I wrote earlier this week about militants killed in a missile strike in Pakistan. At the time, I speculated that they were going after "high-value targets" (HVTs), and speculated that the attack may have been a U.S. Predator drone strike like the one that targeted al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2006.

According to Michelle Malkin, It looks like they may have targeting someone else, as noted in this Reuters article:

A leading al Qaeda member in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, a Web site often used by the group and other Islamists said on Thursday.

A banner on the Ekhlaas.org site said Libi had fallen as a martyr, without giving further details.

It was not immediately clear if Libi's death was linked to a suspected U.S. missile strike that killed up to 13 foreign militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan region this week.

The attack had targeted second or third tier al Qaeda leaders, according to residents in the tribal area.

Tribesmen in the area had said a deputy of Libi, a senior al Qaeda leader, had been staying there and was among the dead, according to an intelligence official.

It remains to be seen if any other high-ranking al Qaeda figures were among the 12 killed, and whether or not it was, in fact, a U.S. drone operating well inside Pakistan. An earlier AP report seems to suggest that possibility:

A resident said an armed drone may have carried out the strike.

"We could see a small, white plane flying over the village for the past several days," villager Dildar Khan said.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said he had no information about any missile strike.

The government often uses airstrikes to attack militants in areas that its ground forces and artillery cannot reach, but some of the aerial attacks near the border in recent years are believed to have been launched by missile-armed U.S. drones flying from Afghanistan.

Authorities in both the U.S. and Afghanistan have denied knowledge of such operations.

Sure they do. It doesn't make the terrorists any less dead.

More from Reuters, which also leans towards a predator strike in Pakistan:

An intelligence official, however, told Reuters on Thursday that based on information gleaned from tribal contacts there were seven Arabs and six Central Asians killed.

He said the attack was believed to have been carried out by a pilotless U.S. Predator aircraft flown across the nearby border with Afghanistan.

"The missile appeared to have been fired by a drone," the intelligence official said.

The Pakistani authorities have not confirmed the attack, and the Pentagon has denied taking any action, but the Defense Department does not speak for the Central Intelligence Agency, which operates Predators that the tribesmen say carried out the attack late on Monday.

Villagers saw two drones flying over the area before the attack. They didn't see the missile being fired but one heard a plane's engine before the explosion.

The same report states that in addition to Abu Laith al Libi, Obaidah al Masri may have been another target of the attack. al Masri was reportedly the leader of the 2006 UK-based plot to bomb transatlantic airliners.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

A current employee of the Department of Homeland Security, who spoke to Pajamas Media on the condition of anonymity, had this to say: "It is mind-boggling. I've sent personal emails to my contacts at ABC, at CBS, at the New York Times, and the Washington Times. No one is even responding to my emails. They call me back about other things, but as far as Sibel [Edmonds] is concerned, anything touching on that subject gets overlooked, gets ignored."

"Why?" this reporter asked.

"Reporters are terrified of the State Secrets Privilege and being subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. No one wants to wind up like Judy Miller — in jail."

What are they covering up? If Annie Jacobsen is correct, nuclear treason at the State Department.

Why?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

In 2005, Bill Clinton accompanied mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, provided dictator Nursultan A. Nazarbayev with a propaganda coup that undermined American foreign policy and glossed over Kazakhstan's dismal human rights record. For Clinton's trouble, Giustra walked away with shared mining rights to 1/5 of the world's known uranium reserves.

Clinton subsequently picked up $131 million dollars in donations and pledges from Giustra for the William J. Clinton Foundation as a result, including a donation of $31.3 million within months of the mining deal being finalized.

On the surface, this sounds like peddling influence for cash—and truth be told, I can't easily come up with any other rational explanation.

This is rather a bizarre time to be publishing an accusation of an incident that occurred several years ago, with only days left before Hillary Clinton engages Barack Obama in the Super Tuesday Democratic presidential primaries, and occurring just days after the New York Times publicly endorsed Clinton as their candidate of choice.

Are we to believe that the Times editors were unaware of the pending article on Bill Clinton's apparent influence peddling when they gave Hillary their endorsement less than one full week ago?

In a large news organization it is indeed possible that the editorial staff who wrote Clinton's endorsement was unaware of the pending Bill Clinton/Giustra article... but I doubt it. And it is the Times editors that chose when to publish an article that was not locked into a specific time-sensitive news cycle, but was, as they say, "evergreen." This could have waited until after Super Tuesday, without a loss of importance... but then it would lack the colossal political influence that this story now may have.

Publishing the Clinton/Giustra article on this day, so close to Super Tuesday, seems indicative of ill intent on behalf of the Times.

Perhaps Hillary isn't their real choice for President after all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:09 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Ace and a sarcastic review by Kevin D. Williamson on NRO's Media Blog, comes an article by Poynter Institute Senior Scholar Roy Peter Clark, entitled The Public Bias against the Press.

And yes, he's quite sincere.

He begins:

The public bias against the press is a more serious problem for American democracy that the bias (real or perceived) of the press itself.

This is a fascinating claim. Clark argues that a healthy degree of skepticism in the American public for (real or perceived) media bias is greater than the actual damage caused by biases held by journalists and promulgated in their reporting.

Let's look at a hypothetical example to test Clark's theory.

The War in Iraq is very much a divisive subject in our culture, and is ripe for the introduction of bias by both those reporting a given story on the war, and those reading it.

Featured on Google News this afternoon is an article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Thom Shanker of the New York Times, entitled, White House Shows Signs of Rethinking Cut in Troops. The lede of the article begins:

Four months after announcing troop reductions in Iraq, President Bush is now sending signals that the cuts may not continue past this summer, a development likely to infuriate Democrats and renew concerns among military planners about strains on the force.

In that one sentence there are two examples of unsupported editorializing caused by the bias of the reporters:

• that if the cuts don't continue past this summer, that Democrats are likely to be "infuriated," and;
• that concerns among military planners would be "renewed."

Neither author supports the contention that a further reduction in force beyond pre-surge levels would cause Democrats to be "infuriated," and an objective accounting would have noted that, time and again, civilian and military leadership have stated that they would determine troops levels in Iraq based upon conditions on the ground. All Senators and Congressmen, knew this from the very beginning of the troops build-up. Quite simply, there s nothing for them to be infuriated about [note: For a more honest look at what this actually means, William Arkin has a much more even-keeled entry on the subject at the Washington Post blog, Early Warning.

Second, there is no evidence that concerns would be "renewed" among military planners, as they knew before the first surge soldier's boots hit Iraqi sand that the size of the force on the ground after the surge was contingent upon conditions. There concerns are no doubt real, but the biased lede and the implicated that this something "renewed" or unexpected, is rank editorialism featured in a news outlet that has, by the way, taken a quite public editorial stance against the war.

According to Clark, my long-held distrust of the media—honed over years of finding factual inaccuracies and demonstrable hidden biases in their reporting, and doing so again here—is a serious threat to American democracy.

He would have you think that an informed public is a threat to democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he is actually lamenting—and is either (amusingly) too biased, too inarticulate, or too dishonest to share—is the demise of the media's role as gatekeeper.

It has become increasingly difficult for a self-selected group (in this case, journalists) to alter or shape public discourse by the selective filtering and dissemination of knowledge. We live in a newly wired world, with a much wider flow of information to be be shared, compared, and analyzed by almost anyone, not just editors and journalists.

Mr. Clark does not lament a threat to democracy.

He resents that his profession must now take part in it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:22 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 622 words, total size 4 kb.

1 as you intimated, it can no longer be ignored that the internet in general and the blogosphere in particular have exacerbated the public's distrust of the (old) media--clark and his ilk despise the fact that blogs keep a running tab on the biases and inaccuracies in the MSM, and have shown an admirable willingness to jump headlong into issues that the Old Guard has been reluctant to touch. i would very much like to see a case-by-case study done of how many stories were only broached by the MSM *after* online (read: "the public") forums had been discussing them for some while.

Posted by: j at January 30, 2008 05:49 PM (miTHt)

2 Bush did it.

Posted by: Snooper at January 30, 2008 06:08 PM (iiF+U)

3 Did you just link to Arkin? I remember what Arkin wrote before, and I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say 'honest' and 'even-keeled'. I'm not derailing the topic, cause I agree 100% with the central theme? I just don't quite get what you mean with the Arkin stuff.

Posted by: brando at January 30, 2008 08:25 PM (rDQC9)

4 Mr. Clark's assertion about the failure of the public to trust the media can be reduced to a brief dramatization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGWSkSqBdWM

Posted by: Zhombre at January 30, 2008 09:31 PM (OYgj4)

5 I think Mr. Clark just wants a world where everyone listens to and does not question the man on the TV screen. 1984, anyone?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 30, 2008 09:55 PM (HVE86)

6 Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. These are UN Sanctions and credit cards. 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

Posted by: JC at January 30, 2008 11:42 PM (KNudP)

7 Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. These are UN Sanctions and credit cards. 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name This is the start of an economic collapse and credit scores going down.

