AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Continual Vigilance Against Ignorance

Great post, and comments in response to it, at This Ain’t Hell regarding the Democrats’ election strategy: Still running against Bush

Now, most people note that the Democrats are “running against Bush”. I tend to look at it a different way. They are not necessarily running against President Bush, so much as they are running a campaign based on the ignorance they assume the American electorate still suffers with regards to economic policy.

It worked for them in 2006, when our economy was humming along during one of our nation’s most prosperous times in history: low unemployment (~5%), great GDP growth and record highs on WallStreet (which helped every American’s retirement account). Despite these obvious facts, the Democrat Party and their propaganda machine in the MF-ing media worked together to sell the LIE to the American public that the economy was a disaster. They sold the lie that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in no need of regulation when President Bush, Senator McCain and the GOP worked to prevent the housing collapse that eventually occurred. DEMOCRATS Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Maxine Water were key to stopping anyone from regulating Fannie/Freddie. Yet, despite the fact that THEIR policies caused the housing crisis, they turn around and blame… President Bush and the GOP. Pathetic.

It also obviously worked for them in 2008 when they swept to HUGE majorities in both Houses of Congres and took the White House by… blaming President Bush and the GOP for “the failed policies of the last 8 years!” Um, those “failed policies” were not conservative nor capitalist policies, but socialist policies that failed. So it was not a GOP vs Democrat policy issue, but a conservative vs socialist/progressive/liberal policy issue. The dirty little secret is that there are socialists and liberals within the GOP who worked with Democrats to either enact socialist policies or give Democrats cover for their socialist policies by voting with them to make the bills seem “bipartisan”.

But, if you look back to the policies which caused our current recession/depression — see HERE, HERE & HERE — you’ll see that it was the Democrat Party’s liberal policies which caused them. Not conservative policies, not tax cuts and not capitalism failing. That last one is important to note, because the current Democrat Party — and especially Barack Obama and his cabinet and czars — is made up of anti-capitalists, socialists and Marxists. So it was key to them to sell the American electorate on the failure of capitalism, hide the fact that it was the failure of socialism and then gain power so as to enact their Marxist policies… which they knew would make things worse. But, making things better was never their intention. As Barack Obama famously said during the campaign, he was not interested in bringing in more tax revenue, he was more interested in “fairness” and “spreading the wealth around”. In other words, he was not interested in capitalism, but socialism and Marxism.

So, since this strategy worked to perfection on an ignorant, apathetic and dumbed down American electorate in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats and MF-ing media are simply sticking to the same game plan until we prove to them that we are not the apathetic, dumbed down ignoramuses they believe us to be.

On that note, it is good to see the military commenters at This Ain’t Hell take to task a currently still ignorant commenter. I hope conversations like these are happening all across the nation and people are finally getting educated and informed… and energized to vote out the socialists and Marxists in NOV 2010 and NOV 2012.

The Hill reports that Democrats have released a video in which they’re still blaming GWB for the economic problems we’re experiencing almost two years after he left office…

Despite the fact that Bush and McCain both tried to rein in FannieMae and FreddieMac, the triggers for for the housing bubble, for years before the economic crisis struck.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Democrats should run against Bush, but only because it’s losing strategy. …

Yeah, so keep it up, Democrats – it gives us a more frequent opportunity to mention whose policies were really behind current economic conditions.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:49 am

So let me get this straight – on the one hand you give credit to Bush for getting us out of Iraq even though he’s been out of office for what, 19 months, but no blame for driving the country into a ditch, as the saying goes. Kind of selective memory.

You can’t turn the USS Enterprise on a dime, and you can’t turn around a totally screwed up economy that quickly either. Has Obama made mistakes – you betcha. But nothing compared to his predecessor.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:53 am

But nothing compared to his predecessor.

So let me get this straight, Bush told Fannie and Freddie to lend money to people that couldn’t pay it back? Franklin Raines is laughing all the way to the bank…

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am

Where to start? Bush promoted “the ownership society” which promoted and enabled the real estate crisis. He also promoted deregulation so unscrupulous mortgage brokers could put green pea home owners into mortgages they could neither afford nor understand, without fear of getting caught. In fact one of his biggest screw ups was creating an environment where honest brokers had to face a devil’s choice – play by the rules and lose out, or bend the rules (like your competitors) and reap illicit profits. Cronyism, lack of oversight and regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, CEO’s earning 400 times what their workers earn, a growing divide between the haves and have nots – opps, gotta run! Later

nhsparky Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Joe – was Bush responsible for the CRA? Was he responsible for ACORN and other groups suing banks for creating so-called “redline” loans? Did he sit in front of Congress and tell the American people that Freddie and Fannie are “basically sound”? …

Jonn Lilyea Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

“Unscrupulous mortgage brokers” couldn’t loan to prospective homeowners without FanM/FredM backing loans with taxpayer dollars to people with a history of bailing on their obligations. Deregulation and “the ownership society” aren’t the problem here. Do you own your house, Joe? Why do you get to own your house and others don’t?

I own my house… I bought it when I could afford to pay for it. That’s not a new concept. For years I resisted the peer pressure to buy a house in favor of common sense. And there were no mortgage brokers or banks involved in my purchase… and certainly no FannieMae or FreddieMac. I don’t need the government to help me buy my chunk of America.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Deregulation of mortgage lenders? That was CRA started by Jimmeh Carter and expanded by Bill Clinton. Franklin Raines (Clinton Appointee) who headed Fannie at the time predicted all of this and advised Clinton not to. Clinton did it anyway and told Raines to get in line and shut up. Raines made over 90 million from Fannie… How did Bush have anyhting to do with that? When the Federal Regulator for Fannie testified before congress as John McCain was pushing for legislation to reign Fannie and Freddie in both “Coutrywide” Chris Dodd and Barney “Banking Queen” Frank said there’s nothing wrong here, everything is hunky dory. You can throw Maxine “Bailout my husbands bank” Waters in there as well…

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Blaming Bush for everything you mentioned in #7 is pure bilge my friend, and shows a remarkable lack of education on the history of American economics.

It also displays a large degree of contempt for your fellow Americans. What you have so patronizingly laid out is the idea that every ‘common man’ is capable of being coerced into debilitating debt. Simple, Unadulterated, Crap. The public largely has no one to blame but themselves.

Who is responsible for the “ownership society”? How about we start with Henry Ford in the 1920s, and the introduction of CREDIT. Either way, it’s not the Fed’s job to dictate to the “people” how they will or won’t hurt themselves. Self defense in all things begins with the SELF.

Good grief, what are the colleges teaching today anyway?

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

A lot of naive, less affluent people (but many of them working stiffs nonetheless) bought into the “ownership society” hoopla. Some overreached and made mistakes. But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.

I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity. And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

PS – Canada has much stricter oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry, and they have not suffered nearly as badly as we have.

PintoNag Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Joe, you say ‘ownership’ like it’s a bad thing. Why the devil do you think I get up five days a week and go to work? I have bills, that’s true enough, but I also like to own things… most of which no one has ever offered to give me for free. And wouldn’t.

This country is an experiment, and was meant to be. It is an experiment in SELF-GOVERNMENT. You take responsibility for your actions or you suffer the consequences. By definition, if you attempt to protect something, you must remove its ability to self-govern. Protection is nothing more than a form of control.

The government must exercise control to a point, to help maintain order in society. The argument we have always had, are having now, and will have in the future, is this: how far can, should, and must that control go? When does maintaining good order become an exercise in negating self-government?

I submit that it has already gone too far.

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Did you just cut and paste that trash? It sounds like it was lifted whole cloth from some Lib talking points website.

