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:
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:
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.”
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:
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.
I originally posted this on November 17, 2005.
Well, I have found the reason why most teenie-boppers today are ignorant of the TRUTH about the connections between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda: they were between the ages of 7 and 12 when the media was actually reporting on these connections. And considering most get indoctrinated with liberal garbage in today’s public schools, whose teachers have probably been brainwashing them with liberal, hate-Bush garbage for the past 6 years, I suppose I should take off the label of traitor I apply to them and simply consider them ignorant fools. Ignorant because they simply do not know the truth, but fools because they seem to claim to be highly intelligent know-it-alls whenever they go around spouting off about how “Bush Lied!” and “everyone knows the Bush Administration was full of sh*t”, when in fact all they are doing is regurgitating lies spewed by the hate-Bush crowd. I guess being hateful and looking foolish is popular among the nation’s youth these days. Who knows.
All I know is that if these people were to simply go to this website, they would see that the media was reporting, with full confidence and assurance, that there was a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Don’t believe me? Check it out for yourself. The same media outlets now all regurtitating the “Bush Lied’ mantra spewing out of the lying mouths of the Democrats, Liberals and idiot little teenie boppers, were all reporting the threat of the alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein:
Unmentioned by ABC, how maybe the Bush administration believed there was a bin Laden-Saddam connection because they believed ABC News. In a story aired in a prime time news magazine show on Thursday, January 14, 1999, then-ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden “reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan.” MacVicar trumpeted how “ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.”
I tracked down that ABC News story after seeing it referred to in an excerpt from a new book by Stephen Hayes, “The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America,” published in the June 7 Weekly Standard. Hayes cited similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.
The Weekly Standard titled its excerpt, “The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.” In the book, Hayes recited numerous pieces of evidence of how Iraq and al-Qaeda had a mutually beneficial relationship. Here’s an excerpt from the Weekly Standard’s book excerpt in which Hayes recounted how the media assumed such a relationship, based on information provided by Clinton administration officials:
There was a time not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.
Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed “Saddam Bin Laden?” “Here’s what is known so far,” it read:
“Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas — assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.”
….NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, and offered this report:
“Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait….Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.”
By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: “The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers.”
Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.
In the spring of 1998 — well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa — the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda’s agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without “a vehicle for extradition,” official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was “not an afterthought” to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. “It couldn’t have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath.” The Clinton administration’s indictment read unequivocally:
“Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”
Hayes also cited a January 1999 ABC story and, utilizing the MRC video archive, I tracked it down. The above-quoted MacVicar piece aired Thursday, January 14, 1999 on the short-lived ABC prime time magazine program, Crime and Justice. This one-topic edition, which featured John Miller’s interview in Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden, carried the title, “Target America: The Terrorist War.” Anchor Cynthia McFadden’s plug for the hour predicted the danger ahead: “Tonight, an exclusive ABC News interview with the man who declared war on the United States: Terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. His loyal foot soldiers are even here in the U.S., hidden among us, awaiting his call to deadly action.”
Sheila MacVicar, who a short time later jumped to CNN, and I believe she has recently departed from CNN, provided an overview of the bin Laden-Hussein relationship:
“Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden’s long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan’s fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
“Three weeks after the bombing [by the U.S. in Sudan], on August 31, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. [over video of Iraqi man cheek to cheek with Sudanese men] Iraq’s Vice President arrives in Khartoum to show his support for the Sudanese after the U.S. attack. ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese officials, acting on behalf of bin Laden, ask if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum.
“Iraq was, indeed, interested. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.”
This should be read by every American, every politician and every single media member. This is absolutely excellent.
Fuckin’ Amen, Sergeant D.!
Via Matt at Blackfive: Sergeant in Afghanistan – Stop the BS and “Let’s Get It Done”
I’ve got permission to go hot with this. This is typical of what I’ve been hearing.
It’s a manifesto of sorts from a Staff Sergeant in the fight in Afghanistan. He had an experience recently while on mid-tour leave to see his wife and baby boy that was the last straw:
Things that I am tired of in this war:
I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.
