Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DEBATE 2: Bush KOs Kerry (The Lethal Danger of Kerry-Edwards + Old Media)
2nd Presidential Debate 2004 ^ | 10.11.04 | Mia T

Posted on 10/10/2004 10:18:16 PM PDT by Mia T

DEBATE 2:
Bush KOs Kerry

(The Lethal Danger of Kerry-Edwards + Old Media)
POURQUOI JOHN KERRY EST DANGEREUX POUR L'AMÉRIQUE


by Mia T, 10.10.04



(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
 

BUSH:
[G]oing into Iraq... was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

 

KERRY:
I believe the president made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake, not to live up to his own standard, which was: build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish their job and go through the U.N. process to its end and go to war as a last resort....

There is no bigger judgment for a president of the United states than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, because Saddam might have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason; that's an excuse.

 

BUSH:
Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma'am. And he was a risk that -- and this is where we just have a difference of opinion.

The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States....

 

KERRY:
Not
necessarily be in power....



Don't take the word of your lazy rolling-news update anchor or the AP rewrite guy on the Duelfer findings on Iraq. Instead, read the report for yourself. It is an amazing document.

It renders John Kerry, on foreign policy and national security, either a complacent fool or an utter fraud.

It's not about WMD, it's about the top-to-toe corruption of the entire international system by Saddam Hussein.

The "global test" is a racket, and anybody who puts faith in it is jeopardizing America's national security.

If the lazy US media won't pick up this story now, shame on them.

Mark Steyn
THE U.N. NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED
MarkSteynOnline
10/7/04



 

 

 

 

 

addam Hussein was a lethally dangerous man before George Bush nailed him.

This is the inescapable, bottom-line conclusion of arms inspector Charles Duelfer. (Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, 30 September 2004)

DUELFER REPORT COROLLARY

If we accept Duelfer's findings, then we must also accept the corollary: If Saddam Hussein was a lethally dangerous man, then so too is John Kerry. As Kerry's 34-year history... and his own words... and his two debates... confirm, a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would never, ever have acted preemptively to remove Saddam Hussein.

SECURITY MOMS-- PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION!

  • Had John Kerry been president in 2001, Saddam Hussein would be in power today.

  • Had John Kerry been president in 1991, Saddam Hussein would control Kuwait. (NOTE: Kerry voted against the '91 Gulf War despite casus belli supposedly sufficient for a Kerry call to arms, i.e., despite an imminent threat, an international coalition that included France and Germany and a UN imprimatur.)

  • And had Kerry been president in the 1980s, America would not have won the Cold War.

Because of this corollary, old media, even before Rather in the throes of death and in the tank for Kerry, is ignoring the essence of the Duelfer report, i.e., is ignoring the the following revelations: (1) that the Kerry "coalition," corrupted by Saddam, is illusory (2) that the sanctions are shackled by said corruption, and (3) that Saddam's intent was to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Instead of focusing on the essence of the report, old media focused on "no WMDs," years-old news and a matter of relevance to presidential fitness only insofar as it exposes Kerry's lack thereof. (A relevance, which, of course, old media is choosing to ignore.) During his 34 years on the public stage, John Kerry did his damnedest to decimate America's intelligence (as well as military) capacity. (And now this person faults Bush for errors traceable to lousy intelligence. Imagine!)

SECURITY MOMS AND ALL AMERICANS, BEWARE!

It is critical that you:

  • not fall prey to this dangerous, seditious Leftist demagoguery, whether from Kerry-Edwards or from its agitprop machine.

  • go to original sources, like the Duelfer Report.

  • understand that the "no WMD" whining is a red herring.

  • understand that the Kerry-Edwards/old-media argument about going to war with Iraq is fallacious.

  • understand that the Kerry-Edwards/old-media premises and pronouncements are false. They are lies.

  • understand that the War on Terror is a global war and that Iraq is a battlefield in that war; and that it is a battlefield of our choosing.