Try again Joe, I was a 30k a year warehousing stiff for over a decade before shipping to Iraq, lost my job while I was gone because the owner of the company retired, and I started a new 30k a year career as a municipal employee after returning home in 2004. I’m still in that category. I directly benefited from the Bush tax cuts, and so did most of the middle class folks I know. I am going to be directly hurt not only by their demise, but also by all the other crap the current admin is trying to push through. Try and peddle that clap else ware.

I notice how you conveniently sidestep the fact that the play now pay later mentality began decades and decades before Bush. Nice. For the record, I’m no fan of a lot of his domestic economic policies, but that doesn’t remove the responsibility for anyone’s situation from their own shoulders. And replacing crappy policy with crappier policy as Obama is attempting, is not the way to solve the nation’s ills.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Joe,
The mortgage industry was NOT deregulated by Bush or anyone else. It was FORCED by the GOVERNMENT to make bad loans with a wink and a nod that Fannie and Freddie would have their backs. There was a Federal Regulator screaming from the rooftops about what was happening back in ‘06. Bush attempted to place more regulation on the mortgage industry and Democrats said NO and ignored the regulator. ACORN threatened to sue any lender that wasn’t making the required amount of bad loans. Your willful blindness to history is monumental…

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

First, note how government revenues and disposable income were increasing in 2003-2006, and that we were headed back towards a balanced budget.

There’s your “Bush economy” … even while a war was going on and with the tech bubble in our rear-view mirror. BTW, about that time he was advocating changes to tighten up the mortgage market … and was pooh-poohed by Frank, Dodd, et. al. who still had the fillibuster on their side.

Then note when employment growth flattens … around January 2007.

Could it be that, once the Dim Congress became reality, businesses woke up, realized their future was to become cash cows/social-services surrogates/scapegoats for their new Re-, er, Progressive overlords … and acted in preparation for that future by scaling back their activity, including hiring and expansion?

Could it be that it is that pullback, that started our downward slide … a pullback triggered by the mere presence of a Re-, er, Progressive-controlled Congress? Keep in mind that it is Congress, way more than the White House, who can have a profound effect upon our economy.

So the classic question is, after FOUR YEARS of Dimocrat control of Congress …

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

That … not some half-baked with half-truth ad … will determine the outcome of this election.

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:50 pm

“But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.”

Mr. Bush was working to restore some of that oversight … whose restoration was needed primarily because Progressive efforts to make home ownership universal distorted the market to the point that banks could consider it financially viable to fund the irresponsible.

Let me tell you the “mantra” that REALLY caused the problem …

All you need to do is show up for work; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.

This is the implicit message from our government since FDR. I call it The Biggest Lie of All … and it has done far more damage than any “mantra” coming from Mr. Bush or his Administration.

“I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity.”

Problem is, the producers in the middle class who create those jobs are either considered “rich”, or increased success on their part would push them into the “rich” category … and therefore become worthy of being milked as cash cows, by our government.

And in my own case, when the taxes of the rich guy who employs me and about 200 other people go up, my income goes down … for he shares a large portion of his profit with us, and the more he’s taxed, the less profit he has.

Your “progressive” taxation doesn’t differentiate between someone productive like him and a parasite like, say, Enron in their heyday … it still treats both as cash cows. regardless of the value of what each does to our society.

“And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.”

Perhaps if they weren’t being taxed so highly at all levels of government … and they hadn’t been misled into letting the government provide “solutions” and “guarantees” FOR them … they would have weathered the storm.

You’re mired in mindless class envy … or is it that you believe you must fling anything you’ve got to smear conservatives at them, in the hopes that it will stick, discredit that worldview, and pave the way for you to practice your pet vice without risk of having your mellow harshed? You wouldn’t be the first Re-, er, Progressive I’ve found with that motive, once the rhetorical boilerplate was peeled away.

defendUSA Says:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:54 am

Ritchie-

Spot on about Joe… Class envy. We bought our first house with our VA benefits. We were making 29K in 1992. The mortgage was for 95K. We had to make sacrifices in order to make that happen. 18 years later, and having priced out of what the VA benefits gave we own a house that may soon be underwater, even though we have never missed a payment and made 60K of improvements because of that bubble created by the regs.

But I don’t blame Bush like Joe. No. I take full responsibility for not understanding some things financial and being naive that my better half would always be making the money we made. He isn’t now, but, we have still made the sacrifices necessary to be on time with the payments and eat. This is what Joe misses every time he brings up blaming Bush.

And Joe, Joe, Joe. I am hardworking, self-employed currently and I benefited from the tax cuts, too. Because I *paid* taxes!! These were not only for the “rich” as you appear to believe. Those people got caught in a storm because the lenders preyed and they bit. They bought houses that were not in any way going to be affordable and then they got what they deserved. A person making 60k shouldn’t be owning a house with a mortgage for 300k – it makes zero sense.

But what lending practices did was not verify income and ability to pay. Do you have that straight? And, now, we have people who have defaulted not once, but twice with gov’t bailouts, er, my taxpayer dollars.

And you know what is really funny, Joe? We have been unemployed 3 times in 4 years taking unemployment 1 time for 6 months, and we never missed any payments for anything. Yes. We used up every ounce of savings, and the deferred income that was for the kids college, and the retirement fund. All taxed again. Yep. And when all that was gone, well, we couldn’t get help. Because the gov’t wants me to be in default of everything before I get help. I ask you, what is rational about that?

So when I needed a student loan for the kid, I got denied because I wasn’t delinquent!! Yes that FAFSA formula doesn’t work the way it should… IMO. But I fought the basturds and won. So, at least my kid gets to make her dreams come true.

Get the fuck over yourself and your pretentious “I care for the little guy” bullshit. You’re just a whiner who doesn’t get what economics is about and you have no clue how the gov’t is working to destroy The American dream by making others dependent and helping them to forget how to dream, hope and live. Just exist. Put “Defying Hitler” on your reading list, maybe you can learn something.

UPDATE 23 AUG 2010: The military commenters at This Ain’t Hell are still combating ignorance in the comments at this post as well: Obama as Reagan. Keep up the great work, gentlemen.

The Washington Post tries to draw parallels between Reagan and Obama: [ … ]

Yeah, tax cuts and massive spending are exactly the same – especially in the effect they’ll have on the economy. Reagan let us spend our own money, Obama takes our money and directs how it’s spent. That’s the same, right?

Paul Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 am

Yes, it’s sad when our politicians have obviously never taken an econ class. One thing both Reagan and Obama have in common though is they both like huge deficit spending.

UpNorth Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 am

And, one important difference, Paul. Reagan’s economy created jobs, O’s has lost jobs. And will continue to lose jobs, until he’s gone.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:29 pm

Paul,
Democrats over rode Reagan’s vetoes to force deficit spending after the Dems PROMISED him they would cut spending… Slight difference. I also believe this is when they introduced the concept of baseline budgeting. If an agency was expected to have a baseline increase of 7% and their budget only got increased by 6% it was called a “budget cut”

NHSparky Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm

And Paul, FWIW, had Congress (and guess which party was cutting the checks back then?) simply passed Reagan’s proposed budgets without adding a whole shitload of items to it, the federal government would have been running a SURPLUS by FY1990. Look it up. And when Reagan tried to veto the spending inserted in appropriations bills, the Supremes determined a line-item veto was unconstitutional.

Context FAIL, Paul. Back to your hole.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Hell Sparky, the Republicans even gave Bill Clinton a line item veto only to have the Supreme court overturn it…

USMC Steve Says:
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:22 am

Yeah, let us compare the two.

Reagan loved his country, Nobama hates it particularly the white part.

Reagan put together an excellent and intelligent, well versed cabinet, Nobama grabbed up a bunch of yes-man kowtowing leftists who wouldn’t know reality if it bit them on the ass.

