire nation with no balls.

Posted by: annika at 09:07 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Bush seems to have his own "no controlling legal authority" problem now. He's straining the war powers and the congressional use of force resolution to justify his domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Well, after one semester of Con Law, i think i have found a way out of this mess. Simply invoke the Commerce Clause. It means whatever you want it to mean, you can use it to do anything, and Courts love expanding it. Only problem is getting it to cover executive action, but i'll leave that up to Alberto. Let him earn his keep and give some good advice for once.

Posted by: annika at 08:19 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Christiane Amanpour delivered the Democratic response to the president's speech on the Iraq War tonight. In a nutshell, she said we're losing.

Other democratic responses included the following:

Halliburton Halliburton. Bush spied, people died. Iraqis flying kites. Need specifics specifics timetable timetable pullout pullout. No WMDs.

blah blah blah blah zzzzzzzzz clunk.

Posted by: annika at 08:03 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

In honor of Peter Jackson's latest film, here is some ape poetry:

Teaching The Ape To Write Poems

by James Tate

They didn't have much trouble
teaching the ape to write poems:
first they strapped him into the chair,
then tied the pencil around his hand
(the paper had already been nailed down).
Then Dr. Bluespire leaned over his shoulder
and whispered into his ear:
"You look like a god sitting there.
Why don't you try writing something?"

Posted by: annika at 03:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

This is beautiful.

Caught with their pants down again. You simply cannot trust the media to report the truth.

The media is on the side of the enemy.

Update: President Bush has now given four major speeches in recent weeks on the Iraq War. i see a new pattern emerging.

1. Democrats complain that Bush needs to explain his Iraq policy.

2. Republicans* admit Bush hasn't done a good job of explaining Iraq policy.

3. Bush explains Iraq policy in a major speech.

4. Media ignores major speech, but pulls one negative quote for headlines. ("30,000 civilians killed" or "Bush takes blame for faulty intel")

5. Go to #1, repeat cycle.

And in the meantime, everybody ignores the fact that Iraq continues to improve every day.
_______________

* myself included.

Posted by: annika at 04:04 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

1 There is no media bias. Just ask Dan Rather. You'd take his word for it, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Shelly at December 13, 2005 04:16 PM (6mUkl)

2 Right on annie, you're the best!

Posted by: Scof at December 13, 2005 05:02 PM (RDouC)

3 I was fortunate enough to see Bush's speech in its entirety, and the Q and A which followed. Bush kicked ass! He even used threatened Syria and Iran. Today I glanced at The Ft. Worth Star Telegram, and the front page was filled with dreck, including a story which could've been run on any day, but just HAPPENED to bump Bush's speech off the front page: "Iran-backed militia gains power in Iraq" Bush's speech rated a 1"x1" photo in the bottom right, directing me to an account of his speech on Page A15. The headline to the article on 15A: "About 30,000 Iraqis have died in the war, Bush says" The article, by Ron Hutchinson of Knight-Ridder, said nothing positive until the final sentence of the 5th paragraph: "Although the crowd of several hundred in Philadelphia's Park Hyatt Hotel seemed generally supportive, there were dissenters." Nice qualifier. I consider even the assertion in this sentence to be spin. On TV, a strong majority of the crowd seemed supportive. Paragraphs 6-11 covered the speech and the Q&A, then Rep. John Murtha made an appearance in paragraph 12&13. Paragraph 14&15 talked about the Iraqi elections. Typical MSM - shove Bush's outstanding performance under the rug. When OIF success becomes obvious, and the public figures out how badly they've been misled, their relationship to the MSM will be forever altered.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 13, 2005 09:33 PM (nD6Iu)

4 It is astounding that they have lied to our faces for so long, and now they just cannot understand why everyone is abandoning them for the alternate media. Here is a little secret that the libbies dont want discussed. A lot of them now get most of their news from Fox. The way I know this is that on any liberal blog they will go on and on about things that appeared on Fox the night before. They bitch about it but Fox has the best coverage so they watch.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 14, 2005 03:51 AM (5yVJK)

5 good point Kyle.