  • understand that terrorists derive their power precisely from their diffuseness and that conversely, luring the terrorists to a single locus, Iraq, saps them of their power.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Mr. Kerry engages in fallacious ex post facto reasoning (as well as reflexive flip-flopping) when he argues, "We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today.... I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein."

As if the commander-in-chief enjoys the luxury of retroactive decision-making....

How could John Kerry make an error in logic so obvious, so beyond surreal? He is an idiot? Or does he simply think we are?

9/10 MINDSET

In this post-9/11 world, a commander-in-chief has to make decisions of war and peace, life and death, based on imperfect information. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires certain knowledge of outcome before acting. We cannot afford in that position someone who views the War on Terror as not war but criminal enterprise. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "passing a global test" before acting. We cannot afford in that position a weak-kneed, coreless opportunist like John Kerry.

Is there any doubt that John Kerry would never act preemptively to protect America?

 

KERRY'S IRAQ LIES:

  • "No imminent threat"--President Bush never argued that Iraq was an imminent threat. To the contrary.
    The Bush post-9/11 rationale for war (as enunciated in
    The Bush Doctrine) is "gathering threat," not "imminent threat."

  • "No WMD"-- According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam was careful to retain the ability to reconstitute WMD. And he intended to do just that as soon as the sanctions were lifted via his multi-billion-dollar oil-for-food bribes of Kerry's exalted "coalition."

    Note: Saddam's bribery scheme effectively rendered Kerry's "coalition" nonexistent and his Iraq, national security and policy "plans" utterly and laughably useless.

  • And as for the al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection, I repeat, "oil-for-food ."

 

KERRY UP CLOSE

We have observed John Kerry up close for more than a year now.

We see someone who alternates between incredible and incoherent.

We see someone who is clueless about winning the War on Terror.

We see someone who favors demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security.

We see someone whose mindset is inextricably bound to the Left's failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

We see a poseur, a dilettante. Someone always on the make. Someone for whom windsurfing in Nantucket trumps briefings in D.C.

("Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time.")

How can you put your children's lives in his hands?

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

 

The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.

Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.

Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.

It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.

France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.

With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."

 

And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story.

It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale.

But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent.

But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay.

We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.

DAVID BROOKS
The Report That Nails Saddam
The New York Times
October 9, 2004



INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Issues & Insights

Friday, October 8, 2004

A Dangerous Man
WMD report explains why Saddam Hussein was a threat and why the U.S. was right to remove him

Friday, October 8, 2004
Investor's Business Daily

WMD report explains why Saddam Hussein was a threat and why the U.S. was right to remove himIraq: You wouldn't know it from the headlines, but the new WMD report explains why Saddam Hussein was a threat and why the U.S. was right to remove him.

Arms inspector Charles Duelfer has just delivered the most exhaustive findings so far on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. As anyone even faintly aware of the report must know by now, Duelfer and his team found no WMD stockpiles and concluded that Iraqi WMD capability was "essentially destroyed" after the 1991 Gulf War.

The anti-war media have been quick to seize on that angle, kicking off stories with agitprop leads like this one from The Associated Press' Ken Guggenheim:

"Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991."

Fortunately, we live in the Internet era where Americans can easily find the facts. The Duelfer report is online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html, with good summaries in "Key Findings" and the Duelfer's "Transmission Letter."

Drawing not just on inspections but also on debriefings of regime officials ó including Saddam himself ó Duelfer gives us the best window yet into the dictator's long-term strategy. From all sources the message was clear: Saddam's first order of business, after his own survival, was to break the United Nations sanctions so that he could resume the WMD program. He came close to succeeding.

Forced to scrap most of his WMD after the first Gulf War, Saddam, Duelfer says, took pains to preserve know-how so that production could start quickly when sanctions were lifted. Sanctions lasted longer than Saddam had hoped, but by the end of the 1990s, his propaganda and bribery program ó the U.N. oil-for-food program came in handy ó had done its work. The sanctions were cracking.