Posted by: JC at January 30, 2008 11:44 PM (KNudP)

8 Watching your demise take place in real time sucks. Clark may not get over it, but I will. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by: Pablo at January 30, 2008 11:58 PM (yTndK)

9 I just don't quite get what you mean with the Arkin stuff. Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

Posted by: Pablo at January 30, 2008 11:59 PM (yTndK)

10 That is one reasonable conclusion to a study of media credibility conducted by Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn. As a good Catholic boy growing up in the 1950s, I was devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. But no such devotion can I feel to the prejudiced conclusions some scholars and politicians have drawn from this survey. Q. What in the everloving hell is that? A. Evidence that Clark feels that fealty to journalism ought to be rooted in faith. I'll beg to differ.

Posted by: Pablo at January 31, 2008 12:02 AM (yTndK)

11 My colleague Rick Edmonds reminds me that many people who come to the press without prejudice form their biases after failing to recognize themselves or their values in the news. At which point they should be fired. Memo to journalists: The news isn't about you. It's about the facts as they exist...or at least it should be.

Posted by: Pablo at January 31, 2008 12:06 AM (yTndK)

12 Troop size was always determined by the civilian leadership. Perhaps you have forgotten that the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was forced into early retirement after saying that 250,000 troops would be needed. As far as needing proof that the Democrats would be infuriated, I find that a strange comment from someone who repeatedly talks about BDS.

Posted by: John Ryan at January 31, 2008 09:17 AM (TcoRJ)

13 As usual, John Ryan, your grasp of the facts is sadly lacking. Gen. Pace was not renominated because he would have faced stiff opposition from the Democrat controlled Congress. Here, read it from your own lefty mouthpiece, NPR: Gates said that until recently, he had intended to renominate the Marine general for another two years, but that after consulting with senators in both parties, he had concluded that "the focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past and not on the future," apparently suggesting that reconfirmation would meet stiff resistence in Congress. "I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them," Gates said. "However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform, and Gen. Pace himself would not be well-served by a divisive ordeal in selecting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Asked by reporters whether the decision had anything to do with Pace's conduct of the war in Iraq, Gates replied: "It has absolutely nothing to do with my view of Gen. Pace's performance." You should know by now that you can't get away with making up facts here like you can at DU, John Ryan, so why don't ya just go back there and leave us in peace?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 09:38 AM (HVE86)

14 Oops. That's what I get for posting without my glasses on. The blockquote in the above post should include the two paragraphs below the one that's already blockquoted.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 09:57 AM (HVE86)

15 Maybe Mr. Clark has a point to some degree. Your own example demonstrating the bias is misleading. Take the lead paragraph of MOST article and it will by itself tend to show bias. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to grab the reader's interest, not present supporting facts. That's what the rest of the article is for. The rest of the article (if read) does go on to state tensions between Gen Casey, GWB, SOD Gates, anon WH officials, etc that would seem to back up the statement about concerns of military planners. Basically, there were statements to the point that winning in Iraq is MORE important than the overall health of the millitary (don't read that as NOT important, just less important). Based on new statements from GWB and others, it looks like the possible outcome of the surge is to have a bigger presence in IRaw, so I don't think its wrong to summarize that there are "renewed" concerns about the strain on the military. As far as the first point, the NYT articles says "likely" not definitely and based on the Democrats opposition to the war and based on statements made by the President and the Generals in the past, its not a reach. I'm sure there will be some Democrats ticked off by this... Anyone can cherry pick facts to support their cause or agenda. IMO, maybe what Clark is trying to say is that cherry-picking facts may be dishonest but they are still most likely still facts (just not all of them or entirely accurate). When others criticize the reporter, they aren't typically disputing the facts as much as trying to discredit the reporter. Don't like the message, kill the messenger 21st century style. If you can discredit the messenger, no one will believe anything that is said. Thus discrediting the media, means no one believes any of the media...

Posted by: matta at January 31, 2008 10:22 AM (jRTMP)

16 Says Clark: "But I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance. In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media..." And off he goes, wrapping himself in the flag of journalism and crying that democracy is threatened. I concur here with CY. After years of swallowing 'news' stories spoon-fed by journalists, and raging powerlessly at the obvious attempts therein to shove public opinion one way or another, I say more power to those allegedly 'unprecedented attacks'. My three decades of letters to editors, mostly suppressed on receipt, had miniscule effect on public awareness. No doubt Clark approves. Clark says there have been two decades of these 'attacks'. Not having time to listen to media critics through the slow serial port of talk radio, I've only noticed cogent identification and exposure of media bias (almost always to the benefit of lefty Democrats) since blogs became well established following 9/11. Of course, having the vast Internet resources for immediate fact-checking (hat tip Ken Layne) of journalistic asses greatly enables those exposures of tendentious, opinion-steering articles. And I say, that if there's a threat to democracy attached to journalism, it comes from that self-righteous crusading by the journalists themselves. How can Clark defend it, when the red-state mindset and traditions (to put an extremely crude handle on it here), which are held by about half the population of the US, are habitually denigrated or excluded from consideration by eager journalists who are out to 'make a difference' via striking verbal blows on behalf of righteousness? Let him defend against the assertion that journalists (print and TV) are a self-selecting clique (oh, excuse me, 'profession') who do not practice diversity of opinion, and who do practice selective exclusions, and who do not put news items in perspective when numbers are involved. I say that they've made their own antidemocratic bed, now let them lie in it and shiver at the winds of (horrors!) exposure of their cherished biases. The good old gatekeeping days are being steadily lost to them.

Posted by: Hank at January 31, 2008 10:29 AM (YeWPs)

17 The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 02/01/2008 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at January 31, 2008 12:09 PM (gIAM9)

18 You people act like the MSM is owned by Joan Baez and Jerry Brown. Ever read the New York Posst or Daily News? Ever seen Fox or ABC ? All of the talking heads are moderate Repubs or Democrat s who have cocktails together in their expensive homes after they go at each other.

Posted by: chris lee at January 31, 2008 04:59 PM (qTV/d)

19 Chris, look at the relative proportions of left-leaning media outlets vs. right-leaning ones. Oh, what am I saying, you'll never accept facts that disagree with The Narrative. The Narrative is all, The Narrative cannot be wrong, so anything that disagrees with The Narrative must be suppressed.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 07:32 PM (HVE86)

20 That's sooo cheap and mean. What do you describe as "left-leaning". Define your terms. James Carville doesn't come near MY definition of radical.

Posted by: chris lee at January 31, 2008 08:08 PM (qTV/d)

21 If you need someone to define those terms for you, sir, you probably need to label your shoes so you can get the right one on the right foot. Methinks you are stalling. However, just to shut you up, try this report from UCLA... hardly a neocon stronghold. Or this one (.pdf) from the University of Chicago. There are many more, those are just two that my search turned up.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 09:44 PM (HVE86)

22 Don't bother arguing with Chris. The sky is a different color in his world. And he's flaker than a bowl of breakfast cereal. Just lean back and enjoy his entertaining, performance-art-esque displays of grade-A Lefty Crazy.

Posted by: DaveP. at January 31, 2008 10:12 PM (1AZTv)

23 I'm almost done with the cat toy, Dave. I just wanna give him plenty of rope to hang himself with.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 10:24 PM (HVE86)

24 Oh the irony of being talked down to by Bush/Cheney supporters about honest mediation and truthful disclosure.

Posted by: chris lee at February 01, 2008 07:27 AM (qTV/d)

25 Give em the dusk-orb chris!

Posted by: brando at February 01, 2008 08:20 AM (rDQC9)

26 Ahh, I see Chris has pulled out Lefty Canned Response #4B... SO predictable. How about speaking to the merits of the articles I gave you, Chris? Or is that too hard for you?

Posted by: C-C-G at February 01, 2008 08:56 AM (HVE86)

27 I like what Tom Wolfe said about the term "Liberal Arts"..it's rooted in Roman times as what you would teach to a "free" man..(liber)> What would you want a slave to think? Unquestioning loyalty to authority..the state, the church..Hopefully the press would have a bias toward "free thought, free speech, free inquiry, etc"..ok, let 'er rip guys.

Posted by: chris lee at February 01, 2008 11:58 AM (6x0Nb)

28 CCG..I read the first (UCLA) report but there is no way I am going to read through forty three pages on the PDF to wrestle with your point of view. First of all maybe a "free" people has a liberal bias in general..second of all I think "the press" means the overall big picture for outlets of information and opinion. I think any responsible citizen should check out several sources, investigate their owners and their motives and decide for themselves.

Posted by: chris lee at February 01, 2008 12:15 PM (6x0Nb)

29 @chris:there is no way I am going to read through forty three pagesHe didn't come here for an argument; he came here for abuse.

Posted by: Old Grouch at February 01, 2008 01:15 PM (LVagT)

30 The Poynter Sisters Institute?

Posted by: DirtCrashr at February 01, 2008 04:50 PM (VNM5w)

31 Chris, if a free people has a liberal point of view, why do so many lefties in the press try to hide their viewpoint? You'd think if it would help them with popularity, they'd be advertising themselves as the most liberal network around. Your reply, in short, fails the laugh test miserably. But then the Old Grouch is right... you didn't truly come here for a real debate, you wanted to sling some mud and are now probably amazed that you're getting your head handed to you on a regular basis. If you ever decide to make a cogent, logical argument, I may respond. Until then, however, I am probably not going to waste a lot more bandwidth on responding to you.

Posted by: C-C-G at February 01, 2008 11:41 PM (HVE86)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In an article previewing the possible damage to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a result of the Winograd Report into Israel's 34-day war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, AFP's Ron Bousso echoes a questionable claim about the 2006 Israeli War against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon:

It is expected to focus on Olmert's controversial decision to order a massive ground offensive in south Lebanon 60 hours before a UN-brokered ceasefire agreement was due to take effect on August 14.