Reagan included in his achievements the destruction of the Soviet Union and the opening up of eastern Europe, Nobama can claim socialized health care and forcing the spending of almost a trillion dollars AFTER over 70 percent of the people in this country voiced their strident opposition to it.

Reagan had a great deal of unified support in America, but Nobama has basically set race relations back 40 years, and has people at each other’s throats, no doubt in order to help fulfill his socialist agenda. You can’t force through marxism if the country isn’t totally fucked up you know.

The list could go on and on and on. Yep, lots of similarities.

August 21, 2010 , 5:15PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Bush Admnistration, Democrats, Economy, Liberalism, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Socialism | Comments Off on Continual Vigilance Against Ignorance

Rush Correctly Predicts Media Politicizing Haiti Earthquake Recovery Efforts to Help Obama

The man is good. As he says, he knows liberals like every inch of his glorious naked body. heh

Yesterday, during his smackdown response to the arrogant, condescending, liberal twit caller April, he predicted the mass media would politicize the US government response to the Haiti earthquake and bring up Hurricane Katrina in their analysis and coverage of the earthquake in Haiti:

RUSH: [ … ] I did not say don’t donate. I did say Obama will use this to help burnish his credentials, ’cause there’s no question he will. I’ll tell you something else I said, April: It took him three days to go out and talk about the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber. It took him less than 18 hours to get out there and start rallying people about this earthquake.

I’ll tell you something else, April. I’m going to make prediction to you, and I’m gonna be right about this. Before the week is out we’re going to have to be stories in the Huffington Post and other places that you read pointing out how fast Obama moved into action versus Bush during Hurricane Katrina. To accuse me of politicizing everything is to be ignorant about what I do on this program. I simply react to the left. They’re the ones that politicize virtually everything that’s happening from health care to terrorism, and I love illustrating absurdity by being absurd. And if you had listened to this program for a modicum of time you would know it. [ … ]

Sure enough, today I see this as a highlighted article on Yahoo.com: Analysis: Obama heeding lessons of Katrina

One thing I’d like to know: how is the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina, a domestic natural disaster relief effort, even remotely related to helping send aid to a foreign country? Wouldn’t a better analysis be to compare the Bush Administration’s relief efforts to the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004? Oh, no, but that would make too much sense and would not allow the mass media to politicize this and once again bash the Bush Administration and praise Obama. Idiots.

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer – 30 mins ago

WASHINGTON – This is what President Barack Obama wants people to think about the U.S. reaction to the catastrophe in Haiti: “swift, coordinated and aggressive.” He promised that stellar response in his first comments about the earthquake on Wednesday, then repeated it twice on Thursday.

In other words, this will not be Hurricane Katrina.

Obama is determined to show that the United States, even consumed with its own troubles, can get this right. And that he can, too.

The world is watching because of the expectations that come with being a rich, powerful democracy that is supposed to look out for its neighbors.

And because the stain of Katrina is not gone.

“This is one of those moments that calls out for American leadership,” said Obama, who can add a humanitarian crisis to his first-year tests in office.

There are huge contrasts between Katrina, the most destructive natural disaster in U.S. history, and the sorrowful scene unfolding in Haiti. One was a hurricane on U.S. soil that killed 1,800 people across the Gulf Coast; the other was an earthquake hundreds of miles away that may have killed 50,000 people. [ed by Michael in MI: Exactly, which is why it is a completely idiotic comparison. Why not just remind people of the “swift, coordinated and aggressive” manner in which the United States came to the aid of Indonesia after their tsunami? Oh yeah, one can’t bash the Bush Administration that way. Just as Rush said, instead of doing proper reporting, they have to politicize it.]

Yet as the wrenching images come in of people clinging to wreckage, of bodies piling up on the street, the comparisons are inevitable.

The botched federal response to Katrina in 2005 became the standard by which emergency responses are measured, and presidents are held accountable. [ed by Michael in MI: A made up mass media standard by which DOMESTIC emergency responses are measured. Last I checked, Haiti is a FOREIGN emergency. Akin to say… the tsunami in Indonesia.]

“The United States is seen in the world as the first responder to this kind of humanitarian crisis, and it has echoes — inappropriate echoes, to be sure — of Hurricane Katrina,” said Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. “Can we get there fast enough? There’s a risk there for the president.” [ed by Michael in MI: No, you jackass professor, it has echoes of the tsunami in Indonesia. Once again, this is a response to a FOREIGN emergency.]

Obama has responded with urgency, and the White House has tried to make sure that people know it.

The president has dispatched ships, soldiers, Marines and loads of other assets to the reeling Caribbean nation. He has pledged $100 million for relief efforts now and promised that that number will grow. He has positioned the United States as a coalition-building leader — the United Nations itself has been rocked by the collapse of its headquarters in Haiti. He has pleaded for donations from his old campaign list of supporters, more than 13 million strong. [ed by Michael in MI: Wow, so not any different than the Bush Administration’s response after the tsunami in Indonesia.]

And he told his team: “I will not put up with any excuses” for an inadequate response, another allusion to past government failures. A senior White House official, national security staff chief Denis McDonough, arrived in Haiti to help make sure U.S. agencies were coordinating as promised.

What the White House is not ready to do is trumpet any results — not yet. Another lesson learned. No “heckuva job” here.

When Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama was pleased with the pace of the U.S. response so far, he said: “He is, but …”

Gibbs followed by telling reporters that Obama had sternly told his team in the White House Situation Room that they must work day and night to get help fast into Haiti.

The human cost of disasters is the toll that matters. But the political one cannot be ignored.

“Presidents have a very limited time to prove their effectiveness in managing a crisis,” said Light, who praised Obama for the way he has spelled out the U.S. response and rallied his own country to help. Still, Light added: “The clock is ticking.” [ed by Michael in MI: Hmmm, did this Light fellow praise President Bush regarding the United States’ “swift, coordinated and aggressive” response to the tsunami in Indonesia?]

George W. Bush paid a huge price when America watched, in horror, as New Orleans was drowning and governments at all levels were slow to respond.

Now Obama has tasked Bush, along with fellow former President Bill Clinton, to lead the private fundraising efforts to help Haiti and its people recover.

Never mind that Obama blasted Bush’s government for “unconscionable ineptitude” after Hurricane Katrina hit. [ed by Michael in MI: Well, Obama and his Administration would know all about “unconscionable ineptitude”, having been inept his entire political career at accomplishing anything of substance and after a year in office of “unconscionable ineptitude”.]

Time for some common humanity, as Obama put it.

The balance for the president is to not be seen as heavy-handed or as the world’s problem-solver. He has emphasized that his chief priority is Americans, from getting injured U.S. citizens airlifted out of Haiti to helping Haitian-Americans try to get answers about their families.

Yet Obama says a robust response to another nation in need is also an American imperative.

“This is a time when the world looks to us,” Obama told House Democrats on Thursday. “And they say, given our capacity, given our unique capacity to project power around the world, that we have to project that not just for our own interests but for the interests of the world.”

The next few days will determine whether there is a gap between intentions and actions.

Haiti is in chaos. Patience is waning already. Obama’s relief point person, Rajiv Shah, is new on the job and not yet tested.

At home, Obama is still grappling with a nearly disastrous security breach from a failed terrorist attack on Christmas Day [which he ignored for 3 days while living it up in Hawai’i], trying to pull together a health care deal [that the vast majority of the American people do NOT want], working daily to shrink double-digit unemployment [that he deliberately caused over the past year], and is hemmed in by budget deficits [again, that he deliberately caused and is working to make them even larger]. He’s also managing two wars that have drained a military now called on for new duty in Haiti.

The United Nations humanitarian chief, John Holmes, said the U.N. is leading the humanitarian relief but the U.S. will have a dominant presence in Haiti. Describing the coordination of the operation, he told The Associated Press: “So far, it’s very good.”