After 9-11, with sharp prodding from the U.S., the U.N. rediscovered its backbone for a time and forced him to re-admit inspectors. Saddam's French and Russian allies insisted that the inspections run their course. The U.S. and Britain decided on war instead.

That decision has never looked better than it does now.

If Saddam's friends had prevailed, the inspections would have played into his hands. Having mothballed his WMD program, he would have received the U.N.'s clean bill of health and the sanctions would have been lifted.

In short order, he would have restarted his chemical, biological and nuclear programs, with plenty of oil money to buy materials and produce quick results. His contacts with al-Qaida might then have firmed up into an operational alliance. And the U.S. would be begging fruitlessly for global action, as it now does with Iran.

The situation in Iraq today, as President Bush likes to say, is "tough." But it's not the strategic nightmare that it would have been if Saddam had been allowed to stay.

On Wednesday, Sen. John Warner asked Duelfer if he thought the world is better off with Saddam out of power. "I'm an analyst, and I realize I'm in a political world right now," Duelfer began.

But Warner pressed him further, and Duelfer went on: "But I have to agree. Analytically, the world is better off."

His report, in its scrupulously impartial way, makes just that point.


Comment: The following is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, dated 30 September 2004, written by Charles Duelfer. The excerpt lists the Key Findings under the heading of "Regime Strategic Intent."

What is worth noting is that the Saddam regime discovered it could corrupt the UN Oil For Food program, the foreign exchange derived from the corruption being used to enhance WMD capabilities.


Regime Strategic Intent

 

Key Findings

 

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

 

Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspectionsóto gain support for lifting sanctionsówith his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

 

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capabilityówhich was essentially destroyed in 1991óafter sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capabilityóin an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risksóbut he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
 




pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04


 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

--Elizabeth Rickard

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one,
(as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.



A suggested mass E-mailing---just copy and paste:

subject:
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL:
in Kerry's own words

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!
(ABC report)

     discussion, analysis


"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today on November 2nd , we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset , if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Dick Cheney



 


"We were not at war in the 1990s."

John Kerry
(missing the point entirely that the War on Terror began in earnest with the bombing of the WTC in 1993 and bin Laden's subsequent repeated (and unanswered) declarations and acts of war against America).

 


 

"I think there's been an exaggeration; [President Bush] has exaggerated the threat of terrorism. There needs to be a refocusing. They are really misleading all of America... in a profound way."

John Kerry
Democratic presidential debate, January 29, 2004, Greenville, S.C.


 


"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.

John Kerry



 


"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms."

John Kerry
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS , 3 December 2003


 


"A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justificatiion for going to war."

John Kerry
acceptance speech, July 29, 2004


 


"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? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address, The U.S. Capitol, January 28, 2003



 


"I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston
[Kerry acceptance speech], and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America's military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force." 

Dick Cheney

 




PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ONE:

LEHRER:
New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.... But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.





Good Morning America

September 29, 2004

JOHN KERRY:

"We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today....


DIANE SAWYER:
"So, it was not worth it."


JOHN KERRY:
"You should not -- eh -- it depends on the outcome, ultimately, and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein. The president -- eh -- misled the American people. Plain and simple. Bottom line."


DIANE SAWYER:
"So, if it turns out okay, it was worth it? -- "


JOHN KERRY (interrupts) :
"No."


DIANE SAWYER:
"...but now it wasn -- ?"


JOHN KERRY (interrupts again) :
"It was a mistake to do what he did but we have to succeed now that we've done it.

Good Morning America
September 29, 2004
for discussion, goto:
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril (PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING)




Larry King Live
July 8, 2004


"Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

John Kerry
Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
(NB: Radio City, July 8, 2004, Nantucket, July 17, 2004)







(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


 


election update!
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT~THE SERIES

DUELFER REPORT ON IRAQ RENDERS KERRY "A COMPLACENT FOOL" OR "AN UTTER FRAUD"

WHICH DANGEROUS MAN?

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!