Thirty-three Israeli soldiers were killed in the offensive launched just one hour after the final version of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was presented to Israel.

Major Tomer Buhadana was one of those wounded during the last 48 hours of war, which in all killed 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

The Lebanese killed were "mostly civilians?"

The Daily Telegraph noted during the conflict:

Although Hizbollah has refused to make public the extent of the casualties it has suffered, Lebanese officials estimate that up to 500 fighters have been killed in the past three weeks of hostilities with Israel, and another 1,500 injured.

Lebanese officials have also disclosed that many of Hizbollah's wounded are being treated in hospitals in Syria to conceal the true extent of the casualties. They are said to have been taken through al-Arissa border crossing with the help of Syrian security forces.

A UPI account noted that:

Israel failed to kill Hezbollah's top members, and the organization continued to function throughout the war.

But Hezbollah lost more than 500 men, even though it confirmed only some 60-odd killed. Israel identified 440 dead guerrillas by name and address, and experience shows that Israeli figures are half to two-thirds of the enemy's real casualties. Therefore, Amidror estimated, Hezbollah's death toll might be as high as 700.

Both of those links were pulled from a media analysis by Steven Stotsky of The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) which sought to provide an actual account of the Hezbollah and civilan dead, arriving at a rough estimate of 500-600 Hezbollah fighters among the roughly 1,000-1,200 Lebanese killed—roughly half of the total.

A December 2006 review of the July 12-August 14 conflict by the Boston Globe cited a total of "More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and combatants" killed, and of those, Hezbollah fighters comprised between 250 and 600 of that figure, depending on the source. The same Globe account also notes that the Lebanese government does not differentiate between civilians and Hezbollah fighters in their official toll of 1,086 dead, as it "can be difficult to tell a Hezbollah fighter because many do not wear military uniforms."

StrategyPage reported:

Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less.

Instead of "mostly civilians," the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 created roughly 1,000-1,200 fatalities in Lebanon, and clearly a significant number of them, roughly half, were Hezbollah fighters.

Bousso's claim for AFP that "mostly civilians" perished as a result of the war is both technically inaccurate and editorially deceptive.

Update: Reports indicate that Bousso was wrong on the main contention of his article as well, that the report was likely to be "a damning indictment of his [Prime Minister's Olmert's] role in the 2006 war in Lebanon."

AP:

The final report into Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon concluded that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not fail in his handling of a key battle and that his decisions were reasonable, defense officials said Wednesday.

It doesn't seem that AFP gets much of anything right, does it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 642 words, total size 5 kb.

You can almost hear the tears hitting Nedra Pickler's keyboard:

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voter's sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

Be strong, Nedra. You've still got Barack, even if his hair isn't nearly as pretty. That said, I wonder to which of the two Americas Edwards will retire...

Will his chose his $6 million, 102-acre estate in Chapel Hill, or his million-dollar beach estate on gated Figure Eight Island?

Courage, Johnny.

Courage.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:13 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:14 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

We've covered this ground before. For reasons they will not openly disclose, media worldwide are hooked on the possibility that Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama will be assassinated.

As noted by Mark Finkelstein this morning on Newsbusters, Early Show anchor Harry Smith broached the subject again in a conversation with Senator Ted Kennedy:

HARRY SMITH: When you see that enthusiasm [for Obama] though, and when you see the generational change that seems to be taking place before our eyes, does it make you at all fearful?

Kennedy understandably had no idea what Smith was driving at, and gave an innocuous answer about people's desire for "a new day and a new generation." But Smith's follow-up left no real doubt as to what he had in mind.

SMITH: I just, I think what I was trying to say is, sometimes agents of change end of being targets, as you well know, and that was why I was asking if you were at all fearful of that.

When you tell a man with Ted Kennedy's family history that "you well know" about politicians becoming "targets," the implication is unmistakable.

I'll send you over to the Newsbusters post to see how Kennedy responded, but after you read that, ask yourself this: What basis did Harry Smith have for making his remarks?

Such vague media assertions of a possible targeting of Obama have been occurring for over a year, and yet, when we actually look for evidence of such claims, they seem to have little or no merit other than other media accounts.

I've no doubt that somewhere in the world there are those that would rather see Barack Obama dead than President, but the media has failed, in each an every instance, to provide support for this apparently evergreen claim. They recycle the charge, again and again, merely by "knowing" that someone must hate him.

I know that I am certainly getting tired of their attempts to assert a mortal threat against one of the more likable people (politics aside) in this race, and wonder why more bloggers have not yet castigated the media for recycling the possibility of a threat again and again, perhaps goading an unstable person to act upon them.

This needs to stop.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:44 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Interesting...

Twelve suspected militants died in a missile strike on a home in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday, officials said.

The attack occurred after midnight in Khushali Torikhel, a village in North Waziristan, a tribal region bordering Afghanistan, an intelligence and a government official in the region said.

There was no immediate official confirmation of the attack. The two officials who spoke did so on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make media comments.

Pakistan has been trying to tamp down on militancy in its border regions, where elements of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are believed to operate.

Technically, the Pakistani military has the capability to launch guided missiles from both ground platforms (given the terrain and effective range, unlikely) and from aircraft (more likely), but considering the proximity to the Afghan border and the fact that the strike happened at nighttime, I would hardly be surprised to find out that a U.S. Predator armed with Hellfire missiles made the strike. If that was the case, I would not be surprised to see that leaked out over coming days.

Of course, if this was a U.S. strike, the next logical question is to ask if they were after any high value targets (HVTs) in particular.

In January of 2006, a Predator fired missiles into a compound on the Pakistan border in hopes of taking out al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy. The 2006 strike missed Zawahiri.

Could we have been more fortunate this time?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Would Mike Huckabee please do us all a favor and simply drop out?

Mitt Romney's failure to eat fried chicken with the skin on is nothing short of blasphemy here in the South, according to GOP rival Mike Huckabee.

[snip]

"I can tell you this," he said, "any Southerner knows if you donÂ’t eat the skin donÂ’t bother calling it fried chicken."

"So that's good. I'm glad that he did that, because that means I'm going to win Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma Â… all these great Southern states that understand the best part of fried chicken is the skin, if you're going to eat it that way."

Huckabee continues to be a disgracefully shallow candidate, who seems to feel that voters are equally as vacuous as he has shown himself to be.

Does Huckabee honestly think that his own preference for fried squirrel and Romney's desire to eat a more healthy meal are the foremost issues on voter's minds?

Implying—even in jest—that a region's primaries will be decided because of cuisine preferences is just the latest example of his inherent obnoxiousness.

The sooner we send him packing, the better.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:34 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

For reasons I'll never know, author Toni Morrison's endorsement of Barack Obama for President is the top article on Memeorandum right now. I typically put very little weight behind the endorsements of authors or actors or sports figures, but obviously, people think this is important enough to talk about.

The version of the story linked at Memeorandum is from the ABC News blog Political Radar, and includes this quote explaining Morrison's endorsement:

"In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.

"Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

"There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time," she concludes.

When I read the effusive "That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom," I gagged reflexively at the sugary nothingness of what Morrison said.

"That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom."

I can hardly think of a more hollow, nonsensical statement, which a simple comparison destroys.

I can think of someone far more creative, and quantitatively far more brilliant than Barack Obama.

Would you vote for this guy?

Brilliant, with an eye for the future, and certainly creative, why isn't Ted Kaczynski Morrison's choice for president? Was it the sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole that ruled him out?

Brilliance and imagination are great things to have, but they do not in any way add up to equal wisdom. Taken with other factors, these God-given gifts can contribute to someone growing up to be a talented surgeon, a gifted teacher, or a national leader.

These gifts can also lead to abject madness... or horridly purple prose.

The do not, in and of themselves, equal wisdom.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.

Hard to find. Harder to get printed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Certain progressive bloggers in their natural state of paranoia are amusing to behold, and the conspiracy du jour is no different, as one of the more excitable ones interprets an event during last night's Republican debate as evidence that candidate Mitt Romney was cheating.

Allahpundit has the video over at Hot Air of NBC's Tim Russert asking Mitt Romney a vaguely-worded question, and then someone whispering "raise taxes," to which Romney replied, "I'm not going to raise taxes."

Romney obviously heard the whisper and responded to it, but the origin of the whisper seems to be found at the network, as an MSNBC blog posted on the subject, and then mysteriously pulled down the blog entry without explanation.

As Allah notes, Dan Riehl is probably correct that the whisper was from an NBC staffer attempting to coach Russert into explaining his poorly worded question, and that Romney, hearing the question as well, responded to it. It is also quite possible that feed simply could have been picked up from another candidate's mike. Other than being a minor gaffe for NBC's technical crew, this should be a non-story.

Things, of course, are never quite that simple for those who see a conspiracy behind every, err, bush.

At democrats.com, Bob Fertik wails "Romney cheats with an Earpiece!" despite, of course, having no such evidence of said claim, and the slightly troubling fact that if there was an earpiece, nobody else would have heard it.

Of course, Fertik and fellow conspiracy theorists still insist that President Bush was wearing an earpiece during a 2004 debate because of a bulge in the back of his jacket. They can't quite seem to grasp that the most logical explanation is that the bulge would been caused by body armor, not an obsolete transmitter the size of a deck of playing cards paired with an earpiece equipped with a futuristic Predator-type cloaking device that leaves the ear canal exposed.