Posted by: annika at December 14, 2005 08:09 AM (b/90D)

6 And I had heard that they just read Annika's Journal and skip Fox...

Posted by: shelly at December 14, 2005 02:04 PM (6mUkl)

7 I certainly hope the REAL media is on the side of the brave and noble insurgents - I certainly am! Free Palestine!

Posted by: Kimmitt at December 14, 2005 03:14 PM (V2eAR)

8 Anni, You get twitier every day. There was no enemy in Iraq. We invaded and called the people who want us the fuck out the enemy and you have the audacity to split hairs with the MSM's depiction of 30,000 deaths? And, what? This sham democracy that's forming gives you a good feeling deep inside but 30,000 dead makes you angry because the MSM did not qualify that the Criminal said "citizens" which could include republican guard killed in their barracks, regular army slaughtered as they retreated, women, toddlers, infants, teenagers, elderly, and a host of others? This by you is a problem? Gosh, the enemy loving MSM chose not to listen clearly to our lying sack of shit commander and chief whilst he once again repeats his hollow pledges, purile simplifications about government, democracy and elections, the sorry state of the state of Iraq, the readiness of the "soldiers" we are training, and basically every other aspect of this criminal transgression against all that is decent and moral, and because the MSM has stopped buying this barrow of crap they are the "friends of our enemy" Would this have pleased you? DEAD Description 1,650 children between 5 and 7 1,125 men employed as shop keepers 2,500 stay at home moms 9,250 men and women over 65 27 men in american custody 7,345 women who held civil service jobs 5,345 children between 7-19 2,758 men fighting to repel occupation 30,000 total Your right I guess, anything other than this is a clear demonstration of liberal bias and deep unabashed love of our "enemy"

Posted by: strawman at December 14, 2005 04:16 PM (0ZdtC)

9 I went to hear Bush speak in Minneapolis last week. The new information I heard from his speech that Al Qaida has decided that Iraq is the battlefield where they plan to fight the US to the bitter end. He said he would rather fight them in Iraq than fight them on American soil. I agree. He spoke with no notes or teleprompter for 25 minutes. His eloquence surprised me.

Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 04:23 PM (r/5D/)

10 Strawman: 90% of the civilian casualties are from Al Qaida and Sunnis targeting women and children for execution with car bombs and suicide bombers. Bombers that are cheered on by the Democrats and their leadership. These bombers would have given up long ago if they had not had encouragement from the left. Your head butcher, Howard Dean and the bloodthirsty tribe he leads are more responsible for those vaporized children than the suicide bomber who pulls the trigger. At least the bomber does not live on to cheer the results as the Democrats do.

Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 04:38 PM (r/5D/)

11 Hey JAke, Who told you Al Qaida was going to fight to the bitter end in Iraq? I rest my case.

Posted by: strawman at December 14, 2005 04:55 PM (0ZdtC)

12 strawman: Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri has said that if Al Qaida loses in Iraq there goal of ruling the Middle East is lost. When President Bush and al-Zawahri say the same thing, I believe it.

Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 06:58 PM (r/5D/)

13 Jake, we all ignored the nut case from left field, and he went away with his crap for a while. Now that you have noticed his prattling and even worse, responded to it, is just like How Weird Dean and his merry gang of lost souls. You are encouraging him. Just ignore him and maybe he'll go away again.

Posted by: shelly at December 14, 2005 07:21 PM (6mUkl)

14 It's a waste of time to try converting us "Reich-whingers". Strawman would be better off finding women bloggers that share his views such as this one...... http://raymitheminx.blogspot.com/ She's bashed Bush on occasion and she often shows her T&A. I'm sure Tony Pierce's blog could hook him up with other similar links.

Posted by: reagan80 at December 14, 2005 07:56 PM (K9tdw)

15 I think Strawman's comments are great. I love Strawman, Air America, and all the other moonbats who promote the left's opinions. It shows how far off the deep end they have gone and actually helped the Republicans win the Presidency, House, Senate, and more governorships. Keep up the good work! Where can I make a donation to Air America?