I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.
I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”
I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the “spot on,” most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.
I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.
I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.
I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant.
I am tired of following the enemy with drones that have cameras, and then dropping bombs that sometimes kill civilians; because we could do a better job of killing the right people by sending a man with a high powered rifle instead.
I am tired of the thousands of people in the rear who claim that they are working hard to support me when I see them with their mochas and their PX Bags walking down the street, in the middle of the day, nowhere near their workspaces.
I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how we blast, shoot and kill these animals who would seek to subdue us and destroy us.
I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like “Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing?” Meredith might not get it, but soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.
I am tired of hearing multiple stories from both combat theaters about snipers begging to do their jobs while commanders worry about how the media might portray the possible casualties and what might happen to their career.
I am tired of hearing that the Battalion Tactical Operations Center got a new plasma screen monitor for daily briefings, but rifle scope rings for sniper rifles, extra magazines, and necessary field gear were disapproved by the unit supply system.
I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.
I am tired of soldiers who are stationed in places like Kuwait and who are well away from any actual combat getting Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay and the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion when they live on a base that has a McDonald’s, a Pizza Hut, a Subway, a Baskin Robbins, an internet café, 2 coffee shops and street lights.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who take it out and “measure” every time they want to have a piece of the action with their helicopters or their artillery; instead of putting their egos aside and using their equipment to support the grunt on the ground.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who are too afraid for their careers to tell the truth about what they need to win this war to their bosses so that the soldiers can get on with kicking the ass of these animals.
I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds “right.”
I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.
I am tired of hearing soldiers who are stationed in safe places talk about how hard their life is.
I am tired of seeing Infantry Soldiers conducting what amounts to “SWAT” raids and performing the US Army’s version of “CSI Iraq” and doing things like filling out forms for evidence when they could be better used to hunt and kill the enemy.
I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.
I am tired of begging to be turned loose so that this war can be over.
Those of us who fight this war want to win it and go home to their families. Prolonging it with attempts to do things like collect “evidence” or present whiz bang briefings on a new plasma screen TV is wasteful and ultimately, dulls the edge of our Infantry soldiers who are trained to kill people and break things, not necessarily in that order.
We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies. We make the work of the State Department easier by the results we achieve.
It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender. He will fight to the death by the hundreds to kill only one or two of us.
And so far, all of our “games” have been “away games,” and I don’t know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.
So let’s get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.
The liberals and “mainstream” media have circled the wagons to save the reputations of their precious liberal idols with 2008 Presidential aspirations, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. I posted the original reporting about Barack Obama’s background check here (Some Facts About Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)) and promised to post the Insight Magazine response to the liberals’ lying about the report when it was posted. The Magazine now has two posts up, one in response to the Washington Post and one in response to CNN.
The smear by CNN and the Washington Post that I found the most laughable is their saying that Insight can’t use anonymous sources. 90 percent of the news is reported by anonymous sources! If news agencies didn’t use anonymous sources, they would have no news to report! Yet, when some anonymous sources provide information the liberals and the “mainstream” media don’t like, all of a sudden, anonymous sources are bad. HAH What a joke these people are.
Also, in the original post I made, the liberals and media defended Senator Obama by saying he goes to the United Church for Christ. However, did they also state that this Church does not support Israel and supports divestment from Israel? Mel Gibson got more coverage and denunciation for his drunk rant against Israel than a Presidential Candidate is getting for his Church’s stance against Israel. Interesting, no? Agenda? Naaaaaaah.
First, here is the response to CNN:
We seem to have touched a raw nerve with the liberal media establishment. First, The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz and now CNN are doing everything possible to assault and undermine Insight’s credibility. CNN ran a news segment last night on Paula Zahn’s show, “CNN debunks false report about Obama.” In the wake of our story, CNN sent their correspondent to check out the Muslim religious school attended by Barack Obama as a young boy. CNN concluded that allegations “that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ‘madrassa’ are not accurate.” The school’s deputy headmaster told CNN: “This is a public school. We don’t focus on religion.” CNN’s correspondent then told the “Situation Room” on Monday: “I came here to Barack Obama’s elementary school in ..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa … like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and
Afghanistan. … I’ve been to those madrassas in Pakistan … this school is nothing like that.”