Fun guy, Bob Fertik. You'll know him when you see him, franticly searching the sky for black helicopters and Denny Kucinich's UFO.

Update: Rolling Stone seems to be watching the skies as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:33 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

Iraqi military forces are closing in on the northern Iraqi city of Mosul following a massive HBIED (home or structural improvised explosive device) killed 40 and wounded 220 on Wednesday, and a smaller blast by a suicide bomber dressed as a policeman killed the Nineveh province police director and tour others as they inspected the blast site.

"We have set up an operations room in Nineveh to complete the final battle with al Qaeda along with guerrillas and members of the previous regime,"militants the government says remain loyal to former leader Saddam Hussein.

"Today our forces started moving to Mosul. What we are planning in Nineveh will be decisive," he said during a ceremony for victims of violence in the holy Shi'ite southern city of Kerbala, broadcast on state television.

Maliki gave no details of the number of Iraqi troops involved or the scale of the operation. Defence Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari did not have details but said it had been launched at Maliki's request.

"Security is very weak there and the security forces need to be reinforced," Askari said.

As noted above in the article by Reuters' Aws Qusay, there have not been any details provided about the composition of the Iraqi forces or their numbers, but what Maliki and Askari state seems to indicate that the offensive may be entirely Iraq in nature, a claim I'm attempting to verify with U.S. military public affairs in Iraq.

Iraqi forces are "in the lead" in 9 of 18 Iraqi provinces with other province hand-overs expected in 2008, and during Ashura, Iraqi security forces led security operations that successfully protected over 2 million pilgrims. But outside of Iraq, "taking the lead" for security in 9 provinces and securing Ashura events simply isn't the kind of security success easily grasped by either journalists or the public at large.

If—and it is an "if"—they do indeed engage in a large urban clearing operation carried out exclusively by Iraqi forces, however, it would seem to be a "Virginia Slims" moment that the American public can grasp on to as a a tangible success.

For an Iraqi military that has been disparaged for so long, it would be nice to say, "You've come a long way, baby."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't expect this to penetrate to consciousness of those who bought the CPI report unapologetically and uncritically, they won't let George Bush off the hook, no matter the reality:

Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture...

..."He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

Once the invasion was certain, says Piro, Saddam asked his generals if they could hold the invaders for two weeks. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," Piro tells Pelley. But Piro isn't convinced that the insurgency was Saddam's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," says Piro.

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMDÂ…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

It seems like The Center for Public Integrity and The Fund for Independence in Journalism have some explaining to do...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:35 PM | Comments (86) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah all he would have to do is like build 3000 centrifuges and a couple of nuclear reactors and then spend a few years building it. HE WAS ALMOST THERE !!

Posted by: John Ryan at January 24, 2008 08:54 PM (TcoRJ)

2 John Ryan, you really need to invest in reading comprehension classes. The article says that Saddam wanted to restart all of his WMD programs, not just the nuclear one. Please, and I mean this honestly, PLEASE try to read before replying... you're making it far FAR too easy for people to make you look like a fool.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 24, 2008 08:56 PM (HVE86)

3 My understandding is that with Saddam we SOLD him weapons INCLUDING bio-weapons..he was basically an agent and client. Then JUST LIKE NORIEGA. ..He suddenly became public enemy number one and american boys and girls had to clean up the mess that the weapons dealers and for eing p olicy experts started. It was basically the same team by the way which organized the invasion or Panama that organized the invasion o f Iraq...sorry.. I am on my friends computer..lots of error.

Posted by: chris lee at January 24, 2008 09:18 PM (qTV/d)

4 Chris, got any, uh, evidence to back that up, or are you just blowing smoke? And, since it seems you're relatively new around these parts, let me warn ya in advance... attempting to use DailyKOS, DemocraticUnderground, or any website that proclaims "UFOS ARE REAL!!!!!!" as evidence will probably succeed... in producing lots of laughter and sharp comments, but not much else.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 24, 2008 09:25 PM (HVE86)

5 chris your understanding is wrong. the us NEVER sold weapons of any sort, and most emphatically no bio/chem weapons, to saddam. we did sell him dual use hardware like trucks while he and the iranians were slugging it out. and also during the time when attempting to work with saddam. you need to find new sources of information.

Posted by: iconoclast at January 24, 2008 10:38 PM (TzLpv)

6 And helicopters...a dozen or so. That's not information chris is working with, it's faith.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 02:15 AM (yTndK)

7 In the debriefing of Iraqi commanders in the field as the war progressed and just after, time and time again, they mentioned that they did not have WMDs in their units but the commanders to their left and right did. Hussein also had caches of WMD counter-measures, like shots to be given in the field, stored around the battle field as well, as we saw on TV as US units took areas. I have never been able to figure out why facts like these cannot sink through the thick skull of intelligent people.....

Posted by: usinkorea at January 25, 2008 02:57 AM (Fs2Et)

8 Saddam got Mustard Gas from the US and small amounts of bio-weapons from US sellers licensed by the US Govt.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 07:41 AM (qTV/d)

9 Chris, evidence? Where's the links? We don't just accept lefty statements without evidence around here.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 25, 2008 07:51 AM (HVE86)

10 That's pretty interesting given that bio weapons have been outlawed since 1975. And we haven't produced mustard gas since 1968. So what Chris is saying is that we licensed the sale of outlawed weapons and the sale of products that we don't make.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 10:09 AM (yTndK)

11 Got any proof of that, Chris, or just DU posts?

Posted by: Techie at January 25, 2008 10:11 AM (AV8Z6)

12 http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 10:12 AM (6x0Nb)

13 But, wait, if we SOLD them to Saddam, wouldn't that mean he HAD them? But, I thought that Saddam DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMDs? Cognitive Dissonance is a bitch.

Posted by: Techie at January 25, 2008 10:12 AM (AV8Z6)

14 Chris, I'll ask you to go back and actually read the Robert Byrd statements in the Congressional record at the FAS link you provided, for they do not support your assertion that we sold Saddam Hussein mustard gas or bioweapons. You have provided zero assertion for your chemical weapons claim (including mustard gas). None is provided here. Period. Further, the Bacillus Anthracis, Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, etc that were shipped to Iraq were not weaponized. They were biological research samples, theoretically intended for a university biological research program in Basra. You can make the assertion that it was a mistake to ship these materials as they could be used in the research and development of biological weapons, but to state that "Saddam got Mustard Gas from the US and small amounts of bio-weapons from US sellers licensed by the US Govt" as you did is a falsehood.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 25, 2008 10:41 AM (vxbTC)

15 It takes a true lefty to link to a piece that disproves their own accusation.

Posted by: Techie at January 25, 2008 10:44 AM (AV8Z6)

16 ...My understandding is that with Saddam we SOLD him weapons INCLUDING bio-weapons... That is a misconception. The vast majority of Saddams WMD technology came from old europe.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at January 25, 2008 10:47 AM (gkobM)

17 ....small amounts of bio-weapons from US sellers licensed by the US Govt... This hardly rises to the level of "we sold saddam his bio weapons". Given my job I could order small amounts of "bio-weapons" over the internet from US companies. This has been spun by lefties to fuel the myth "but we (we typically implied to be the evil US government) gave him his WMD". A more accurate characterization would be that companies in the US sold universities in Iraq research tools similar to those they sell to US universities every day".

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at January 25, 2008 10:53 AM (gkobM)

18 I concede defeat. All of these blogs are one sided advocacy sites, I acknowledge the invalidity of my viewpoint.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 11:00 AM (6x0Nb)

19 Your viewpoint can be whatever you'd like it to be, chris. But your facts can't. More on the subject here.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 11:06 AM (yTndK)

20 You see how several posts ago I was being chided for even suggesting that Hussein got bio and chemical weapons from US. What FACTS are you disputing. Saddam got chem and bio weapons from US and Euro sources..again my argument is that these thugs (Noriega) start out as clients and then American boys and girls have to go in and clean up the mess. I am only advocating a more rigorous reading of the situation than the "official story" I have no partisan attachment to anything, if you can supply with credible info on this or that issue it's fine with me.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 11:14 AM (6x0Nb)

21 I cant imagine hating your country so much that you'd resort to lying but I guess that's what far left wing fanatical kooks like Chris do. Anyway here are the real statistics if anyone is interested. As you can see Russia is first with well over 50%.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 25, 2008 11:18 AM (Lgw9b)

22 CapInf..Wow...I hate my (your) country. Let me know when you get the lynch mob 2gether. Classic.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 11:30 AM (6x0Nb)

23 You see how several posts ago I was being chided for even suggesting that Hussein got bio and chemical weapons from US. What FACTS are you disputing. Saddam got chem and bio weapons from US and Euro sources.. No, chris. Hussein got NO chemical or bio weapons from the US. Zip, zero, nada, zilch. None whatsoever. As has been stated, and noted in linked pieces, the closest you can get to that is that there we're biospecimens transferred, not bio weapons. These things were transferred for perfectly legitimate purposes, such as research and vaccine manufacturing, and we send such things to many places around the world to this day. Those specimens are not weapons. Your statement is false. Your facts are wrong. Is this a true comprehension problem, or willful ignorance?