That’s what Obama wants to hear.

By the way, here’s an inconvenient truth for the mass media and all the brain-dead, Bush-hating liberals out there: “…the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest — and fastest — rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm’s landfall.”

Stick that in your crack pipes and smoke it, you ignorant, Obama-fellating BDSers.

Here is Rush talking about this on his show today (01/15/2009):

RUSH: I predicted it yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, that it wouldn’t be long before the Drive-By Media, the State-Controlled Media started praising Obama for doing a much better job responding to Haiti and the earthquake than Bush did in Katrina and right here it is, by Ben Feller at the AP, very deep analysis here, “Obama Heeding Lessons of Katrina — This is what President Barack Obama wants people to think about the U.S. reaction to the catastrophe in Haiti: ‘swift, coordinated and aggressive.’ He promised that stellar response in his first comments about the earthquake on Wednesday, then repeated it twice on Thursday. In other words, this will not be Hurricane Katrina.” Sorry, folks, it already is. It’s worse. The aid hasn’t yet been distributed. Seventy-two hours they said, by the way, they’re lying.

Seventy-two hours Bush dithered, didn’t do anything, it’s been 72 hours. If you were watching Sky News, I was watching Sky News streaming video, it is an utter catastrophe. Sky News is discussing Haiti as utter pandemonium. Sky News is showing people screaming at the top of the hour: “We need help! We’re getting nothing! We’re going to die.” People were not even buried under concrete in New Orleans. Seventy-two hours is the benchmark. If they’re going to say Bush dithered for 72 hours, Obama certainly has made a lot of speeches, he’s made a lot of comments and we’ve seen pictures of airplanes landing and so forth. We’ve seen a lot of pictures of the media standing around down there but in terms of the aid being distributed, you can’t tell that it’s happened yet, not that it won’t, but I’m just saying keep this in context here. They’re building a case that Bush screwed around and dithered, and Obama is on the case. [ … ]

I predicted this. Well, the lie that the federal response to Katrina was botched has certainly become the standard, and it is a lie. The federal response to Katrina was not botched. In fact, the federal response, especially from the military, was spectacular, and this is the key, once the local Democrats let them in. Once Kathleen Blanco and once School Bus Nagin let them in, the federal response was great. “‘The United States is seen in the world as the first responder to this kind of humanitarian crisis, and it has echoes – inappropriate echoes, to be sure – of Hurricane Katrina,’ said Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. ‘Can we get there fast enough? There’s a risk there for the president.'” Oh. World’s policeman is bad but the world’s EMT, that’s good. Yeah, we can be the world’s first responders. Oh, yeah, it’s great to be the world’s EMT. It’s bad to be the world’s cop.

“Obama has responded with urgency, and the White House has tried to make sure that people know it.” That sounds like politicizing this to me. “The president has dispatched ships, soldiers, Marines and loads of other assets to the reeling Caribbean nation. He has pledged $100 million for relief efforts now and promised that that number will grow.” One hundred million of tax money. We don’t have the money so we’re borrowing it or printing it. You’re going to pay for it, your kids or grandkids someday down the line are going to pay for it. So you’re donating to the government. Here, folks, let me expand on this. You may have forgotten that President Obama eventually — he said this — wants to eliminate all tax deductions for charitable contributions. Do you remember this? Do you know why? He wants the government to be the sole provider of charity. He wants the government to be seen by people as their lifeline, their primary means of existence. If you eliminate the tax deductibility of donations to charity you’re not gonna give to charity as much. You’ll have your pet causes, the ones you really care about, and you’ll give, but charitable giving will decline precipitously. The government will take over.

And in this context is why I suggested many days ago that if you’re going to give, you already have in the form of income tax. You want to make additional donations, do it with other charities already on the ground. Even David Brooks today has a piece in the New York Times essentially saying the same thing I said, and also pointing out that we’ve given more aid to Haiti over the years than any other country in our hemisphere and it hasn’t mattered. Just as I said about Africa, the local African leaders say stop the aid, it’s retarding our progress. So President Obama was quick to claim that it cost US taxpayers a billion dollars for every thousand soldiers sent to Afghanistan. Remember that? And he has yet to mention how much it cost to send a soldier to Haiti. In fact, it didn’t even matter to him. But it was a factor in sending soldiers to Afghanistan. That’s about US national security. This is about domestic US politics. Haiti is about domestic US politics in addition to the humanitarian effort that is behind this.

Of course we are not suggesting that we shouldn’t send soldiers to Haiti. Do not misunderstand. But why is there no concern about the cost from the White House when there was so much concern about Afghanistan? After all, isn’t the job of the US military first and foremost to protect the national security interests of the United States? No, it’s not. The US military is now Meals on Wheels. It always is with Democrat presidents. Back to the AP story: “He has positioned the United States as a coalition-building leader – the United Nations itself has been rocked by the collapse of its headquarters in Haiti. He has pleaded for donations from his old campaign list of supporters, more than 13 million strong.” They really got mad at me in the Drive-Bys for suggesting that if you donate to WhiteHouse.gov you’re going to end up on a mailing list. Well, they’re already sending out requests to an existing mailing list that you’ll be added to.

Like most Americans, we have somehow ended up on several of Obama’s e-mail lists. I’m on a bunch of them as show prep and I haven’t received anything from him or any of his myriad organizations about Haiti, yet. At any rate, I want to go through a list of headlines about Haiti and ask, “Is this really different than Hurricane Katrina?”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So the AP has its big story out saying presidents can’t avoid making things like this political. But of course if I say something about it that Obama’s making it political, I get ripped to shreds. Every excuse in the world is being offered, every comparison: “Bush horrible. Bush dithering. Obama right in the mix, right on time! Obama knows how to do it. He’s not going to be stay…” Well, let’s just go through some of these headlines:

“Despair, Panic Set in as Food, Water, and Medical Supplies are Delayed.”
“Death toll estimate at 50,000 to 100,000.”
“UN to Launch Haiti Emergency Appeal for $550 Million.”
“Anarchy! Who’s Running the Country?”
“Aristide Offers to Return.”

I predicted that, too.

“US Military Mobilizes Thousands.”
“War zone: Gangs Do Battle in Streets with Machetes Over Food.”
“Rescuers Race Against Time.”
“Wire: Angry Haitians Block Roads with Corpses”
“Horror: Corpses Impede Traffic, Pyres of Burning Tires Incinerate Cadavers.”
“Growing Desperation.”
“Survivors Face Diarrhea, Malaria Outbreaks Amid Lack of Clean Water.”
“Looting.”
“Earthquake in Pictures.” Satellite Photos Before and After.”
“Actor Danny Glover Says Quake ‘Response’ For Screwing Up Climate Summit In Copenhagen.”

And at the top of the hour Sky News showed people screaming, “We need help! We’re getting nothing. We’re going to die, we’re going to die!” Aren’t these the same sort of hysterical headlines we saw after Katrina? Are they not? And the Katrina numbers were not nearly 50,000 to 100,000 dead. The US military did a marvelous job. We have a giant lie that has stuck about Bush and Hurricane Katrina, and Mr. Obama need not ever worry that such thing will happen to him because, as this AP story so clearly illustrates, the State-Controlled Media will be there every step of the way to make sure their readers and viewers understand that Obama’s doing far better — far, far, far better — than Bush, who didn’t care. Remember, they said Bush didn’t care because there are a lot of black people in New Orleans. Obama himself even implied that at the time. Oh, yeah, folks. My memory is long on these matters. Now, here we are in the middle of a horrible disaster, and CNN is reporting that Colin Powell — he finally speaks! — is very impressed with the Obama initial response to Haiti earthquake.