Posted by: TheMan at December 15, 2005 07:04 AM (v/869)

16 Call Al Franken (if you can find him).

Posted by: shelly at December 15, 2005 07:07 AM (6mUkl)

17 > 3. Bush explains Iraq policy in a major speech. I've seen a number of speeches where his speechwriters employ the usual rhetorical tools that are simply intended to rally rather than inform. That's why you see a lot of; > 2. Republicans admit Bush hasn't done a good job of explaining Iraq policy. Now he has taken responsibility for the decision to go to war. Funny, I would have thought that was obvious from day one. I suppose that means that he is relieving Cheney from the pressure of having made that decision. There might be some who believe that the Administration did not steer the prewar Iraq intelligence analysis, but those 'some' are becoming a tiny, strident, increasingly bitter minority.

Posted by: will at December 15, 2005 08:09 AM (h7Ciu)

18 what percentage, do you think, is made up of folks who believe the administration did "steer prewar Iraq intelligence analysis" and don't have a problem with that?

Posted by: annika at December 15, 2005 08:57 AM (zAOEU)

19 Your question is a good one, but "steer" is not the best grounds for the question. Where there is no smoking gun, there are only educated guesses and probabilities. Bush looked at the available info and made his decision. Most of America has no problem with that. We voted him into office to do that very thing.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 10:11 AM (NS9sP)

20 The left complaint is really this: "Bush succeeded at leading us into war in Iraq." They are actually arguing that Bush was unfairly effective at the difficult task of moving the nation to war. They are arguing that the nation deserved for Bush to lay out the negatives more clearly, effectively undermining his goal of moving the nation to invasion. The left argument is illogical and laughable. Its also incorporates lies - especially the part where they morph Bush's assertion that we would definitely succeed in Iraq into an assertion that we would easily succeed. Bush could not move the nation to war w/o asserting that we would definitely succeed. That he said easily is a lie - although, by historical standards, we are succeeding easily. And that is not to take anything away from the incredible difficulty of the task. It is, instead, a compliment to our forces and our strength, and a compliment to the Iraqis for taking to democracy. That the Iraqis actually have taken to democracy - albeit an Iraqi style democracy that includes some violence - is the ultimate comment on Bush's correct strategic vision; and on his reading of the intelligence tea-leaves he was dealt.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 10:40 AM (NS9sP)

21 Recall the Senate voted 77-23 in Oct 2002 to authorize the President to attack Iraq. The House approved an identical resolution, 296-133 (the resolution became Public Law 107-243). If you have read the law (a big assumption I know for those who don't want facts to cloud their opinion), you would note the following section: "Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 199 , Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the Presi- dent ‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’’" ** Note the date of 1998 - I'm waiting to hear how then Gov Bush et al manipulated the intelligence during the Clinton Administration so Congress would reach this conclusion ** Also, Congress was well aware the law authorized the use of force "section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." "I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure. From CommonDreams (hardly a supporter of Bush to say the least). "It should also be remembered that it was the Clinton administration, not the current administration, which first insisted-despite the lack of evidence-that Iraq had successfully concealed or re-launched its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Clinton's fear-mongering around Iraqi WMDs began in 1997, several years after they had been successfully destroyed or rendered inoperable. Based upon the alleged Iraqi threat, Clinton ordered a massive four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, forcing the evacuation of inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." and "Clinton was egged on to take such unilateral military action by leading Senate Democratic leaders -- including then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and others who signed a letter in October 1998 -- urging the president "to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites, to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Meanwhile, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was repeatedly making false statements regarding Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs, even justifying the enormous humanitarian toll from the U.S.-led economic sanctions on Iraq on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction." and Even some prominent congressional Democrats who did not vote to authorize the invasion were willing to defend the Bush administration's WMD claims. When House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi appeared on NBC's Meet the Press in December 2002, she claimed: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There is no question about that." If you claim that the President "skewed" the intelligence, then why would the Administration allow the 2002 NIE, a primary source given the Congress to justify military action, to contain in the document a much stronger dissent within the intelligence community than any other NIE in history? Look at David Kay's testimony in 2004: "As leader of the effort of the Iraqi Survey Group, I spent most of my days not out in the field leading inspections. It's typically what you do at that level. I was trying to motivate, direct, find strategies. In the course of doing that, I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance. And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, "I was pressured to do this." The explanation was very often, "The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it." And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, "inappropriate command influence" that led them to take that position. It was not that. It was the honest difficulty based on the intelligence that had -- the information that had been collected that led the analysts to that conclusion. And you know, almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that. " I'm waiting to see how the MSM media report the Iraqi elections. Had some peers send aerial photos showing long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote. Pretty remarkable considering that the whole time those folks were in line waiting, they were exposed targets for terrorists. Some Americans would see that line and think “What a hassle!” Iraqis see the line, get right in it, and think “What an opportunity!”