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 12:06 PM (yTndK)

24 BTW..since we are doing statistics here..how many sons and daughters of the Dem and Repub candidates of age enlisted to fight in Iraq? any stats on that? How many of you on this board..I should at least find one or two..

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 12:07 PM (6x0Nb)

25 Oh, and I'd still like to know where you got the faintest notion that the US provided chem weapons...

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 12:09 PM (yTndK)

26 Changing the subject isn't going to work, chris.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 12:10 PM (yTndK)

27 Pablo puhleez..first of all you don't deny we sold them Mustard gas right. Second..a nation at war w/our enemy?..we thought it was for legit purposes only? Plausible denial you are right.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 12:13 PM (6x0Nb)

28 Pablo puhleez..first of all you don't deny we sold them Mustard gas right. Yes, I do deny that because it isn't true. we stopped producing MG a dozen years before the Iran-Iraq war started. What evidence have you offered to show that we did? You've given exactly one link and it says no such thing. Second..a nation at war w/our enemy?..we thought it was for legit purposes only? Plausible denial you are right. Were they weapons or not? You said we sold him bio weapons. Those have no legitimate purpose, and such sales would be completely illegal under the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. Did we sell him bio weapons? Yes or no?

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 12:27 PM (yTndK)

29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War ..for Pablo

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 12:36 PM (6x0Nb)

30 Changing the subject is still not going to work, chris. Where is your evidence that we sold him mustard gas? Where is your evidence that we sold him bio weapons? Where did you get the information that leads you to believe those things?

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 12:42 PM (yTndK)

31 He "knows" it. He "feels" it. This is the "reality-based" community.

Posted by: Techie at January 25, 2008 01:37 PM (AV8Z6)

32 chris, you have every right to hate freedom and democracy. nothing wrong with being an authoritarian. while your heroes are Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, and Castro, mine will remain Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 25, 2008 01:48 PM (Lgw9b)

33 pablo..did you read the link about wikkipedia? The chemical weapons part? CapInf..man, get real.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 01:58 PM (6x0Nb)

34 Chemical weapons According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.[56] In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[57] According to Iraq's declarations, it had procured 340 pieces of equipment used for the production of chemical weapons. More than half came from a US firm via a German company[citation needed], the remainder mostly from France, Spain, and Austria.[57] In addition, Iraq declared that it imported more than 200,000 munitions made for delivering chemicals, 75,000 came from Italy, 57,500 from Spain, 45,000 from China, and 28,500 from Egypt.[57] Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even met with Saddam Hussein the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.[58] The New York Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[59] The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: “The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it’s a devastating record”.[60] According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.[61] In May 2003, an extended list of international companies involvements in Iraq was provided by The Independent.[62] Official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, stated that 31 Bell helicopters that were given to Iraq by U.S. later were used to spray chemical weapons.[63] Iraq's chemical weapons program was mainly assisted by German companies such as Karl Kobe, which built a chemical weapons facility disguised as a pesticide plant. Iraq’s foreign contractors, including Karl Kolb with Massar for reinforcement, built five large research laboratories, an administrative building, eight large underground bunkers for the storage of chemical munitions, and the first production buildings. 150 tons of mustard were produced in 1983. About 60 tons of Tabun were produced in 1984. Pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984.[64] Germany also supplied reactors, heat exchangers, condensors and vessels. France, Austria, Canada, and Spain provided similar equipment.[57] The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee delivered 60 tons of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called Gulf War Syndrome. The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. The firm was owned by Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, an Iraqi-born, naturalized American citizen. Recent stories in The New York Times and The Tennessean reported that al-Haddad was arrested in Bulgaria in November 2002 while trying to arrange an arms sale to Iraq. Al-Haddad was charged with conspiring to purchase equipment for the manufacture of a giant Iraqi cannon, a design based on the Canadian HARP program. In 1984, U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stopped an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was placed by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad. [4] The U.S. firm Alcolac International supplied one mustard-gas precursor, thiodiglycol, to Iraq & Iran in violation of U.S. export laws but the U.S. Justice Department for illegal exports indicted the company in 1988 only for its illegal exports to Iran and was forced to pay a fine. Overall between 300-400 tons were sent to Iraq.[57][5] [6] [7] [8]

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 02:00 PM (6x0Nb)

35 Good post chris lee. Clearly there is no evidence that US government policy was to provide Saddam with his WMD. On the other hand it is clear that the Baath regime was an enthusiastic maker and user of WMD.

Posted by: Grrrrr at January 25, 2008 02:23 PM (gkobM)

36 "Know-how" is not weapons, chris. And let's keep in mind that you're relying on a freaking Wikipedia article with a header that tells us that the neutrality of the article is disputed and that it lacks citations for verification. I mean really, look at the body of the article: In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons.[20] (is this really a good source?) President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran." (but is this really indicative of 'support?)[21] The emphasis is mine, the bolded text is not. Authoritative? I think not, and it also doesn't say what you're looking for. But even given all that, the piece also says this: The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.[51] The helicopters were demilitarized, however, without weapon systems so they were technically not considered weapon sales. Cite something, anything, that says we sold him chemical or bio weapons. That is your thesis and you've offered nothing to support it. Your own link disputes your claim.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 02:26 PM (yTndK)

37 Plus recall that the Iraqi Army was equipped with mostly Soviet and French war materiel, from AK47s, to T-72 tanks and MiG fighter jets, whereas the Iranians actually had old US gear - M-16s, M-60 tanks, F-14 fighters.... obtained during the era of the Shah. So the Left's contention that Reagan somehow was the arsenal and arms merchant of choice for Saddam is a complete myth. He was armed with mostly Russian and European stuff, not American. Those WMDs were mostly built with European tools and delievered via Russian weapon systems. Sharing some intel and a small amount of other gear is not the same thing as "arming Saddam".

Posted by: John at January 25, 2008 02:26 PM (xgQeg)

38 Well in situations like this we will go around in circles all night. Believe what you will. If you want to believe ANYTHING the "Authorities" tell you go right ahead. I am just advocating an informed and vigilant electorate. You are right, the sources int the links (I) have sited, may or may not be accurate, but as a citizen I will damn sure check it out. "Good post chris lee. Clearly there is no evidence that US government policy was to provide Saddam with his WMD. On the other hand it is clear that the Baath regime was an enthusiastic maker and user of WMD." Grrr..I guess it's not the Central "intelligence" Agency..it's the Central "naivete" Agency...

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 02:38 PM (6x0Nb)

39 You are right, the sources int the links (I) have sited, may or may not be accurate, but as a citizen I will damn sure check it out. That should come before presuming to have the facts. We don't need to go around and around. The transactions have been discussed with references cited. The material transferred has been quantified. There was NO sale of chem or bio weapons by the US to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That is not an opinion or a point of view. It is a fact. Pesky things, those facts.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 02:48 PM (yTndK)

40 Oh, and it doesn't matter if your cites are accurate or not because they don't claim such weapons sales were made.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 02:50 PM (yTndK)

41 But Pablo, to left wing nut jobs like chris it's how they "feel." If they feel the U.S. gave Saddam weapons than it just has to be true, facts be damned.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 25, 2008 03:18 PM (Lgw9b)

42 This is also what the Iraqi Perspectives project said like two years ago. Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents http://www.bothinonetrench.com

Posted by: Ray Robison at January 25, 2008 03:18 PM (Cgo1/)

43 I have been asked to cite sources for the foundation for my opinion. I have done so. My question is if convinced of the certitude of this administration's policies how many of the scion of Republican (and Democrat for that matter) major candidates have even CONSIDERED enlisting?

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 03:25 PM (6x0Nb)

44 CapInf..to my knowledge, Pablo doesn't agree with my point of view but he has refrained from inflammatory name calling. Presumably he respects the rules and courtesies of political debate. I have always admired the way William F Buckley Jr could have Allen Ginsburg or Eleanor Holmes Norton on his program and still be quite the gentleman (Gore Vidal got under his skin though). I wonder how people like you justify your mean spiritedness as you supposedly represent the liberal (oops) humanist Christian viewpoint of Conservative politics.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 03:36 PM (6x0Nb)

45 I have been asked to cite sources for the foundation for my opinion. I have done so. And your sources do not support your opinion. Of the two you've offered, one of them flatly contradicts it. Do you see the problem here? As for the "chickenhawk" inference, one does not sacrifice one's children to the military in support of one's position. Adults choose to join, or don't. And John McCain has 2 sons in.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 04:34 PM (yTndK)

46 Pablo.."The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee delivered 60 tons of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called Gulf War Syndrome. The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. The firm was owned by Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, an Iraqi-born, naturalized American citizen. Recent stories in The New York Times and The Tennessean reported that al-Haddad was arrested in Bulgaria in November 2002 while trying to arrange an arms sale to Iraq. Al-Haddad was charged with conspiring to purchase equipment for the manufacture of a giant Iraqi cannon, a design based on the Canadian HARP program. In 1984, U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stopped an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was placed by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad. [4] The U.S. firm Alcolac International supplied one mustard-gas precursor, thiodiglycol, to Iraq & Iran in violation of U.S. export laws but the U.S. Justice Department for illegal exports indicted the company in 1988 only for its illegal exports to Iran and was forced to pay a fine. Overall between 300-400 tons were sent to Iraq.[57][5] [6] [7] [8] According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.[56]" I say they do you say they don't . I can find more but this is going nowhere.