Why do we care if Colin Powell is impressed or not? What’s newsworthy about that? But he’s there. We’ve been waiting for him to speak up, and he’s impressed. Colin Powell is really impressed by Obama’s initial response. The fact that the same military and charities and alike are working like hell to help these poor people down there, just as they did in Katrina, is ignored. It’s all about Obama. There are charities on the ground year ’round in Haiti trying to help. But now it’s all about Obama. Yet we have report after report about how the aid can’t get to where it’s needed and how it will be days before it does, and it’s right here in these headlines that I just shared with you: “Despair, Panic Set in as Food, Water, and Medical Supplies are Delayed.” “Death toll estimate at 50,000 to 100,000.” The aid can’t get where it’s needed because of issues like the gangs, piling up corpses, blocking travel on roads. It’s not because of a lack of effort on the part of the first responders — and there were lots of obstacles to getting the aid to New Orleans, too. I’m not trying to be controversial at all. I am simply making this point to highlight how the reporting is so, so different.

Wow, I missed this when I was listening to the show this afternoon. I’m glad I am not the only one who realized that a more apt comparison would be to the United States response to the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004:

CALLER: I’d like to know why the press isn’t comparing this to the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 where Bush — I think he had a hospital ship there within about 48 hours, he had P-3s flying search-and-rescue missions immediately. We got $35 million pledged, committed almost immediately, another $350 million within five days. And we eventually I think committed almost $950 million to the damage in —

RUSH: Well, it’s an excellent point. The answer is the same answer, why didn’t we get any good news coming out of Afghanistan in the early years, because it was working?

CALLER: Exactly. Yeah. And the other thing, I think the Red Cross had been kind of depleted by the time Hurricane Katrina hit, and plus he didn’t have Democrats blocking his way trying to get into Indonesia.

RUSH: Exactly. Exactly right. That is my point, Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco blocked entry into New Orleans. It wasn’t the hurricane, by the way, that did the damage, it was the levees bursting after the hurricane was gone that caused the floods and the levees, it was a combination of problems of local corruption and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The money was allocated; it was just not used for the levees.

Heh, couldn’t pass on including this:

RUSH: Sad news out of Haiti, Port-au-Prince. This is Fox News: “Desperation in Haiti as Aid Is Snarled, Looters Roam — Hundreds of U.S. troops touched down in earthquake-shattered Port-au-Prince overnight and were soon handing out food and water to stricken survivors, as relief groups struggled to deliver aid Friday and fears spread of unrest in Haiti’s fourth day of desperation.” But wait! But wait! But wait! The AP has a story today saying that Obama has brilliantly got aid in there much faster than Bush did after Katrina. The facts on the ground don’t back it up.

Yeah, we all know what liberals, BDSers and Obama’s knob-gobblers in the mass media think about facts.

Heck, even Bill Clinton agreed Rush is right about donating to private charities:

CLINTON: Let’s take a serious point that Mr. Limbaugh was making is that the Americans pay for the government and the military is down there doing their part. But in a disaster of this magnitude, there is no way that the government, which has other responsibilities as well, national security and other responsibilities, you just can’t deal with this just with government money. That’s what all these faith-based groups are doing down there. That’s what all these other nongovernmental groups are doing. And we think Americans know that and want to help.

RUSH: Exactly! Which is my point from the get-go, which was distorted by the media watchdogs that watch and misreport this program and people like Bob Schieffer who don’t listen to this program then get an idea, a distorted idea of what I said. The government can’t do it all! I can’t believe he actually admitted it. These guys are having you believe government can do everything, government can fix your health care, government can solve war, government can solve pestilence, government can do everything. Now it can’t. Did you ever hear them say this during Katrina? “Government can’t do everything.” You never heard them say this during Katrina. So vindication for me is all over the place. It’s out there for one and all to see and hear.

And, here today (01/18/2010) we have even more examples of Rush being right about both the mass media and Obama politicizing the Haiti relief efforts:

RUSH: Is Wyclef Jean a rap star or is he just reggae kind of music? Do you know? Well, Wyclef Jean is running a relief mission in Haiti. I think he’s Haitian, but I’m not sure. Okay, he’s Haitian. Well, he’s being ripped apart by people for suggesting that people donate to his charity. Some in the media are suggesting that the administrative costs of charity going through Wyclef Jean’s company or outfit may be a little bit high and the net sum that will end up getting to the recipients is not what it should be, and I’m stunned at this. What about the administrative costs of donating through WhiteHouse.gov, for crying out loud? Do you know that one of the reasons the welfare budget is as high as it is — and these numbers are I guess ten years old, but in 1999, maybe earlier than that, for every dollar that was budgeted for welfare or food stamps, AFDC, whatever it is, 28 cents of it was spent on administering it, so 72 cents out of every dollar got there. I mean the high administrative costs are actually when you donate through the government. I don’t know of a president ever who has asked people to donate to a relief effort through a White House website. It’s never happened before.

By definition, everything the president of the United States does is political. They even put out from the White House over the weekend, Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Sun-Times, I printed it out, it’s three-and-a-half pages: “Obama on the Haiti Earthquake Crisis: Behind-the-Scenes — The Obama White House is taking the unusual step of pro-actively providing a heavy amount of on-the-record details of how President Obama is handling the aftermath of the horrific earthquake in Haiti. On Friday, the White House released a minute-by-minute account of events.” From Tuesday, January 12th, all the way through Friday, January 15th, it takes two-and-a-half pages and the tiniest font size I’ve ever seen to go through it.

“Tuesday, January 12th, 5:52 p.m.: The President is informed of the earthquake at 5:52 p.m. The President asks his staff to make sure that embassy personnel are safe, and to begin preparations in the event that humanitarian assistance is needed. The Department of State, USAID and the United States Southern Command begin working to coordinate an assessment and any such assistance. 8:30 p.m.: The President receives another update on the situation…” It goes on and on like this for four days. The whole point of this is to show exactly how on the money here and paying attention Obama is, as contrasted to President Bush in Katrina. Now, this disaster in Haiti is worse than anything that ever happened in New Orleans. It’s just an absolute disaster. The aid finally starting to trickle in now after about six days, but it’s still very, very slow. The situation on the ground is unimaginable. I don’t even want to describe to you the things that I have read with the vermin, the rats, I don’t even want to go there. This is just unbelievable. It’s unimaginable and for anybody to report that I said don’t donate is absurd, and these people know it. The people who are making a big deal out of this, are themselves politicizing this for the express purpose of discrediting me, somebody they feel is a top-line conservative spokesman.

They are constantly trying to discredit people like me, rather than debate us on issues. Nobody here ever said don’t donate. We just pointed out you already contribute to the government with your income taxes. If you want to donate above and beyond that, go through a charity that’s constantly on the ground in Haiti, or the Red Cross, if you want to go that route or whatever. Nobody said do not donate, which is what is being reported. I’ve had so many e-mails over the weekend: “Rush, the press is castigating you unfairly. You know what you ought to do Rush? You ought to donate a million-dollars, make it public or you ought to ask all the liberal media to ask what they individually have donated and then promise to double it. It would probably cost you 20 bucks.” That was the funniest one I’ve seen.

You know, how is it that the White House can put out minute-by-minute play-by-play on Obama’s actions with regards to our nation’s response to a foreign natural disaster, but they refuse to show us minute-by-minute play-by-play regarding Congressional debate over health care bills, cap-and-trade bills, “stimulus” bills, etc? The answer is obvious, of course. The Obama Administration and the Democrat Party do not want the American people to know about all their corruption behind closed doors regarding running up multi-Trillion dollar deficits on legislation the majority of the American people do NOT want, because that would be politically bad for them, but they DO want to let people know about the actions regarding the response to the Haiti earthquake, because they feel that will be politically good for them.