DEBATE ONE
NO GYP SHEET


Est-ce que je peux?
préemption et l'essai global

KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH


Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING

WINDSURFER WATERLOO
why the surfboard--not the snowboard--is (to mix war metaphors) Kerry's Achilles' heel

Windsurfing in the Persian Gulf

John "One Position on Iraq" Kerry's 1971 Replay

YOO-HOO DAN RATHER!
KERRY'S BELATED "HONORABLE" DISCHARGE:
Is a less-than-honorable discharge and clinton "pardon" behind Kerry's refusal to sign form 180 to release ALL of his records?

RATHERGATE IS ANOTHER WATERGATE: The Nexus

CARL BERNSTEIN: RATHERGATE MAY BE ANOTHER WATERGATE

CLUELESS: O'REILLY AND PODHORETZ ON RATHERGATE

THE KERRY-RATHER-BARNES FORGERIES DECONSTRUCTED

HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)
CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE

KERRY'S VIETNAM FIXATION
PART 1: advice from bill

Kerry's new W offensive

YOO-HOO! UNDECIDEDS + "PERSUADABLES"
HEAR THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR

(WHY INFORMED, RATIONAL DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH)

DECONSTRUCTING ZELL MILLER

EXPLOITING MAX CLELAND

Kerry is UNFIT #21: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
BOARDHEAD TO THE RESCUE


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


Kerry is UNFIT #20: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
PREEMPTION-
(the whole ball of wax)

CONTEMPLATING KERRY'S "GUT"

A PRESIDENT KERRY MAY BE ABHORRENT
...BUT IS IT EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?


getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament

Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security

YOO-HOO! followthemoney.org. . .
OVER HERE!

"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)

UNFIT #19:
JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"

THE COMPLEAT JOHN KERRY
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset


THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]


THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1

dox in sox on lummox in box on fox

THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that

"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)

THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects


A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES: 8/10/04 UPDATE!
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO


UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?


UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists


sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation


"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

USEFUL IDIOTS

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL


JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?


DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance


What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS


Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism


MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

 

 

MORE

 


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush; debate; debate2; debates; dubya; duelfer; duelferreport; georgebush; globaltest; johnkerry; kayo; kerry; knockout; ko; napalminthemorning; oilforfood; preemption; presidentialdebate; saddam; saddamhussein; speakenglish; un; w; whatever; whatsyourpoint; wot

1 posted on 10/10/2004 10:18:17 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; jla; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Wolverine; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; ...

ping


2 posted on 10/10/2004 10:24:52 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bttt


3 posted on 10/10/2004 11:43:07 PM PDT by Christian4Bush (Kerry's OGBYN: Ogstetrics and Bynecology!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I luv u


4 posted on 10/10/2004 11:47:48 PM PDT by Tempest (Click on my name for a long list of press contacts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet."

Fantastic

5 posted on 10/10/2004 11:56:57 PM PDT by Helms (nu-ance : [ from KERRY French, from nuer, to Shade the Truth via Language and Subvert Reality])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jla; All

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

SOROS TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

  • its naivete about the War on Terror,
  • its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
  • its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

 

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

MORE


6 posted on 10/10/2004 11:58:20 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Darn you!

I could spend the rest of my life sitting here reading all your research.

Ya done it again.

Thanks.

Oh I loved yer rendition of TaRAYza on the Larry King show.
7 posted on 10/11/2004 12:33:00 AM PDT by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

BUMP!


8 posted on 10/11/2004 1:32:29 AM PDT by Brian Allen (I am, thank God, a 2X-blessed hyphenated American: An AMERICAN-American - AND a Dollar-a-Day FReeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Mia...Your best yet! Taken together with Kerry's NUANCE...Powerful!

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance"

9 posted on 10/11/2004 4:51:45 AM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"Zero in on what matters.
Do you want as your next president a weak-knee vacillator,
a seditious opportunist, someone who is constitutionally
indisposed to preemptive action and American military might,
someone who would reflexively cede our sovereignty to the UN?"