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 04:41 PM (6x0Nb)

47 Chris: Yes, I tried to enlist in the Navy. I am ineligible due to a disability. What reason do you give for not protecting your nation?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 25, 2008 04:50 PM (Ty2RL)

48 I don't believe this is a war of necessity. It's a campaign of choice. A geopolitical calculation rather than an urgent defense of our New York or California border. Your neighbors will soon be more concerned with who wins Giants/Patriots than whether or not Sunni/Shiite come to some sort of political reconciliation. And like many in this country I just plain don't believe Bush/Cheney ( Wolfowitz, Kristol, Bendar, Unocal, Murdoch, etc)

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 05:00 PM (6x0Nb)

49 of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin...one mustard-gas precursor, thiodiglycol... Not weapons. Chemicals that can be used to make weapons. You like Wiki? Let's Wiki DMMP: The primary commercial use of dimethyl methylphosphonate is as a flame retardant. Other commercial uses are a preignition additive for gasoline, anti-foaming agent, plasticizer, stabilizer, textile conditioner, antistatic agent, and an additive for solvents and low-temperature hydraulic fluids. It can be used as a catalyst and a reagent in organic synthesis, as it can generate a highly reactive ylide. The yearly production in the United States varies between 91,000 and 910,000 kilograms. Now let's look at Thiodiglycol Thiodiglycol, or bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide, is a viscous, clear to pale-yellow liquid used as a solvent. Its chemical formula is C4H10O2S, or HOCH2CH2SCH2CH2OH. It is miscible with acetone, alcohols, and chloroform. It is soluble in benzene, ether, and tetrachloromethane. Thiodiglycol is manufactured by reaction of 2-chloroethanol with sodium sulfide. It is structurally similar to diethylene glycol. Thiodiglycol has both polar and nonpolar solvent properties. It is used as a solvent in a variety of applications ranging from dyeing textiles to inks in some ballpoint pens. In chemical synthesis, it is used as a building block for protection products, dispersants, fibers, plasticizers, rubber accelerators, pesticides, dyes, and various other organic chemicals. In the manufacture of polymers, it is used as a chain transfer agent. As an antioxidant, it is used as an additive in lubricants. Do those look like chemical weapons to you, chris? Did you know that you can make chemicals weapons from chlorine? Is anyone who sells chlorine selling chemical weapons?

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 05:45 PM (yTndK)

50 Nice diatribe, Chris. Now, why are you not defending your country? You asked us, so it is fair for us to ask you. Or do we have a double standard here?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 25, 2008 06:13 PM (ZSqgS)

51 Oh, and there's this: The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. So, that equals "The US did it." how, exactly? That's like saying that American Airlines was behind the WTC attacks of 9/11.

Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 06:33 PM (yTndK)

52 Tell me chris how can we have any kind of political discourse when you intentionally lie? Even your own "source" proved you lied.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 25, 2008 07:03 PM (Lgw9b)

53 Cap, that's what BDS sufferers call "political discourse"--seeing who can come up with the best "Bush did it!" lie.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 25, 2008 07:41 PM (HVE86)

54 Chris, If you have to have served to support war,does that make Bill Clinton a chicken hawk war criminal for Bosnia,bombing Iraq/Afghanistan. I guess that makes Hillary,Obama,and Edwards ineligible to become Commander and Chief since they have no military experience. Do you support the police,fire Dept. If you are not a police officer and a fireman then you can't say you really support them now can you. Saying I won't fight because I don't support the war is just liberal speak for: "I choose to let other people do my fighting for me while I sit back and whine and complain." Don't you have a recruiting station to vandalize or some Soldiers to yell "Baby killer" at you need to get back to?

Posted by: Baxter Greene at January 25, 2008 10:32 PM (e1VWc)

55 I..I don't know what to say. I guess you are right...when the gubmint says it's so it must be so ....I concede. There is n o such thing as "pl ausible deniability" and "four legs good two legs baaaad."

Posted by: chris lee at January 25, 2008 11:00 PM (qTV/d)

56 Chris, such childish comments are beneath a serious debater. If one honestly loses a debate, Grasshopper, the wise man admits his mistake(s) and learns from them. It is when one admits "I do not know" that true learning begins.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 25, 2008 11:49 PM (HVE86)

57 I have lost the debate? Because someone pointed out that those sophisticated chemicals COULD have been used for non-martial purposes even though they were sold to a country currently at war with our enemy and know n to b e ussing chemical weaapons? Plausible deniability. I wasn't THERE so I dont KNOW what actual deal was strucck . I do know that this administration has been proven to have misled this country whether intntionally or not.

Posted by: chris lee at January 26, 2008 08:17 AM (qTV/d)

58 Where's the part where the government says so? That's your link we're working with, chris. This is your 'proof'. And did you miss the part about Al Haddad being an Iraqi front company? Why wouldn't we sell perfectly legal items to a country not under any sort of sanction? And why do you assume that we should have assumed that chemical with dozens of legitimate uses would be used for WMD? Under what legal authority do you suggest that those sales should have been banned? And would you have a problem if an American company was selling chlorine to Iraq?

Posted by: Pablo at January 26, 2008 08:39 AM (xr+gF)

59 BTW, are you conceding that those are not weapons, chris?

Posted by: Pablo at January 26, 2008 08:48 AM (xr+gF)

60 Yes Pablo at this moment I am concedding that the US would not have sold weaponized chemical or biological agents to Saddam Hussein. Rather I am concedeing that the sources I cited don't prove that that was the case. Yes we sold the ingredients, yes we sold the theory,yes we knew Hussein was using chemical weapons but we DDIID NOT sell it weaponized.

Posted by: chris lee at January 26, 2008 09:59 AM (qTV/d)

61 Chris, an unprovable point is useless. I might proclaim at the top of my voice that there is intelligent life on Pluto, but with no proof, of what value is my conviction that I am right? Reasonable people work from facts to form theories, not come up with a theory and then dig around for facts to support it. Are you a reasonable person, Chris?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 26, 2008 10:04 AM (HVE86)

62 Senator McCain's son, Jimmy, enlisted as a Marine, and is now serving in Iraq or recently served in Iraq. So does this mean you'll vote for him, Chris? Because according to you, only those who run for office and have scion who enlisted have any gravitas in all matters of war. Or did I misunderstand your point?? Quoting sources that are acknowledged as biased, inaccurate, and misleading provides no credibility for your arguments. I just came back from the Sundance Film Festival were a humorous short film titled "Fact Checkers Unit" screened. Fact Checkers Unitis a spoof on CSI: it's about Fact Checkers who take their job as seriously as a homicide investigator. You can view it on you-tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPo9sCqza98 When asked where a certain "fact" came from, the reply was " wiki pedia".The fact checkers almost become apoplectic. "Wikipedia: That's a user generated site, it could have been generated by a 7 yr old" That sums up the reality of Wikipedia rather honestly! You made a statement you claim IS fact - and then used a wikipedia piece as your substantiate that "fact" - a piece that wiki concedes is seriously flawed and cannot be taken at face value. Schaudenfrade, anyone?! If you had any understanding of the complex nature of international relations and geo-politics, Chris, you'd recognize how erroneous the conclusions are that you draw. They are born not only of a lack of knowledge about complex nature int'l relations, but of a strong bias that filters what you read and interpret. I say this kindly.I am a card carrying Democrat, I lean left on more issues than I lean right. But NOT when it comes the war on terrorism. Yet I do not give this administration a pass for a badly executed, badly thought out war. Likewise I won't give you a pass for erroneous assumptions that you claim as facts, and I won't give you a pass for using admittedly questionable sources to support your argument, or your inability to understand the subtle but important difference between providing an ally with samples for medical research, vs providing them with samples to create bio weapons!! You can only fight a war based on the threat that exists at that moment in time. You cannot fight it based on future that you have no way of knowing may come to pass. That was the lesson expressed in "Charlie Wilson's War". We supported Afghanistan in their fight against Russia because the spread of communism was our biggest threat at that time. Did our noble achievement in Afghanistan indirectly set into motion the events of 9/11? Some would argue; YES. Douglas Adams and I would call this a holistic causation. But regardless, at THAT time STOPPING the spread of communism was paramount for both the US and EUROPE. Charlie Wilson's war was a noble one! Likewise, we can be friendly with a country when it doesn't seek to destroy us, or our allies. Years later, that friendship may prove fatal. But during the 1980's the friendship with Iraq was paramount to our nations interest and security! The bio sample transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war with Iran. Iraq was not our enemy at that time. We had no reason to believe they were lying about the use of those bio samples. Was it naive of us to believe Saddam.It's easy to say YES NOW that Iraq has admitted they used the toxins not as intended but for biological weapons. But at that time, IRAQ was not our enemy, so we gave them the benefit of the doubt. That's all part and parcel of the complex realities of international relations. However that fact that Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three lends alot of support to the WMD reasoning for ousting Saddam!!