Posted by: Col Steve at December 15, 2005 11:36 AM (pj2h7)

22 Will, You see, Annika thinks that OBL might have gone to Iraq and conspired with SH to cause tons of grief for you and me here at home. SHe thinks this because a traitor she otherwise loaths and has repeatedly called a liar, RIchard Clark, wrote a memo suggesting this was a possibility. Annika, quivering in her boots, was grateful that Clark didn't suggest OBL would consider going back to SA and hooking up with his family since that would have precluded Bush from acting. He gets all whinny and cranky without Prince BAndar or a Bin Laden shoving a crude oil slathered dick up his ass. But,lo, out of the loop/in the loop, Clarke said "Iraq", Annika was pleased, and Bush could continue directing the Prince toward his magic walnut. "Push overs", Anni said, (or maybe that was just Bush giving Bandar a hint) "me and my sig could tear Saddam a new one in two or three days" she cried stomping an 8 x 10 of Rummy hugging Saddam, breaking the heel on a new pair of 600.00 dollar Choo's. Surely, she thought, Rummy will have no trouble with these Iraqi son's of bitches. He'll kill 50,000 with or so with precision bombing and the rest will throw flowers and swirl cognac in our honor. And most importantly Osama will be rendered toothless in a desert abattoir like beef trimmings to tallow. (its a little mixed up I know but you get the point.) How's it working out Annika? Smell any tallow yet? So far as I can tell, it worked out really well. Only a few of the dead Iraqi's are voting today, the country is thriving;plenty of fresh water and electricity, oils-a-pumping paying back America for all it's help, kids are back in all new refurbished schools they now call Madras's and the artifacts from the museums are being auctioned off by Christies to buy arms for those pesky insurgents. Oh, and George is having a tough time sitting still but at least he isn't bleeding. "The President reads tea leaves not books" nice bumper sticker. THe fact that quasi intelligent people like your selves still think it was just our dumbass anal ysts (not George thank you) at the myriad of over funded but understaffed intelligence agencies that got it wrong, is astounding. Dozens of people who work there have come foward to say just the opposite, that the cabal willfully rejected contrary to invasion intel and cherry picked or badgered people to re-evaluate. I know this don't bother our hostess but she has other- worldly ideas about morality. Anni, if Clark had said Osama was potentially heading for Pakistan (where, BTW,he most surely is) should have we have invaded prophylactically?

Posted by: strawman at December 15, 2005 03:13 PM (0ZdtC)

23 these days, i always suggest using a prophylactic whenever invading a new territory.

Posted by: annika at December 15, 2005 08:30 PM (7mM+j)

24 Ooops, bad experience I guess. It happens to the best of us.

Posted by: Casca at December 15, 2005 09:09 PM (amHxi)

25 Pakistan is kind of arid. No one wants to invade that.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 09:52 PM (NS9sP)

26 Iraq, conversely, has the lush and fertile crescent between the rivers. Invading Iraq is a natural act - sanctified by God.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 09:58 PM (NS9sP)

27 Col Steve: Please stop confusing our leftist friends with the facts. It tends to make their pitiful arguments even more more pitiful, and thus, they cannot even consider reconsideration. In the future, please stick to rumor and obfuscation, in order to leave them with a possibility of consideration. I mean, a good rumor beats the facts every time in their world. Just be thankful that when the chips are down, there are more of us than of them.