And of course Obama’s knob-gobblers in the mass media are more than happy to propagandize for him for political purposes. Typical. And Rush predicted it all, as he always does. Which is why the Left hates him. He exposes their nonsense, and they hate that.

Also see: How Obama and Democrats Have Politicized the Earthquake in Haiti

RUSH: Here it is. It’s in the DC Examiner: “Clinton: Haiti Relief, Dem Politicking Are ‘Two Sides of the Same Coin’ — ‘Somebody asked me today,'” Clinton said, “‘Well, why are you going to this political rally?’ he began. “And I said to them, this is just two sides of the same coin. You have to bear with me. I have friends killed there. I’ve worked with this country for 35 years. Hillary and I had a good cry on the phone because the cathedral that we sat in the pews 35 years ago was totally destroyed.” Clinton said that they used frequent flier miles in 1975 to go to Hawaii. There’s only one problem with that. The frequent flier mileage program didn’t go into effect until 1981, until after airline deregulation in 1978. There was no such thing as frequent flier miles in 1975. You can look it up. It doesn’t matter. Two sides of the same coin and they get mad at me for accusing these guys of politicizing things. They had a good cry. He and Hillary had a good cry because the cathedral where they prayed in 35 years ago went down, is what he said. He and Hillary had a good cry on the phone. Now, you can process that however you wish.

One more thing here about this WhiteHouse.gov, from The Politico, this is about a year ago, January 20th of 2009: “The new White House website unveiled by President Barack Obama’s team Tuesday includes a shot at former President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Under the ‘agenda’ portion of the site regarding Katrina, it reads: ‘President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.'” And it goes on. So don’t tell me, you people in the press, don’t tell me, and don’t tell anybody else, that I’m off track when I say this man politicizes everything, including the Haiti relief effort, by asking people to go to WhiteHouse.gov.

And don’t ever tell ’em I’m telling people not to donate to Haiti because I’ve not said that. I have said, “You’ve already donated to the government in the form of your taxes.” You already have. And what did they do, authorize a hundred million dollars from the government? That’s been done. You want to donate, go someplace else. Remember, Obama wants to remove the charitable deduction. He wants all charitable contributions or all charitable outlays to come from government in the future.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me ask you another question here, folks. Would a man who politicizes a man-caused disaster, 9/11, politicize a natural disaster? Let me point this out, Barack Obama has given a terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, constitutional rights and a show trial in New York City. He did this for political purposes. Don’t tell me this is the best legal way to resolve this. Obama wants the media to help him smear President Bush and Vice President Cheney based upon the rantings of a Muslim extremist. Obama is willing to bankrupt New York City, ignore the Constitution, destroy the CIA, and launch a banana republic style attack on his predecessor to advance his political agenda. It’s one of the most brazen and destructive political ploys in American history, but it’s there for everybody to see who cares to deal with reality. And I am grounded in reality. I am Mr. Literal. So would a man who politicizes 9/11, would a man who politicizes Hurricane Katrina, politicize an earthquake? I think so.

Now, Michael D. Tanner, this is an article that originally appeared in the Christian Science Monitor on September 20th of 2005, and it’s from the Cato Institute, which is a Libertarian think tank: “Katrina: Government Failure, Private Success.” It’s a long article, let me give you some excerpts from it: “As we hear calls for a ‘compassionate’ response to the victims of this tragedy, it is important to remember that you can’t be compassionate with other people’s money.” He’s writing this about Katrina. “This difference is as simple as the difference between my reaching into my pocket for money to help someone in need and my reaching into your pocket for the same purpose. The former is charity — the latter is not.

“Moreover, private charity has long been recognized as more effective and efficient than government welfare programs. Local churches and community groups are the best positioned to understand the needs in their respective areas, and can direct money or services to where they are most useful. Private charities are generally far more flexible than government agencies, which are frequently bogged down in red tape and regulations. Just ask yourself, who has done a better job at timely and effective response, FEMA or the American Red Cross? This is not to say that government has no role in dealing with a disaster like Katrina. From policing to search and rescue to infrastructure repair, the government has and will continue to be active. But there is a danger in turning to the government too quickly or too often. If people come to believe that government will provide the funding, they may decide that there is less need for their own contributions. This will result in a loss not only of money, but of the human quality of charity.” And this is all that I was saying.

That was all that I was saying when I said, “Don’t go to this WhiteHouse.gov business. That’s a politicized entity. There are countless private charities to donate to. Find them, Red Cross and so forth and do it that way.” Nobody here, including me, ever said don’t donate, which is what they’re trying to distract you with. More importantly, they’re trying to distract me. They were hoping I would lead off my show with this today and ignore what’s going on in Massachusetts and what’s going on with health care, but I’m not going to let them distract me.

January 15, 2010 , 12:08PM Posted by | Associated Press, Barack Obama, Bush Admnistration, Haiti, Liberalism, Media Bias, Rush Limbaugh | 1 Comment

War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism

So, everyone, by now, has probably heard allllll about Scott McClellan, President Bush’s former Press Secretary, releasing a book which bashes President Bush. He is now the darling of the Left, the mass media and all the ignoramuses who think President Bush has mucked up the war effort in Iraq in one way or another (nevermind that it is the most successful war effort in history…).

However, you are probably not aware of another book released recently, which did not get the adoring, orgasmic coverage of the mass media: Douglas Feith’s War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. For those of you who do not know who is Douglas Feith, he served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005.

Now, whom do you think has more credible information when it comes to the details of the war effort: an incompetent Press Secretary who was fired (whose book was funded by Leftist, America-hater George Soros) or a respected former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Well, unless you are suffering from BDS, you chose the latter.

The gentlemen at Power Line have been doing a great series of posts about this book, which, unlike the hit-job with nothing new to say by McClellan, has many revelations that should be of interest to anyone who has any true intellectual curiousity about the war effort. This would obviously not include anyone who rants about “Bush Lied! People Died!”, “No WMDs!”, “War for Oil!” and “Bush had no plan for post invasion!” Those are people who choose to form opinions based on their biased emotions instead of opening their minds and using their logic.

For the rest of us though, this is an amazing opportunity to get an idea of what went on at the highest levels of our goverment “at the dawm of the war on terrorism”.

So I hope you will all stop reading about the disgruntled putz McClellan and spend your time reading about this book by Douglas Feith. Hopefully these discussions at Power Line will also intrigue you enough to purchase the book and learn all the details provided by Mr. Feith. I know it is already on my Amazon Wish List.

Also, if pure interest in getting the facts about “the dawn of the war on terrorism” does not convince you to purchase the book, you should know that Mr. Feith is donating all proceeds from the book to charities which help military veterans and their families. (Probably another reason why the mass media and the Left have downplayed and slammed this book.)

War and Decision: A word from Douglas Feith (1)

 

We invited Mr. Feith to preview the book in his own words for our readers. He has graciously responded:

I’ve been doing many interviews about my book in recent days – and I’ve heard from many journalists and others that the book surprises them. It tells a story that contradicts key parts of almost all the major books about the Iraq war.

For example, it refutes the notion that President Bush came into office determined to go to war no matter what – that the administration refused or failed to consider the arguments against war. In fact, as my book reveals, the most serious analysis of the downsides and risks of war was produced in the Pentagon by Rumsfeld and his top advisers – not by Colin Powell, Rich Armitage, George Tenet or other officials who are reputed to have been the voices of caution.

My book contradicts the common allegation that Pentagon civilians did not plan for post-Saddam Iraq. It explains what is wrong with the charge that the State Department had a plan that Defense officials discarded. It explains what is wrong with the charge that Rumsfeld and his advisers were dupes of the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi – and what is wrong with the assertion that we intended to “anoint Chalabi” as the leader of Iraq.