Posted by: Huntress at January 26, 2008 02:30 PM (SfNIo)

63 Yet I do not give this administration a pass for a badly executed, badly thought out war. I am a card-carrying Republican and self-described conservative, and I take issue with some of the incredible blunders we've had in this war, as well. Of course, it must be said that blunders happen in every war. The Battle of the Bulge is one of the most famous examples... it never would have happened if there hadn't been several miscalculations made.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 26, 2008 04:05 PM (HVE86)

64 My original statement was "My understanding is that we sold biological and chemical weapons to Saddam." I didn't GET that idea from Wikkipedia-incidentally they have that disclaimer on MANY of their entries. I just referred to it and another link in the process of posting on public access blog. YOUR post at the moment makes me modify my understanding to ..We apparently sold him the ingredients, the know how and other military hardware but did not supply weaponized chemical or biological agents, somehow the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department apparently had no idea that he would use those ingredients for those purposes even though we knew he was using chemical weapons. But YES it is unfair for me to put forward as a FACT the statement that we sold weaponized agents. Of course I never said it was fact, I only cited sources that I relied upon for my opinion. The general sentiment though is that the ARGUMENT put forth for the invasion as IMMANENT danger to the American people is hard to swallow. The Humanitarian side is arguable but problematic in light of our support of suppressive regimes like Pakistan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. As far as voting for McCain because his son is in Iraq..you are twisting my words. I was interested in knowing how many of the Republican candidates had of age sons and daughters in the conflict since they are trying to sell us on the certitude of the threat.

Posted by: Chris lee at January 26, 2008 06:42 PM (qTV/d)

65 Anybody who relies on Wikipedia for information deserves the ridicule they receive when they admit that.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 26, 2008 08:11 PM (HVE86)

66 The general sentiment though is that the ARGUMENT put forth for the invasion as IMMANENT danger to the American people is hard to swallow. One more thing, Grasshopper. Bush never said the danger was imminent. Here are his exact words from the 2003 (that is, pre-invasion) State of the Union address: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? Sounds to me like he is saying the threat is not imminent, but that it would be unwise to wait until it is imminent. Sort of like not waiting until your car's brakes actually fail (imminent threat of collision) before doing something about them. Do you understand that, Grasshopper?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 26, 2008 08:39 PM (HVE86)

67 We apparently sold him the ingredients, the know how and other military hardware but did not supply weaponized chemical or biological agents, somehow the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department apparently had no idea that he would use those ingredients for those purposes even though we knew he was using chemical weapons. What gives you the idea that the State Department and/or CIA had any input into or awareness whatsoever of those perfectly legal, utterly common sales of industrial chemicals? We, by which I suppose I mean American companies, are selling those items all over the world, today. And what know how and military hardware did we sell him? (You'll note that I cited the correct answer from your link above - think helicopters) You never answered my question, chris. Should we not sell chlorine to places run by nasties?

Posted by: Pablo at January 26, 2008 10:50 PM (yTndK)

68 I have made my statement. I am a guest on a partisan website. I shouldn't expect to change anyone's mind. The dialogue has made m e change my position from "The US sold weapons to Saddam ." to "THe US sold the ingredients for chem weapons to Saddam." My basic position thousgh has not changed. We are not arguing about some otherwise successful Iraqui operation. We are talking about a debacle that has included fraudulent documents, thousands of lost IRaqui and US lives, no end in sight, very little prospect of a democratic outcome ..and all put to gether by a PNAC cabal of Vietnam draft dodgers.

Posted by: chris lee at January 27, 2008 10:30 AM (qTV/d)

69 Chris, check the latest news... the surge has worked, the country is under democratic rule, and you and your anti-war buddies have egg all over your collective faces. I guess that's why you don't want to face up to reality, but would rather live in a fantasy world where Iraq=Vietnam.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 10:53 AM (HVE86)

70 So in other words, you're not going to let the facts get in the way of your poorly conceived position. Should we not sell chlorine to countries with nasty governments, chris? It's really a very simple question, answerable with either yes or no.

Posted by: Pablo at January 27, 2008 10:54 AM (yTndK)

71 and all put to gether by a PNAC cabal of Vietnam draft dodgers. I didn't know that the Clintons and John Edwards were PNAC. You learn something new every day!

Posted by: Pablo at January 27, 2008 10:55 AM (yTndK)

72 Anybody who relies on Wikipedia for information deserves the ridicule they receive when they admit that. I don't know, C-C-G. Wikipedia is actually a pretty good source for some kinds of information. I use it all the time to look up info on computer parts (especially processors and memory), for example. It's a good source when you're dealing with non-controversial topics. It's just on controversial topics (e.g., anything remotely related to politics or religion) that Wikipedia fails -- because on those topics, the person who spends all his time revising an article to twist it to his point of view tends to win. Which means that the debate skews towards the most passionate/shrill (take your pick) voices. There are some corrective mechanisms in place (the "neutrality is disputed" tag, for example), but because of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policy, it's hard to stop those who really want to distort an article from doing so. All they have to do is have more patience and/or stubbornness then their opponents and they'll eventually win the "edit war". But Wikipedia's still a great source for anything non-controversial.

Posted by: Robin Munn at January 27, 2008 12:25 PM (OGmxm)

73 Yeah, Chris, when President Clinton bombed Iraq, was he being a "chickenhawk" because he hadn't served? I gotta remember that question for future chickenhawk accusations.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 01:22 PM (HVE86)

74 Robin, even for computer parts--and I am a certified computer tech--I don't trust Wikipedia. It may be valuable in the way a search engine is, pointing one to other more reputable sites, but Wikipedia has far too many credibility problems for me to accept anything it says at face value.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 01:24 PM (HVE86)

75 But Wikipedia's still a great source for anything non-controversial. It is. And the fact that it's free and easily accessible is a wonderful thing. That you can fix it where you see it lacking is even better yet. It's a great product of collective knowledge. And even in controversial areas, it's helpful by providing some direction to the various source material in question. It isn't perfect by any means, but it's definitely quite useful, though the quality control is lacking.

Posted by: Pablo at January 27, 2008 02:04 PM (yTndK)

76 We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Pablo.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 04:42 PM (HVE86)

77 CCG don't try the "Clinton Card" on me. I am only advocating a vigilant and critical electorate. I was very critical about Clinton and give a fair hearing to the Whitewater, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Mark Rich stories et al. Again this is a partisan site and understandably your impulse is to defend every Bush/Cheney action against criticism. Fair enuff. It IS a free country and I am respectful of diversity in public opinion. Be well, and as Mike Myers in "Wayne's World" might say (Grand ole ) Party On.

Posted by: chris lee at January 28, 2008 09:46 AM (6x0Nb)

78 C-C-G, There's simply a ton of info there and it's easily accessible. The vast majority of it (anything political aside) is pretty good, and it's usually linked to other references. I wouldn't consider it the final word on anything, but I've found it very useful. I can't think of any other place that has so much information in one spot, though you do have to keep potential quality issues in mind. chris, this isn't all that partisan a site. But you want to have your facts straight if you're going to wade in. The truth is non-partisan.

Posted by: Pablo at January 28, 2008 03:40 PM (yTndK)

79 Chris, I was not referring to the scandals. I referred only to his ordering airstrikes against Iraq, and the fact that he had not served himself, and wondered openly if he would be considered a "chickenhawk" thereby. Your attempt to drag in lots of extra clutter just shows that you either do not have an answer to that, or that you have an answer that you choose not to reveal. I suspect the latter. Also, to follow up on what Pablo told you: everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I do not deny you that right. But you are not entitled to your own facts. A fact is a fact is a fact, and all your spin cannot change that.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 28, 2008 07:47 PM (HVE86)

80 damn...i'm two days late. chris--couple words of advice: 1. do your bloody research: "SpiderÂ’s Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq", by Alan Friedman, 1993. follow the **money** trail--no ambiguous, "do WMD *components* count as WMDs?"-B.S.-peddling here--between soviet weapons-dealers and saudi/jordanian middlemen and atlanta bankers processing loans from the US dept. of agriculture to iraq. sure, it's murky (hence the title of the book) and the byzantine nature of the cash-for-weapons flow just screams "we've got plausible deniability!!", but for those of us in the real world (i.e., not on CY too terribly much), we know rummy--sportin' the biggest cheshire-grin you ever saw--wasn't pressin' the flesh with saddam back in the 80s 'fer nothin'. 2. word o' caution when citing books-as-references on CY: chances are, the folks 'round here haven't read them, so when you do list them, be ready for the disparage-the-author approach. take mr. friedman, for example: since he worked in the carter admin., he simply won't be capable of telling the truth, according to CY-ers, *regardless* of how much research and testimony and paperwork (the indices of "Spider's Web" are nothing but photocopies of State Dept., Federal Reserve, UK Foreign Office, etc. files) he might have collected. point is--CY-ers will not address the *evidence* compiled by the author, ever, if it conflicts with their particular p.o.v. instead, they will bend over backwards to give credence to the slightest aspersion cast (by anyone!) on the author or his/her research. now to the point of the post, "Saddam Lied, People Died": i'd like to see where saddam 'lied'. the man *never* said, in the lead-up to the war (which he alone on planet earth, apparently, didn't think was going to be a shooting war, after weeks of US build-up along his borders), that he indeed HAD WMDs, but issued denial after denial. so this statement is false: "Saddam Lied, People Died." ex.: Dec. 8, 2002 article-- "SADDAM'S BLUNDER; DENYING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION EXIST IN IRAQ PLAYS RIGHT INTO U.S. HANDS ... "Officials in Baghdad last week publicly denied having any weapons of mass destruction.... ... "For an administration that at times still seems to be searching for a definitive reason to wage war, Iraq's weapons denial could be just what Bush's hawks are hoping for. "'If Iraq declares it has nothing, the chances of war escalate dramatically,' says [former UN weapons inspector David] Albright. ... "Indications are that's exactly the direction Iraq is headed. 'We are a country devoid of weapons of mass destruction,' Hussam Mohammed Amin, head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, announced last week. ... "'Even if it's true, nobody's going to believe them,' Albright notes. 'It's just not the Iraqi way to make a voluntary decision to give those weapons up. Although that would be the ultimate irony -- if Iraq really had no weapons of mass destruction, but we went to war anyway.'" http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021208-iraq04.htm of course, that's the most galling thing about the last five years--US was playing a 'heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" game with iraq, a shell game iraq *couldn't* win, even if they had "complied" 100% of every dot and tittle of the US' demands. but that's old hat. but where's the saddam lie, CCG? he frustrated the inspectors, but denied having WMDs. turns out he was telling the truth. NOW, in an orwellian attempt to rewrite history, the headlines are screaming, ""Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction" and "Saddam let on he had WMD to deter Iran, FBI agent says" and "Saddam Hussein faked having WMD". HE DID NO SUCH THING in the months leading up to the war--he denied, denied, denied, but he hamstrung the inspectors as much as he could (and he wasn't very successful at that, either, if you actually look at the UN record).