Posted by: shelly at December 15, 2005 10:17 PM (6mUkl)

28 "Iraq, conversely, has the lush and fertile crescent between the rivers. Invading Iraq is a natural act - sanctified by God." LMAO...that is so wrong.....

Posted by: reagan80 at December 15, 2005 10:30 PM (K9tdw)

29 Let's see, if raping and beating young Australian girls who do not cover their heads or their faces is sanctioned by God, maybe invading Iraq is as well.

Posted by: shelly at December 17, 2005 04:46 AM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

An interesting interview with the one-time legend, now cranky drooler, Mike Wallace appeared in Thursday's Boston Globe. The irony of Wallace's answers to the first couple of questions was funny.

Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance?

A. What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?

My first thought was that most of these questions could have been more appropriately directed to President Clinton, or President Carter while they were busy [expletive]-ing up the country in ways that our current President is now trying to fix.

And then, after showing what a blatantly biased hack he is, Wallace had the nerve to wonder why nobody cares about tv news anymore.

The days of Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley are gone. People still do watch, but it doesn't have the clout that it used to have. I don't know what's going to happen or if there will be an evening news 10 years from now.

Then Wallace is asked who he admired the most, out of all the people he's ever interviewed.

Martin Luther King. . . . Despite the gratitude he felt for what Lyndon Johnson did about relations between the races, Martin had the guts during the Vietnam War to say this is the wrong war, the wrong time, the wrong place.

Look at the choice of words: "gratitude" and "what Lyndon Johnson did." Wallace doesn't admire Martin Luther King for King's Civil Rights accomplishments. He clearly thinks those were gifts from the "great white father," LBJ.

Wallace thinks the most admirable thing about King was his opposition to the Vietnam War!

i don't know how anyone can gloss over King's great achievements, what he did to bring real voting rights, end segregation and Jim Crow, and change the way Americans think about themselves, and then say duhh, I liked him cuz he was anti-war.

Go away Mike Wallace, you had your day. Now you're just irritating.

Posted by: annika at 10:54 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

Arnold is supposed to announce his Tookie decision today. He's not given me any reason to believe that he won't wimp out. i predict clemency.

Update: i would like to apologize now to Tookie Williams for predicting clemency. i should have known that i was probably jinxing his chances with the way my predictions have gone this year.

i suppose he can add me to the list of "motherfuckers" he warned at the end of his trial in 1981:

After the jury read their guilty verdict Williams, according to transcripts, looked to jurors and mouthed: 'I'm going to get each and every one of you motherf------.'

Posted by: annika at 08:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Ten Marines were killed by a roadside bomb near Fallujah today. This is tragic, obviously, and i'm exasperated that we haven't killed all them fuckers yet. But really, it only takes a couple of lowlifes to plant these bombs, and how many are discovered and destroyed without killing anybody? Yet everytime the enemy gets lucky, the anti-war media (who are on the side of the enemy) use the event to hammer another wedge into our resolve.

Here, Reuters Foundation Alertnet (i'm not sure what that is, but their slogan seems to be "Alerting Humanitarians to Emergencies," whatever that means.) chose to highlight the latest casualties by celebrating some past terrorist successes in Iraq.

Surprise, people die in a war. Civilians die. Soldiers die. Marines die. It's how wars are fought and won and lost. i understand the political reasons for not focusing attention on enemy body counts. It wasn't really a good indicator in Vietnam either. But i do detect a little bit of glee in these left wing media outlets, whenever some of ours die. How about a little perspective? How about a list of the "Deadliest Incidents" for the terrorists since we began kicking their asses over there? That list would be much longer.

But since the media is on the side of the enemy, they wouldn't want to publicize anything that might hurt enemy morale, or boost our own.

Update: Not all of the media is on the side of the enemy. Thank goodness for the exceptions.

Via Sarah.

Posted by: annika at 09:41 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

i'm telling you, i'm perplexed by the media. Why is this a story?