My book quotes extensively from previously classified documents – from numerous memos that were exchanged among Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, General Myers, VP Cheney and the President. It recounts numerous meetings ? and it does so, not on the basis of after-the-fact interviews in which officials remember (or pretend to remember) years after the fact what occurred in those meetings, but on the basis of the notes I took while attending the meetings. In writing the book, I made the radical decision that words would be put in quotation marks only if they were actually spoken by the characters in my history at the very time and place described.

Among the main topics covered in the book are:

· The development of the strategy for the war on terrorism in the hours and days after 9/11 – a strategy that broke with US counter-terrorism policies of the previous decades – a strategy that aimed not simply to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, but (much more ambitiously) to prevent follow-on 9/11-scale attacks.

· For all the errors the administration has made and the terrible problems we have encountered in recent years, especially in Iraq, it is a notable achievement that we are six and half years past 9/11 and the United States has not been hit again as we were hit then. This owes something, I believe, to our strategy.

Another major topic covered in the book is the rationale for the Iraq war. I explain what the President and his top officials were concerned about – why Iraq was a problem made more urgent and more worrisome by 9/11 even though we did not believe that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attack itself.

The book reviews the issue of politicization of intelligence – and the accusations of manipulation of intelligence. It explains the actual controversy between my office and the CIA over the intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaida relationship. The actual controversy was not a clash in which Defense officials argued that there was an intimate Iraq-al Qaida relationship while CIA officials argued for a more sober assessment. Rather it was an argument about methodology and professionalism. It was about the criticism by Defense officials of the CIA’s politicization of its own intelligence.

And perhaps most newsworthy, the book explains for the first time anywhere the key postwar plan developed by the administration – the plan for political transition in post-Saddam Iraq. It was a plan developed in the Defense Department – and it aimed to prevent a prolonged US occupation of Iraq. It was a plan to put Iraqis in charge of their own government promptly after Saddam’s overthrow. It was a plan that built on our experience in Afghanistan, where the US overthrew the Taliban regime but did not establish a US occupation government. As I say in the book, it was a plan “which my office drafted, Powell and Armitage tried to delay, President Bush approved, Jay Garner began to implement, and L. Paul Bremer buried.”

Much of the latter part of the book deals with how this plan was undone and the harmful consequences that resulted.

While the book recounts controversies and debates, it does so in a way that I think is far more fascinating than the snide and shallow self-justification that is typical in memoirs of former officials. I refer in the book to the “I was surrounded by idiots school of memoir-writing.” I don’t like that school. I find it boring and bad history. While I was in the administration, I had many disagreements with other officials, but I generally thought that their arguments had important merits. When I disagreed, it was usually because I thought that an alternative strategy or policy had even more merit.

Throughout, I have tried to be critical of all the work I discuss in the book – that of other agencies, that of the Defense Department and that of my own office and myself. Washington Post reporters apparently assume that former officials’ memoirs are inevitably finger-pointing, blame-laying books. Some have asserted this about my book, but they did so without actually having read it. If they eventually do read it, they will find that they were wrong.

I’ve been pleased that writers who did read the book have written favorably about it ? for example: Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Di Rita at NRO, and Frank Gaffney in the Washington Times.

I tried to make my book a useful, accurate account – as accurate as one man’s account can be. I care about accuracy. That is why I relied so heavily on the contemporaneous written record. That is why I provided footnotes and endnotes so extensively. The book is 530 pages long, with around 140 pages of notes and reproduced documents. And I want readers to pay attention to the notes – to read them. I’d be happy if they challenge me on my use and interpretation of the documents. I have created a website – War and Decision (5) ? where anyone can go and easily pull up the unclassified documents and articles and other material that I cite.

I was very pleased the other day when Professor Dan Byman joked at a talk I gave at Georgetown University that my website will strike fear in the hearts of professors across America. The idea of someone making it easy for people to check one’s footnotes ? a terrifying idea, he said, but he complimented it as the essence of scholarship.

I want to invite all of you to read my book and visit War and Decision to plunge into the actual record of the fateful decision of the Bush administration at the dawn of the war on terrorism.

It should be noted that in addition to the book’s contribution to history, the book is responsible for another contribution. Mr. Feith is donating all the proceeds from the book to charities that help veterans and their families.

Our Interview of Doug Feith (2)

Doug Feith on the Northern Alliance (3)

Debunking the received wisdom about Iraq war policy-making (4)

June 1, 2008 , 9:27PM Posted by | Bush Admnistration, Douglas Feith, Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The Long War, US Military, War Effort in Iraq | Comments Off on War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism

I Found Saddam’s WMD Bunkers – Iraq’s WMD are Now in the Hands of Terrorists

I have never understood why the Bush Administration has refused since 2003 to combat the lies of the Left and the Democrats and the media that we have not found WMD in Iraq. I have read from numerous sources of everything the Coalition forces have found so far. Not to mention the Saddam Dossier and the Oil for Food program documents which showed Saddam was working to get sanctions lifted through bribery, so he could start up his WMD programs bull-bore without any sanctions.

So reading this article from Melanie Phillips is frustrating and baffling at the same time. Frustrating, because it is yet another source where someone has proven that Saddam either had WMD or had the resources setup to start up his programs were he to go unchallenged. And baffling, because, if what Dave Gaubatz, an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations who searched Iraqi WMD sites after the fall of Saddam, says is correct, then the Bush Administration is covering up the fact that they were absolutely correct about Saddam’s caches of WMD, because they don’t want to take criticism for not preventing the caches of WMD to fall into terrorists’ hands, as the war was intended to do.

Still, this is an interesting read. Of course, because of the Bush Administration’s utter incompetence in defending itself against the “BUSH LIED!” mantra of the Left, the Democrats and the MSM, those people who believe the “BUSH LIED” lie will just discount this, while those of us who know the facts are left with just another set of facts that people in power refuse to show the American public to set the record straight.

I have to say that this really angers me. And I really don’t understand why the Bush Adminstration continues to lie about not finding WMD. I certainly hope they have a good reason for it, because allowing the “BUSH LIED!” lie to take hold with a good portion of the country has completely divided us as a nation and completely eroded support for the war effort.

Found via Scott Johnson at Power Line: Meet Dave Gaubatz

It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.

You may be tempted to dismiss this as yet another dodgy claim from a warmongering lackey of the world Zionist neocon conspiracy giving credence to yet another crank pushing US propaganda. If so, perhaps you might pause before throwing this article at the cat. Mr Gaubatz is not some marginal figure. He’s pretty well as near to the horse’s mouth as you can get.

Having served for 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, Mr Gaubatz, a trained Arabic speaker, was hand-picked for postings in 2003, first in Saudi Arabia and then in Nasariyah in Iraq. His mission was to locate suspect WMD sites, discover threats against US forces in the area and find Saddam loyalists, and then send such intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group and other agencies.

Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq — two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true.

This was, in the first place, because of the massive size of these sites and the extreme lengths to which the Iraqis had gone to conceal them. Three of them were bunkers buried 20 to 30 feet beneath the Euphrates. They had been constructed through building dams which were removed after the huge subterranean vaults had been excavated so that these were concealed beneath the river bed. The bunker walls were made of reinforced concrete five feet thick.

‘There was no doubt, with so much effort having gone into hiding these constructions, that something very important was buried there’, says Mr Gaubatz. By speaking to a wide range of Iraqis, some of whom risked their lives by talking to him and whose accounts were provided in ignorance of each other, he built up a picture of the nuclear, chemical and biological materials they said were buried underground.

‘They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the US to remove them,’ says Mr Gaubatz. ‘Much of this material had been buried in the concrete bunkers and in the sewage pipe system. There were also missile imprints in the area and signs of chemical activity — gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles. The Iraqis and my team had no doubt at all that WMDs were hidden there.’