10 posted on 10/11/2004 5:55:15 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
TaRAYza on the Larry King show


UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

"Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

John Kerry
Larry King Live
July 8, 2004

 

"I think most Americans subconsciously believe something [another terror attack on the United States] is going to happen. It's a matter of when, and it's a matter of how... but, you know, Europeans have lived that way, and other people around the world have lived that way. Americans have been very safe, at least as a nation."

Teresa Heinz-Kerry
Larry King Live
July 8, 2004

 


11 posted on 10/11/2004 6:01:55 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jla

that sounds familiar ;)
bump


12 posted on 10/11/2004 6:16:56 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

ping


13 posted on 10/11/2004 7:07:06 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
that sounds familiar

Just a sagacious quote from an unassuming & patriotic American.

14 posted on 10/11/2004 7:12:32 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
GREAT stuff, Mia T. What really griped me years back? The British "lefties" and the American "lefties" perpetually whining that sanctions "didn't work". These lefties HAD TO KNOW FULL WELL the truth about WHYthe "sanctions" weren't working; they spun their reports on the "not working well sactions" to NOT REFLECT THE TRUTH. THEY BLAMED "IMPERIALISTIC AMERICAN AND ENGLAND (and threw in Israel for good measure...).

So when the lefties began mewling and hocking "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" -- my blood ran white hot. I was so angry I really had to constrain myself from just wishing to spit in lefty's face -- over how many innocent Iraqi's had been starved to death, abused, tortured, murdered -- and all while the lefties and other communist/socialist buddies KNEW.

Can you tell it still gets me?

I've read good portions of Duelfur's report. Good reminder to read all of it.

15 posted on 10/11/2004 7:17:10 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; All
corrections/additions:

DEBATE 2:
Bush KOs Kerry
(The Lethal Danger of Kerry-Edwards + Old Media)
POURQUOI JOHN KERRY EST DANGEREUX POUR L'AMÉRIQUE


by Mia T, 10.10.04



(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
 

BUSH:
[G]oing into Iraq... was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

 

KERRY:
I believe the president made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake, not to live up to his own standard, which was: build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish their job and go through the U.N. process to its end and go to war as a last resort....

There is no bigger judgment for a president of the United states than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, because Saddam might have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason; that's an excuse.

 

BUSH:
Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma'am. And he was a risk that -- and this is where we just have a difference of opinion.

The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States....

 

KERRY:
Not
necessarily be in power....



Don't take the word of your lazy rolling-news update anchor or the AP rewrite guy on the Duelfer findings on Iraq. Instead, read the report for yourself. It is an amazing document.

It renders John Kerry, on foreign policy and national security, either a complacent fool or an utter fraud.

It's not about WMD, it's about the top-to-toe corruption of the entire international system by Saddam Hussein.

The "global test" is a racket, and anybody who puts faith in it is jeopardizing America's national security.

If the lazy US media won't pick up this story now, shame on them.

Mark Steyn
THE U.N. NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED
MarkSteynOnline
10/7/04



 

 

 

 

 

addam Hussein was a lethally dangerous man before George Bush nailed him.

This is the inescapable, bottom-line conclusion of arms inspector Charles Duelfer. (Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, 30 September 2004)

DUELFER REPORT COROLLARY

If we accept Duelfer's findings, then we must also accept the corollary: If Saddam Hussein was a lethally dangerous man, then so too is John Kerry. As Kerry's 34-year history... and his own words... and his two debates... confirm, a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would never, ever have acted preemptively to remove Saddam Hussein.

SECURITY MOMS-- PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION!

  • Had John Kerry been president in 2001, Saddam Hussein would be in power today.
  • Had John Kerry been president in 1991, Saddam Hussein would control Kuwait. (NOTE: Kerry voted against the '91 Gulf War despite casus belli supposedly sufficient for a Kerry call to arms, i.e., despite an imminent threat, an international coalition that included France and Germany and a UN imprimatur.)
  • And had Kerry been president in the 1980s, America would not have won the Cold War.