We at Insight commend CNN for at least showing the initiative to follow-up on the story and send a correspondent to check it out. But, contrary to their claims, CNN didn’t debunk anything about our story. For the record, Insight never — not once — in its article claims that Obama went to a Madrassa. We didn’t claim it; Hillary’s people did. We reported — and we fully stand by our story — that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted their own opposition research on Obama’s Muslim past, and that the Clinton investigators had concluded Obama had attended a Madrassa. This is what Hillary’s camp was saying and desperately trying to prove — not Insight. Our sources also confirmed to us that the Clinton camp had come to the conclusion that not only had Obama been raised and educated as a Muslim, but that he had been deliberately concealing it. Moreover, our sources also said that Clinton’s people were seeking to find out about the possible radical Wahhabi angle, and then peddle their information to their media allies later this year — prior to the January 2008 primaries.
More to the point, we are a magazine that focuses on political intelligence. Our stated mission is to provide our readers with credible, reliable, cutting-edge information on what is really happening behind the scenes in the corridors of power. We did that in this case: we revealed what is truly going on in the Clinton camp.
Insight’s reporting and scoops have placed us consistently ahead of the curve. We have a proud record for accuracy and independence. We have broken numerous major stories that later appeared in establishment print publications such as Newsweek, The Washington Post and The Washington Times. We were one of the first to report tension between President Bush and his father, the tremendous resentment by the GOP leadership against the White House, conservative threats to stay home during the elections, fights over strategy, and the resignations of key White House officials over the Republicans’ loss of Congress.
Insight operates with seasoned journalists and a limited budget. Although we are not able to send correspondents to places like Jakarta to check out every fact in a story, we harness our resources for what we do best — providing our readers with political intelligence.
As for CNN’s investigation into Obama’s Muslim school, we are not yet convinced. To simply take the word of a deputy headmaster about what was the religious curriculum of a school 35 years ago does not satisfy our standards for aggressive investigative reporting. The State Department portrays Indonesia as a hot bed of radical Islamist activity. Christians and non-Muslims face persecution on a daily basis. CNN’s claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets — such as FOX News — who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama’s Muslim heritage.
Some would say if Obama has a Muslim background that could be a good thing, given the global threat from militant Islam. That is not for us to judge. Ours is to report, so the American people can have the information they need to make informed decisions. Recent history and contemporary events have shown that the religious belief systems of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were significant in their policy-making. The same might be true with Obama — whatever he believes. And perhaps also with Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, and all other candidates standing for election to the highest office in the land.
The media uproar over our reporting reveals a media establishment choosing not to ask the tough questions about Obama’s Muslim past: If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have — or retain — Muslim names, Barack and Hussein? Were his father and stepfather as secular as he says? What is the exact nature of Obama’s current religious affiliation and what are the beliefs and teachings of his current church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ? Does he adhere to these teachings or is he a Sunday bench warmer only? These kinds of tough questions need to be asked of all presidential candidates regardless of political party. This is the duty of a responsible press. We at Insight do not intend to shirk our responsibility — no matter how often we are attacked.
Now, here is the response to the Washington Post:
The liberal media establishment is at it again. For years, they have been carrying water for liberal Democrats. Today’s hit piece on Insight in The Washington Post is another case in point.