There was yet another significant piece of circumstantial corroboration. The medical records of Mr Gaubatz and his team showed that at these sites they had been exposed to high levels of radiation.

Read it all: “I found Saddam’s WMD Bunkers”

Also, Allahpundit at HotAir notes that FrontPageMag covered this story last year, as did the NYTimes. The fact that we have not told Syria to hand over the WMD or face the consequences, especially when they are contributing to the terrorism in the world and in Iraq and Israel and Lebanon through Hezb’Allah and allowing terrorists to cross their borders into Iraq, is maddening. We allow the world to call us liars and evil and warmongers and idiots, when we have intel showing that the WMD are in Syria. Why the HELL aren’t we acting on it.

As I said before, the Bush Administration better have a DAMN good reason for lying like this.

Also see this NY Sun article from Jan 2006: Iraq’s WMD Secreted to Syria, Sada Says

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein’s air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, Saddam’s Secrets,” released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

“There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,” Mr. Sada said. “I am confident they were taken over.”

Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.”

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, “It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”

Said Mr. Bush, “We did not find those weapons.”

Again, this pisses me off to no end, because the Left and the Democrats and the media use these quotes to completely discredit the facts that come out about WMD being found.

And ONCE AGAIN, the Bush Administration better have a DAMN GOOD REASON for lying like that.

UPDATE I: Interesting comment at HotAir by Perchant:

The Democrats stalled our invasion of Iraq. Their stalling strategy had its own catch phrase called “why the rush to war?”. We now have the answer to that question.

My conspiracy theory on that one was that some Democrats (using runners like McDermott, Bonior, Lindauer) worked with the Russians, the French and other oil for food partners to remove Saddam’s WMD from Iraq so that Saddam could accept a last minute inspection. The clock ran out on them and “shock and awe” commenced. They were hollering “no wmds” before we even entered Baghdad and there was no reason for them to be confident of that.

UPDATE II: Commenter stonemeister has another good point:

If the truth were known, it would become public that Iraq, with the help of Russia (which also supplied aircraft and trucks), shipped off WMDs, supplies, materials, and manufacturing equipment to Iraq and even some to Iran, shortly before the war started.

Letting this info out would burn bridges (as if they existed) between us and Russia, and would cause the middle east to go up like a tinderbox. Israel would feel threatened by Syria, and feel tempted to strike these stockpiles before they were attacked, and Iran would have the perfect excuse to attack Israel. If we “insulted” Russia with these facts, they would turn more against us (as if that were possible), and eliminate any chance they could take our side against the Islamists. Plus the fact that North Korea, Russia, France and Germany was selling supplies, materials, and equipment to Iraq and Syria, the whole thing would blow up.

Talk about a world war! That’s why Bush has been willing to take his lumps, to fight one battle at a time. I don’t think he was counting on one of the battles he’d fight was with the Dems and press of his own country!

And that is probably it right there. I don’t think anyone could have predicted how Bush Derangement Syndrome would infect the Left, the Democrats and the MSM so much so that they would commit treason. The fact is, all of us underestimated the utter delusion and hatred that infects the leftists, based on their losing their political power in 2000.

UPDATE III: Via Commentor TheBigOldDog:

This is an important companion article in Melanie’s Diary:

The questions that need to be asked about those WMD

It’s long but important. For example:

At the 2006 Summit, a tape recording of Saddam discussing his nuclear weapons technology was presented to the public. The tape clearly shows Saddam discussing a progress report on a laser enrichment system for uranium, one of the more advanced methods to make a nuclear bomb. This nuclear technology tape had sat untranslated in a Kuwaiti warehouse along with thousands of shelf feet of captured Intelligence files. Mr. Negroponte had decided to give them a low priority until the 2006 Summit revealed their importance.

I think the reason the Admin has downplayed the WMD story is because the worst has indeed happened. As she says, through American incompetence, the worst case scenario has now been realised — that Saddam’s WMD are in the hands of terrorist regimes waging war against the west.

UPDATE IV: This is interesting. Seems as though there is a China connection. Very troubling. Via commentor TheBigOldDog:

They were in Libya and of the nuclear variety, funded by the Saudis, with Pak plans, NK materiel, and staffed by Pak and Iraqi scientists.

And the documents were written in CHINEESE!

Again, from Melanie:

When Col. Quaddafi turned over his blueprints for a nuclear warhead, they were written in Chinese. Even more alarming, the IAEA discovered that tens of thousands of advanced P-2 uranium centrifuges had been manufactured in Malaysia, but had gone missing. The Summit now believes that China had arranged this shipment for Iraq.

UPDATE V: Also see this NY Sun article: Ex-Officer Spurned on WMD Claim

UPDATE VI: Absolutely excellent post by commentor angryamerican. And s/he makes a great point. Saddam’s excuse for the shipments to Syria before the 2003 invasion was “humanitarian aid” to Syria. Saddam did not have enough aid for his own country due to using the Oil-for-Food money to build palaces and fund his WMD programs, yet we’re supposed to believe he could give aid to Syria? Riiiiiiiight. Of course the illogical idiots suffering from BDS on the Left take Saddam’s claims as “gospel”.

In 2002 and 2003 it was reported that the NSA satellites had taken satellite photos of Iraqi Convoys leaving suspected chemical facilities and going into 3 sites in Syria.

Saddam Hussein’s #2 Iraqi Air Force General, General Sada, has testified that he oversaw the transport of Chemical Weapons into Syria, but they were disguised as “humanitarian” aid in 2002 and 2003 before the invasion:

http://newyorksun.com/

These 20 planeloads are what General Sada said contained the Chemical Weapons in this story from Relief Web in June 2002: Iraq sends 20 planeloads of aid to Syrian victims of dam collapse

Saddam Hussein said those 20 planeloads contained “humanitarian aid”, but he was under U.N. Sanctions?!

He said he didn’t have enough humanitarian supplies, which is what he used for the excuse to let his own people starve??!!
But he had enough to send 20 planeloads of “humanitarian aid” to Syria??!!

—————————————————————————————————

And this was further validated by Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf).

“A Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, 2004, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.”

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites

In 2004 10 al-Qaeda terrorists were captured in Jordan with more than 20 tons of Chemical Weapons. The reported targets were the Jordanian prime minister’s office and the headquarters of Jordanian intelligence, and the U.S. Embassy.

It has been reported that up to 100,000 could have been killed in the Terrorist Bombing.

al-Qaeda got those Chemical Weapons out of Syria:

Jordan ‘was chemical bomb target’

CNN: Jordan says major al Qaeda plot disrupted

Jordan: Major al Qaeda chemical plot foiled

In 2003 Iraqi Nuclear Scientist, Dr Mahdi Obeidi, revealed he was hiding the key Nuclear Research and Nuclear Centrifuges needed to restart Saddam’s Nuclear Weapons Program under Saddam’s order.

Saddam reported these nuclear documents, and key nuclear centrifuge parts as “Destroyed” in 1995!

The experts argued that Saddam Hussein had ASPIRATIONS of reconstituting his Nuclear Weapons Program.

These Nuclear Documents and key Nuclear Centrifuge parts were declared DESTROYED by Saddam. They were NOT.

CNN: Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

April 21, 2007 , 4:36PM Posted by | Bush Admnistration, Bush Derangement Syndrome, China, CIA, CNN, David Gaubatz, Iraq, Media Bias, Nuclear Weapons, Russia, Saddam Dossier, Syria, Terrorism, UN Oil-for-Food, War Effort in Iraq, WMDs | Comments Off on I Found Saddam’s WMD Bunkers – Iraq’s WMD are Now in the Hands of Terrorists