Because of the Duelfer Report corollary, old media, in the throes of death and in the tank for Kerry even before Rather, is ignoring the essence of the Duelfer report, i.e., is ignoring the the following revelations: (1) that the Kerry "coalition," corrupted by Saddam, was--and is--illusory (2) that the sanctions were shackled by said corruption, and (3) that Saddam's intent was to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Instead of focusing on the essence of the report, old media is focusing on "no WMDs," years-old news and a matter of relevance to presidential fitness only insofar as it exposes Kerry's lack thereof. (A relevance, which, of course, old media is choosing to ignore.) During his 34 years on the public stage, John Kerry did his damnedest to decimate America's intelligence (as well as military) capacity. (And now this person faults Bush for errors traceable to lousy intelligence. Imagine!)

SECURITY MOMS AND ALL AMERICANS, BEWARE!

It is critical that you:

  • not fall prey to this dangerous, seditious Leftist demagoguery, whether from Kerry-Edwards or from its agitprop machine.
  • go to original sources, like the Duelfer Report.
  • understand that the "no WMD" whining is a red herring.
  • understand that the Kerry-Edwards/old-media argument about going to war with Iraq is fallacious.
  • understand that the Kerry-Edwards/old-media premises and pronouncements are false. They are lies.
  • understand that the War on Terror is a global war and that Iraq is a battlefield in that war; and that it is a battlefield of our choosing.
  • understand that terrorists derive their power precisely from their diffuseness and that conversely, luring the terrorists to a single locus, Iraq, saps them of their power.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Mr. Kerry engages in fallacious ex post facto reasoning (as well as reflexive flip-flopping) when he argues, "We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today.... I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein."

As if the commander-in-chief enjoys the luxury of retroactive decision-making....

How could John Kerry make an error in logic so obvious, so beyond surreal? He is an idiot? Or does he simply think we are?

9/10 MINDSET

In this post-9/11 world, a commander-in-chief has to make decisions of war and peace, life and death, based on imperfect information. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires certain knowledge of outcome before acting. We cannot afford in that position someone who views the War on Terror as not war but criminal enterprise. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "passing a global test" and "a plan to win the peace" before acting to protect us. We cannot afford in that position a weak-kneed, coreless opportunist like John Kerry.

Is there any doubt that John Kerry would never act preemptively to protect America?

 

KERRY'S IRAQ LIES:

  • "No imminent threat"--President Bush never argued that Iraq was an imminent threat. To the contrary.
    The Bush post-9/11 rationale for war (as enunciated in
    The Bush Doctrine) is "gathering threat," not "imminent threat."
  • "No WMD"-- According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam was careful to retain the ability to reconstitute WMD. And he intended to do just that as soon as the sanctions were lifted via his multi-billion-dollar oil-for-food bribes of Kerry's exalted "coalition."

    Note: Saddam's bribery scheme effectively rendered Kerry's "coalition" nonexistent and his Iraq, national security and policy "plans" utterly and laughably useless.
  • And as for the al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection, I repeat, "oil-for-food ."

 

KERRY UP CLOSE

We have observed John Kerry up close for more than a year now.

We see someone who alternates between incredible and incoherent.

We see someone who is clueless about winning the War on Terror.

We see someone who favors demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security.

We see someone whose mindset is inextricably bound to the Left's failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

We see a poseur, a dilettante. Someone always on the make. Someone for whom windsurfing in Nantucket trumps briefings in D.C.

("Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time.")

How can you put your children's lives in his hands?

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

 

The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.

Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.

Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.

It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.

France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.

With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."

 

And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story.

It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale.

But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent.

But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay.

We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.

DAVID BROOKS
The Report That Nails Saddam
The New York Times
October 9, 2004



INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Issues & Insights

Friday, October 8, 2004

A Dangerous Man
WMD report explains why Saddam Hussein was a threat and why the U.S. was right to remove him

Friday, October 8, 2004
Investor's Business Daily

WMD report explains why Saddam Hussein was a threat and why the U.S. was right to remove himIraq: You wouldn't know it from the headlines, but the new WMD report explains why Saddam Hussein was a threat and why the U.S. was right to remove him.