Posted by: j at January 30, 2008 03:49 PM (miTHt)

81 Hey, J, if he was denying that he had WMDs, why did he keep messing with the weapons inspectors who were supposed to verify that? If he admitted he had no WMDs, he should have personally escorted the inspectors everywhere they wanted to go and show them the destruction of the ones he had possessed. Your screed makes no logical sense... which is, come to think of it, about par for the course for you.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 30, 2008 10:03 PM (HVE86)

82 oops--i forgot you were home-schooled, CCG. the rest of us can deduce for ourselves how street-cred works in the middle east (or anywhere, come to think of it: what administration would americans support that allowed the UN unfettered access to *our* nuclear sites, hmm?).

Posted by: j at January 31, 2008 12:14 AM (miTHt)

83 Actually, your statements about my education are as factual as your statements on everything else, J... that is, not at all. I was never home schooled, sir, for the record. However, several great men were... including Thomas Alva Edison.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 12:22 AM (HVE86)

84 ok, so how many home-schoolers does it take to screw in a light bulb? point is, "Saddam Lied, People Died" is a lie. he never claimed he had WMDs in the two years Bush was in office prior to the invasion, but we know from insider testimony (re: Treasury Sec'y Paul O'Neill*) that Iraq was 'on the table from Jan. 2001. furthermore, there seems to be some evidence that he was willing to go into exile to stave off an invasion: "Did Saddam accept exile offer before invasion? Arab leaders scuttled deal aimed at avoiding war, UAE officials say--Oct. 29, 2005 "Saddam Hussein accepted an 11th-hour offer to flee into exile weeks ahead of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion, but Arab League officials scuttled the proposal, officials in [Dubai] claimed." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9864433/ needless-to-say, it never happened. like his claiming he had WMDs before the invasion. don't rewrite history, CCG. *Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill, by Ron Suskind (2004)

Posted by: j at January 31, 2008 12:55 AM (miTHt)

85 Again, we're back to the original question. Why didn't he just come forward and show the UN that he had no WMDs? Bush would have looked like a fool, the sanctions and no-fly zones would have evaporated, and so on and so forth.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 31, 2008 09:31 AM (HVE86)

86 CCG, all snark aside: either you are a useful idiot to this administration and your naivete is astounding, or you are a paid propagandist for the same. you seriously believe, with a straight face, that if saddam had complied 100% with the UN resolutions, not only would there not have been a war, but that the sanctions, the 'no-fly' zones, the embargo etc. would have "evaporated"? you take your readers for fools. taking you for simply being misinformed, however, i'll refer you to David Manning's (Tony Blair's chief foreign policy advisor) memo of a Blair-Bush Oval Office meeting on 01/31/03, in which the war and its aftermath was planned in detail, *regardless* of whether or not saddam complied with Security Council Resolution 1441. i'll also refer you to the now-infamous Downing Street Memo, drafted in the summer of 2002 by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, in which Bush and Blair discuss removing saddam *regardless*: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." and again i'll refer you to Paul O'Neill's testimony, cited above. but should you think i am overly critical of this white house, consider that Madeleine Albright declared for years that disarmament was the key to lifting the sanctions, only to say, in her first major foreign policy address as Sec'y of State: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. [!] Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? he evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful." --26 March 1997, Georgetown U. i.e., since iraq must "prove its peaceful intentions", and saddam's intentions "will never be peaceful", it is inconceivable that a sanction-free iraq can emerge while he is in power; ergo, "[the US] do[es] not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." George Lopez and David Cortright, who have served as consultants for the UN's Department of Humanitarian Affairs, wrote, "The Security Council's refusal to reciprocate Iraq's partial concessions [by lifting the medicine and food sanctions] suggests that the purpose of the continuing sanctions, at least for the U.S., is no longer (or was never merely) to enforce Resolution 687 [disarmament]. The political goalposts have been moved. Resolution 687 states explicitly that the ban on Iraqi exports will be lifted when Iraq complies with UN weapons inspections. But U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declared in March 1997 that the U.S. does not accept this view. This is implicit in the many statements from U.S. officials that the sanctions will not be lifted until Saddam Hussein is removed from power." supporting this interpretation of US intentions is a november 1997 statement by then-president Clinton that "sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he lasts." but let's go back even further, lest you believe this was all after hussein had consistently shown bad faith in given UNSCOM the run-around. BEFORE the bulk of the UNSCOM-Hussein show-downs, we hear from Bush Sr.'s white house: "Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government." that from Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991. before him, Bush Sr. himself said, at a white house briefing on 16 April 1991: "Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be there will not be normalized relations with the United States...until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions." so you see, disarmament was irrelevant: hussein had to go, regardless of whether he complied or not. like you said yourself: "[Y]ou are not entitled to your own facts. A fact is a fact is a fact, and all your spin cannot change that." "Saddam Lied, People Died" is a lie.

Posted by: j at January 31, 2008 12:30 PM (miTHt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Despite dropping out of the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, Fred Thompson could still presumably become the eventual nominee, according to Steven Stark in his article on Real clear Politics, Who Said Freddy's Dead?

The Republican race is coming into focus. Well, sort of. If John McCain can win the Florida primary on January 29, he'll be the clear front-runner heading into Super Tuesday a week later.

But Florida is hardly a sure thing for McCain. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney are contesting the state heartily. Plus, Florida is a closed primary, meaning Independents can't participate -- and McCain polls far worse in contests where only Republicans can vote.

If McCain loses in Florida, the Republicans may well be headed to a deadlocked race and convention. And history teaches us that the likeliest candidate to emerge in that scenario is someone like Warren G. Harding: the prototypical, less-than-stellar candidate to which conventions turn when the going gets rough.

This year's Harding? Believe it or not (are you sitting down?), despite the fact that he's withdrawn from the race, is Fred Thompson.

Stark does make an interesting point about the Florida race—McCain and Romney are presently in a virtual dead heat at 22-percent of the vote— and if Florida tips for Romney, it would seem to blunt McCain's momentum running into Super Tuesday and just about anything could be possible. If Super Tuesday does not result in a clear winner, Republicans could indeed end up with a brokered convention where Thompson's lack of negatives may very well turn into a positive.

Is the brokered convention scenario likely to happen?

I wouldn't plan on it, but for Fredheads, it is nice to dream.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Stacey McCain has a neat profile of Pajamas Media CEO Roger L. Simon up at the Washington Times.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

I finally got a chance to look at CPI/FIJ's Iraq: The War Card—Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War, and was greatly underwhelmed.

In fact, I'd go so far as to label it naked advocacy by a political group posing as neutral authorities.

Oh wait, I did: Study on Bush's Iraq Deception and Lies: Full of Deception and Lies

Thanks to Bryan for finding Dr. Jim Kuypers in this post at Hot Air.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Must be those pesky Methodists:

The Spanish judge overseeing the arraignment of 10 terrorism suspects said Wednesday that they had "planned to carry out a series of suicide attacks" last weekend on public transportation in Barcelona.

In a sequence of six-page rulings, one for each of the 10 suspects he ordered to be held in jail after their arraignments.

"Judge Ismael Moreno wrote that the suspects "had achieved human operational capacity and were very close to achieving full technical capacity with explosives, with the aim of using the those explosives for a jihadi terrorist attack, and it can be deduced that the members of the terrorist cell now broken up planned to carry out a series of suicide attacks last weekend, January 18 to 20, against public transport in the city of Barcelona."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

There is quite the buzz being generated in the blogosphere about a web report issued by The Center for Public Integrity and its sister organization, The Fund for Independence in Journalism.

It is entitled Iraq: The War Card—Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War.

As you may imagine, bloggers on the political left (and the media) are claiming the report is evidence of the long-running meme, "Bush lied, people died."

Critics on the right have been quick to point out that The Center for Public Integrity and The Fund for Independence in Journalism draw their financing heavily, if not exclusively, from left-leaning foundations and individuals, and that the criteria established for the study seems to indicate that the data is loaded and crafted to achieve a desired result.

I've not yet had a chance to read the report and get any sense of the validity of the claims made, but it promises to be an interesting read.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.