Howard Kurtz’s “Media Notes” column deals with our recent story about the Hillary Clinton camp’s role in investigating Barack Obama’s education as a young boy in an Indonesian Madrassa. Kurtz claims our story is “thinly sourced” and cites “only unnamed sources.” He further quotes officials from the Obama and Clinton camps, attacking the story as false. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, “It’s an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time.” Kurtz went on to say that “Insight, like The Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” Finally, Kurtz writes, “No one answered the phone at Insight’s office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment” — the impression being that somehow we at Insight were reluctant to discuss and defend the story. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Insight’s story was not thinly sourced. Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story. The Clinton camp’s denial has as much credibility as the “I never had sex with that woman” statement. But Kurtz ran with their statement as if it were credible. Moreover, the accusation that the story is flawed because it is based on unnamed sources is laughable. Most major investigative stories published in this city are based wholly or in part on anonymous sources. Just ask Bob Woodward. Many of The Post’s scoops against the Bush administration rely on anonymous sources.
Both Wolfson and Kurtz raise the issue of Insight being owned by the Unification Church. This is not only irrelevant, but bigoted and, unfortunately, consistent with The Post’s 25-year attempt to discredit if not destroy the one major opposition print publication in their market. It is a form of religious bigotry that tries to smear our credibility by implying that we are owned by religious zealots. And hence, our reporting should not be taken seriously. As Kurtz knows, the truth and veracity of our reporting is what is relevant. We at Insight developed our publication concept, gained support of the Board of Directors, and have run with it ever since, being selected as the top conservative magazine by Rolling Stone in just our first year. So what’s the point in mentioning religion when referencing a relevant and credible secular publication, except as an underhanded ploy to try to marginalize us?
And here is the larger issue: The New Media — including Insight — are surging forward in readership, influence and clout (that’s why our story was picked up by FOX News and talk radio). We provide hard-hitting, well-sourced and aggressive reporting — just as serious and fearless journalists of old used to do. How alone are we, in today’s media conglomerate world? The Washington Post should ask itself, does it wish to have serious journalists aggressively following up on our ground-breaking story or does it wish to carry water and curry favor for ambitious and aggressive politicians, and attack its competition rather than report?
Prior to our story being published, we contacted the Obama camp for comment. They had none… and were petrified about the story. Only when FOX and several national radio talk show hosts jumped on the story, did they issue their denials. We stung the Obama people by doing what journalists should do: follow the truth, no matter where it leads. Insight reports on political intelligence without partisanship. We have run countless stories embarrassing and damaging to President Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. We have few friends in the White House — and that’s exactly the way we like it.
Finally, let’s examine Kurtz’s claim that he tried to phone and e-mail the editors, but received no response. First, he called on a Sunday when there is nobody in the Insight office and did not leave a phone message, so no one can verify whether he really called or not. We learned on Monday that he did send an e-mail on Sunday afternoon, the day before his story went to print. This was not a genuine effort to get a real comment from us. He was simply covering himself before publishing his hit piece. This is precisely the kind of irresponsible journalistic practices that we teach our interns not to do.
I heard on Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning how the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz called this a “right wing hit job” on CNN. However, the author of the Insight article stated that the madrassa information came from the Hillary Clinton camp, not from Insight. They simply reported what they found out from the Clinton camp.
Apparently, both Senator Obama’s camp and Senator Clinton’s camp are very annoyed that this story leaked. Senator Obama’s camp is annoyed, because they know that Senator Obama has not been completely honest and forthcoming about his past. Senator Clinton’s camp is annoyed, because they wanted to drop this “bombshell” on the public later this year, closer to when the Presidential primaries were to be held, as a last minute attack on Senator Obama to lampoon his campaign.
So, in order to do damage control for both camps, the “mainstream” media is blaming, who else, the “right wing attack machine”. Not only that, but they are deliberately lying on CNN about many of the facts in this case. Nothing new for the “mainstream” media though. In the next 2 years, they will be doing everything in their power to get a Democrat into the White House.
By the way, take note of the type of “Christian” Church to which Senator Obama belongs. He is passing himself off as a Christian, but the fact is (1) he is a Muslim apostate, which is punishable by death in the Islamic world and (2) his Christian Church is an Israel-hating group.
Also note that Senator Obama is lying about his poor upbringing. He comes from a rich background of priviledge. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Most politicians do. But why is Senator Obama being less than genuine about his background?