Arms inspector Charles Duelfer has just delivered the most exhaustive findings so far on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. As anyone even faintly aware of the report must know by now, Duelfer and his team found no WMD stockpiles and concluded that Iraqi WMD capability was "essentially destroyed" after the 1991 Gulf War.

The anti-war media have been quick to seize on that angle, kicking off stories with agitprop leads like this one from The Associated Press' Ken Guggenheim:

"Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991."

Fortunately, we live in the Internet era where Americans can easily find the facts. The Duelfer report is online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html, with good summaries in "Key Findings" and the Duelfer's "Transmission Letter."

Drawing not just on inspections but also on debriefings of regime officials ó including Saddam himself ó Duelfer gives us the best window yet into the dictator's long-term strategy. From all sources the message was clear: Saddam's first order of business, after his own survival, was to break the United Nations sanctions so that he could resume the WMD program. He came close to succeeding.

Forced to scrap most of his WMD after the first Gulf War, Saddam, Duelfer says, took pains to preserve know-how so that production could start quickly when sanctions were lifted. Sanctions lasted longer than Saddam had hoped, but by the end of the 1990s, his propaganda and bribery program ó the U.N. oil-for-food program came in handy ó had done its work. The sanctions were cracking.

After 9-11, with sharp prodding from the U.S., the U.N. rediscovered its backbone for a time and forced him to re-admit inspectors. Saddam's French and Russian allies insisted that the inspections run their course. The U.S. and Britain decided on war instead.

That decision has never looked better than it does now.

If Saddam's friends had prevailed, the inspections would have played into his hands. Having mothballed his WMD program, he would have received the U.N.'s clean bill of health and the sanctions would have been lifted.

In short order, he would have restarted his chemical, biological and nuclear programs, with plenty of oil money to buy materials and produce quick results. His contacts with al-Qaida might then have firmed up into an operational alliance. And the U.S. would be begging fruitlessly for global action, as it now does with Iran.

The situation in Iraq today, as President Bush likes to say, is "tough." But it's not the strategic nightmare that it would have been if Saddam had been allowed to stay.

On Wednesday, Sen. John Warner asked Duelfer if he thought the world is better off with Saddam out of power. "I'm an analyst, and I realize I'm in a political world right now," Duelfer began.

But Warner pressed him further, and Duelfer went on: "But I have to agree. Analytically, the world is better off."

His report, in its scrupulously impartial way, makes just that point.


Comment: The following is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, dated 30 September 2004, written by Charles Duelfer. The excerpt lists the Key Findings under the heading of "Regime Strategic Intent."

What is worth noting is that the Saddam regime discovered it could corrupt the UN Oil For Food program, the foreign exchange derived from the corruption being used to enhance WMD capabilities.


Regime Strategic Intent

 

Key Findings

 

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

 

Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspectionsóto gain support for lifting sanctionsówith his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

 

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capabilityówhich was essentially destroyed in 1991óafter sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capabilityóin an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risksóbut he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
 




pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

--Elizabeth Rickard

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one,
(as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.



A suggested mass E-mailing---just copy and paste:

subject:
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL:
in Kerry's own words

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!
(ABC report)

     discussion, analysis


"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today on November 2nd , we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset , if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Dick Cheney



 

"We were not at war in the 1990s."

John Kerry
(missing the point entirely that
the War on Terror began in earnest
with the bombing of the WTC in 1993
and bin Laden's subsequent repeated (and unanswered)
declarations and acts of war against America
throughout the clinton years).

 


 
"I think there's been an exaggeration; [President Bush] has exaggerated the threat of terrorism. There needs to be a refocusing. They are really misleading all of America... in a profound way."

John Kerry
Democratic presidential debate, January 29, 2004, Greenville, S.C.


 


"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.

John Kerry



 


"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms."

John Kerry
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS , 3 December 2003


 


"A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justificatiion for going to war."

John Kerry
acceptance speech, July 29, 2004


 


"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? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address, The U.S. Capitol, January 28, 2003



 


"I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston
[Kerry acceptance speech], and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America's military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force." 