Since early this year, the Information Operations Task Force in Baghdad has used Lincoln Group to plant stories in the Iraqi media that trumpet the successes of U.S. and Iraqi troops against insurgents, U.S.-led efforts to rebuild Iraq, and rising anti-insurgent sentiment among the Iraqi people, according to senior military officials and documents obtained by The Times.

Posted by: annika at 08:19 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

The NE round.

[I]t is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: 'One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed.' Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as 'an awesome piece of ordnance.'

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: 'SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms.'

. . .

[I]t’s understandable that the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE in Fallujah. But keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, no matter how effective those arms are. In the short term, it may save some bad press. In the long term, it’s a recipe for a scandal. Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide 'we do/do not to use X'. Otherwise when the media find do find out – as they always do -- not only do you get a level of hysteria but there is also the charge of 'covering up.'

[The author is] undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up. Otherwise you get claims of 'chemical weapons' and 'violating the Geneva Protocol.' Which doesn't really help anyone. The warfighter is left in doubt, and it hands propaganda to the bad guys. Just look at what happened it last weekÂ’s screaming over white phosphorous rounds.

In 1991 it was electric filaments that were inhumane. And they didn't even kill anybody. This time it's the white phosphorous nonsense. Nobody ever mentions that we used white phosphorous in World War II. If it wasn't for WP, it would have taken us much longer to break out of hedgerow country after D-Day. The world would be a different place, let me tell you.

Remember what Dupont said (or was it Monsanto?): "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

Via commenter Shelly.

Posted by: annika at 11:11 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Is it me, or is the blogosphere deafeningly silent on this story. i think it's huge, no matter which side you're on.

Posted by: annika at 01:26 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

As far as i am concerned, there was one main reason Iraq was a serious threat to the United States. It's why Saddam Hussein had to go, and it's why Iraq needed to be turned into a U.S. friendly democracy.

The reason was, in the words of Richard Clarke, "Boogie to Baghdad." Byron York wrote about it in his most recent column:

In case you donÂ’t remember, 'Boogie to Baghdad' is the phrase that Richard Clarke, when he was the top White House counterterrorism official during the Clinton administration, used to express his fear that if American forces pushed Osama bin Laden too hard at his hideout in Afghanistan, bin Laden might move to Iraq, where he could stay in the protection of Saddam Hussein.

ClarkeÂ’s opinion was based on intelligence indicating a number of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, including word that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven.

ItÂ’s all laid out in the Sept. 11 commission report. 'Boogie to Baghdad' is on Page 134.

In February 1999, [CIA assistant director for collection, Charles] Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. [Richard] Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who 'may have offered him asylum.' Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be 'virtually impossible' to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and 'Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with' Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: 'Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.' Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.

We wanted to send a spy plane over Afghanistan, but Richard Clarke was afraid (probably with good reason) that the Pakistanis would tip Osama off, and he'd get spooked and leave Afghanistan.

Please note what Richard Clark did not say:

He did not say, "At least we don't need to worry about Osama going to Iraq, because as everybody knows, Osama and Saddam hate each other, Osama being a religious fundamentalist, and Saddam being a secular infidel."

The argument that Saddam and Osama would never have cooperated is not only factually incorrect, it's naïve. People who hate each other form partnerships all the time. Look at most marriages. No, seriously, what about Hitler and Stalin, Stalin and Churchill, Herzog and Kinski, Bill and Hillary, Ungar and Madison, Owens and McNabb?

The whole WMD argument is a red herring. The administration thought it was their "ace in the hole" when they were trying to make the case before the U.N. Now the anti-war movement thinks it's their "ace-in-the-hole." i never bought into the WMD argument, either way.

The flypaper argument is similarly weak. It's only a part of the puzzle. Alone, it makes a poor justification for the war. The main reason we needed to get rid of Saddam, and make Iraq into an ally instead of an enemy, was "Boogie to Baghdad."

The advantages to both parties would have made a Saddam-Osama partnership inevitable, especially after we kicked butt in Afghanistan. Therefore, it was a strategic necessity to remove the possibility of that partnership. We achieved that goal, and that's a fact that people tend to forget.

Posted by: annika at 06:31 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.