The author of the Insight article noted on the Bill Bennett show that they were ready to release a follow-up article within the next couple days. I will post that when it becomes available.
Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim for almost 25 years and is a master at shaping his own mythology.
In Obama’s famous 2004 DNC Convention speech, he said “My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father — my grandfather — was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.”
In fact, Obama’s grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer from Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya. He was part of the British colonial system, owned a large ranch and was one of the first Muslim converts in his village. His son, Barack (changed from Baraka, an Arabic word meaning blessed) Hussein Obama Sr. was a child of privilege, not privation. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman.
Like other children of privilege, Obama’s father was a person with access to the highest levels of government in Kenya and as a result of those connections was able to come to America to study in 1958 at the age of twenty-three.
His scholarship, to the University of Hawaii at Manoa, was organized by a former Kenyan cabinet minister, the late Tom Mboya, who was earmarked as Jomo Kenyatta‘s successor. Kenyatta, president of the Kenya African Union and the country’s leading nationalist leader, was charged with managing the Mau Mau terrorist society in Kenya and sentenced to seven years hard labor along with five others.
The senior Obama married a fellow student, eighteen year old Shirley Ann (Anna) Dunham of Wichita, Kansas. A self-professed atheist, Dunham was an anthropology student. Obama Jr. was born on August 4th, 1961, in Honolulu.
Two years later, the senior Obama divorced Dunham according to Sharia law and returned to Kenya the same year that Kenyatta took control as the first prime minister of a self-governing Kenya (June 1963). He became an economist and a powerful member of Kenyatta’s government which was one of the most corrupt regimes in Africa. The Mau Mau was finally banned by the Kenyan government in August 2003 (one year before Obama’s DNC speech).
Was Obama lying when he said, “My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation,” in his famous speech? His father abandoned him to return to the secret shame of Kenyatta’s history of rape, murder and arson.”
Obama’s father died in a driving accident in 1982, leaving three wives, six sons and a daughter.
Obama’s mother remarried. Again, she chose another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, an oil company manager, who took Dunham and Obama to Indonesia, the most densely populated Islamic country in the world. Soetoro educated his stepson as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s Wahabbi schools. Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world.
When his mother divorced her second Muslim husband, Dunham sent Obama to live with his maternal grandmother in Honolulu. The teenager lived with his grandparents — “white folk,” as he describes them — and attended the prestigious Punahou School, the school of Hawaii’s royalty. Dunham remained in Indonesia.
In his book, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.” In his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” (pp 202-203), Obama wrote that she was “always too rational and too stubborn to accept anything she couldn’t see, feel, touch or count.” She was the quintessential secular humanist, he told Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter and Daren Briscoe.
Julia Suryakusuma, the author of Sex, Power and Nation, says that Ann was one of her closest friends from 1981 until her death of ovarian cancer in 1995. Suryakusuma, wrote in the Jakarta Post, “Ann was an anthropologist. Her doctorate research was on cottage industries in Java and she had a deep love for this country.” In a later paragraph, she writes, “I think she would also see Berry (Dunham’s nickname for Obama) as a great inspiration for Indonesia, her (Dunham) adopted home.”
Obama then studied for two years at Occidental College in California before transferring to Columbia College, the undergraduate division of Columbia University, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations and graduated in 1983. Obama then worked for Business International from January 1984 to January 1985. After that he worked as a community organizer at a Chicago housing project. It was during his time spent there that Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC). Oprah Winfrey and Howard Dean are also members of the UCC and on October 29, 2006, Dallas’s Cathedral of Hope, known as the “world’s largest gay church,” was accepted into the UCC.
Trinity has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa, is committed to the historical education of African people in diaspora and committed to liberation, restoration, and economic parity.
At the UCC General Synod in 2005, the denomination adopted a resolution calling for “equal marriage rights for all” – regardless of gender. This includes homosexuals and transgendered individuals.
Trinity is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It is also unique among UCC churches nationwide in its black value system which requires commitment to the black community and family, adherence to the “black work ethic” and disavowal of the pursuit of “middleclassness.” It also states members must make a pledge to gift the black community with members’ learned skills and personal resources. They also must pledge allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the black value system.”
Note: To appreciate the racism of the Black Value System, read its 12 precepts and covenantal statements (link above) , substituting the word white for black. Additionally, item 8, “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness'” is kind of an interesting concept. I’ve Googled the phrase and can find no description of its meaning. Could it mean that Trinity wants African-Americans to remain poor and indebted to the Democratic Party?
The question needs to be asked, was Obama’s conversion faith-based or political expediency? In either case, Muslims view Obama as first a Muslim and as an apostate Muslim, he faces the death penalty in nearly the entire Islamic world.
There is no dispute among either ancient or modern Muslim scholars that under Islamic law, a murtadd, “one who turns his back on Islam,” an apostate, must be put to death. Irtidad, apostasy, is committing treason against God, and traitors deserve to be killed. At a minimum, other Muslims would shun him if not kill him and his mother. The fact they are eagerly welcomed by the Muslim community begs the question, is he their ‘Manchurian’ candidate?
At a minimum, Obama should be asked if he will support the efforts of Christian missionaries in Islamic countries to peacefully convert Muslims to Christianity.
In his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama admits to using marijuana and cocaine.
On “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” Obama was asked by Leno about taking drugs. Said Leno, “Remember, Senator, you are under oath. Did you inhale?” Replied Obama, “That was the point.” In his book, Obama excuses his drug use as “reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy; teenage boys are frequently confused.”
Even more incriminating than the fact that Obama inhaled and admits to “maybe a little blow,” Obama is a cigarette smoker, actually, a chain smoker. That’s more than a just a little substance abuse. The question begs asking, how much of a striver can he be if he’s also a smoker? It was sort of disappointing to read a recent interview in which Mr. Obama claimed to have quit except for the occasional lapse.
Obama has become the Senate’s point man on ethics and now says he will no longer accept rides on corporate jets. This after having accepted 23 such flights, some to attend his own fundraisers, in 2005 alone. He joined only a handful of Democrats in voting against a Senate reform banning the widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls. He does, after all have a very activist wife.
Ethical questions also surround Obama’s shady real estate deal and relationship with indicted political fundraiser and Arab-American activist Tony Rezko, who befriended Obama during his Harvard days.
Obama bought a $1.65 million dollar mansion at a gigantic discounted price, some $300,000 less than the asking price. The same day, Rezko’s wife bought the adjoining lot, paying the full $625,000 asking price. The Rezko involvement invited a second question for Obama: did Rezko’s wife in effect subsidized Obama’s purchase of the opulent home and also provided an abutting private preserve that adds to its ambience? The lot isn’t accessible from the public street but can be reached from Obama’s property.
Pretty good for a guy earning $165,200 per and who once ran his credit cards up so high that the credit card company denied him access to further use of his card.
His political history in Illinois shows that Obama has proven himself to be a nearly perfect leftist dhimmicrat. He supports homosexual marriage, racial preferences, gun control, flag-burning, socialized medicine and the absolute right to abortion, including partial-birth abortions. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive.
He is anti-war, voted against the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, against privatizing Social Security and opposes the death penalty, three strikes laws and school vouchers. He has no military service record.
He believes in the separation of church and state — except when he campaigns in black churches.
He loves Jimmy Carter and is the 18th most liberal member of the Senate, receiving a 100% rating from Americans for Democratic Action, NARAL Pro -Choice America, National Organization for Women, the NAACP and the National Education Association.
Some may say that this backgrounder is biased, however, perception is everything in politics and both Ted Kennedy and CNN (Cable News Network) have mistakenly referred to Obama as Osama (as in ben Laden).
I just don’t believe America will ever elect an uber-liberal, apostate Muslim and self-admitted drug user to the Office of the President of the United States.
What really scares me, though, is that I could be wrong.
This backgrounder is evolving and additions and/or corrections are welcome and should be sent to Beckwith using the “Mail To” link at the top of this page.