Dick Cheney

 




PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ONE:

LEHRER:
New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.... But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.





Good Morning America

September 29, 2004

JOHN KERRY:

"We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today....


DIANE SAWYER:
"So, it was not worth it."


JOHN KERRY:
"You should not -- eh -- it depends on the outcome, ultimately, and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein. The president -- eh -- misled the American people. Plain and simple. Bottom line."


DIANE SAWYER:
"So, if it turns out okay, it was worth it? -- "


JOHN KERRY (interrupts) :
"No."


DIANE SAWYER:
"...but now it wasn -- ?"


JOHN KERRY (interrupts again) :
"It was a mistake to do what he did but we have to succeed now that we've done it.

Good Morning America
September 29, 2004
for discussion, goto:
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril (PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING)




Larry King Live
July 8, 2004


"Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

John Kerry
Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
(NB: Radio City, July 8, 2004, Nantucket, July 17, 2004)







(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


 

election update!
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT~THE SERIES

DEBATE 2: Bush KOs Kerry
(The Lethal Danger of Kerry-Edwards + Old Media)

DUELFER REPORT ON IRAQ RENDERS KERRY "A COMPLACENT FOOL" OR "AN UTTER FRAUD"

WHICH DANGEROUS MAN?

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!

DEBATE ONE
NO GYP SHEET


Est-ce que je peux?
préemption et l'essai global

KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH


Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING

WINDSURFER WATERLOO
why the surfboard--not the snowboard--is (to mix war metaphors) Kerry's Achilles' heel

Windsurfing in the Persian Gulf

John "One Position on Iraq" Kerry's 1971 Replay

YOO-HOO DAN RATHER!
KERRY'S BELATED "HONORABLE" DISCHARGE:
Is a less-than-honorable discharge and clinton "pardon" behind Kerry's refusal to sign form 180 to release ALL of his records?

RATHERGATE IS ANOTHER WATERGATE: The Nexus

CARL BERNSTEIN: RATHERGATE MAY BE ANOTHER WATERGATE

CLUELESS: O'REILLY AND PODHORETZ ON RATHERGATE

THE KERRY-RATHER-BARNES FORGERIES DECONSTRUCTED

HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)
CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE

KERRY'S VIETNAM FIXATION
PART 1: advice from bill

Kerry's new W offensive

YOO-HOO! UNDECIDEDS + "PERSUADABLES"
HEAR THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR

(WHY INFORMED, RATIONAL DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH)

DECONSTRUCTING ZELL MILLER

EXPLOITING MAX CLELAND

Kerry is UNFIT #21: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
BOARDHEAD TO THE RESCUE


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


Kerry is UNFIT #20: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
PREEMPTION-
(the whole ball of wax)

CONTEMPLATING KERRY'S "GUT"

A PRESIDENT KERRY MAY BE ABHORRENT
...BUT IS IT EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?


getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament

Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security

YOO-HOO! followthemoney.org. . .
OVER HERE!

"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)

UNFIT #19:
JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"

THE COMPLEAT JOHN KERRY
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset


THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]


THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1

dox in sox on lummox in box on fox

THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that

"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)

THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects


A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES: 8/10/04 UPDATE!
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO


UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?


UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists


sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation


"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

USEFUL IDIOTS

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL


JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?


DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance


What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS


Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP
Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism


MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."
 
 

MORE

 

16 posted on 10/11/2004 7:51:09 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; ohioWfan

OhioWFan...I hope you don't mind me copying this image from the Daily Dose thread.

17 posted on 10/11/2004 9:03:39 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jla

adorable :)


18 posted on 10/11/2004 9:15:46 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Helms

To: Mia T
"The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet."
Fantastic






She does have a way with words doesn't she? I'll raise that fantastic you a "You go girl!"


19 posted on 10/11/2004 1:04:18 PM PDT by marta R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bump


20 posted on 10/11/2004 2:36:59 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson