I was checking the referring pages and someone got to Nitpicker by typing the following into Google:
A Bible Verse for people who teat you badly
For my money, it's hard to be badly teated.
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” - Albert Einstein
A Bible Verse for people who teat you badly
White House Rejects Independent Counsel for 'Leak'
During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."
A video of Clark making the comments has surfaced, DRUDGE can reveal.
A year ago Bush was riding high. He decided nonetheless to put at risk the great political advantage he had gained as a successful post-9/11 leader -- an advantage made obvious by the Republican gains in last year's elections -- to go after Saddam Hussein.
Politically, the war promised nothing but downside. There was no great popular pressure to go to war. Indeed, millions took to the streets to demonstrate against it, both at home and abroad. Bush launched the war nonetheless, in spite of the political jeopardy to which it exposed him, for the simple reason that he believed, as did Tony Blair, that it had to be done.
You can say he made a misjudgment. You can say he picked the wrong enemy. You can say almost anything about this war, but to say that he fought it for political advantage is absurd. The possibilities for disaster were real and many: house-to-house combat in Baghdad, thousands of possible casualties, a chemical attack on our troops (which is why they were ordered into those dangerously bulky and hot protective suits on the road to Baghdad). We were expecting oil fires, terrorist attacks and all manner of calamities. This is a way to boost political ratings?
Whatever your (and history's) verdict on the war, it is undeniable that it was an act of singular presidential leadership. And more than that, it was an act of political courage. George Bush wagered his presidency on a war he thought necessary for national security -- a war that could very obviously and very easily have been his political undoing. And it might yet be.
To accuse Bush of going to war for political advantage is not just disgraceful. It so flies in the face of the facts that it can only be said to be unhinged from reality. Kennedy's rant reflects the Democrats' blinding Bush-hatred, and marks its passage from partisanship to pathology.
Q Since the President -- since it's pretty clear the task force, the Kaye task force can't find any weapons of mass destruction, why did the President invade Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Did you see the report?
Q No, I didn't. But all the leaks indicate that he hasn't found anything yet. Are you denying that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, let me go to your first question about why we went to war. Because in a post-9/11 world, in a post-September 11th world, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein became even more real --
Q What's the threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: The threat was spelled out by the United Nations, by the intelligence agencies across the world, and by the United States -- three administrations here in the United States.
Q And we went based on that --
MR. McCLELLAN: Saddam Hussein possessed and used chemical and biological -- or used chemical weapons against his own people. He had a history of possessing and using --
Q Thirteen years before --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- using weapons of mass destruction. He had a history of invading his neighbors. He had large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He defied the international community for 12 years and some 17 resolutions. Remember, 1441 gave him one final chance to comply, or there would be serious consequences.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes in following through on what you say, and the President acted, and America is safer because of the action we took. The world is safer and better because of the action that the President --
Q You don't deny the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that the President took.
Q -- told the American people that there was an imminent, direct threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear that we need to act to confront threats in a post-September 11th world before it's too late, before those threats reach our shores and it's too late.
Q Let me follow up on that, Scott. The President has said that since the war, America is safer. And not just America, but our allies are safer, as well, because Saddam Hussein will never be able to use weapons of mass destruction.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's right.
Q Well, if you can --
MR. McCLELLAN: Or give those weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Q Precisely. So if it -- if you are unable to account for Saddam Hussein or for the weapons of mass destruction or the materials of mass destruction, how can you make such a claim?
One of them, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in a news conference that General Clark would have to explain why he had supported Republicans like Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Mr. Kerry spoke after being endorsed by the International Association of Firefighters.
Howard Dean, in an appearance on ABC, also said he was surprised that General Clark had voted for the two Republicans. Asked if the general was a true Democrat, Dr. Dean said, "I think that we have to find out about that."
MR. RUSSERT: But there’s a lot of discussion in the ’90s about you trying to cast off some of the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party, being described as a New Democrat. What caught a lot of people’s attention was the 1994 election, when the Republicans won both houses of Congress, Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House, and this is what you told the Boston Herald: “Sen. John F. Kerry broke from Democratic Party ranks, saying he was ‘delighted’ by the GOP election purge and laying the blame on the doorstep of President Clinton and arrogant House leaders. ...‘I want this change. I’m delighted with seeing an institutional shakeup because I think we need one,’ Kerry said in a Herald interview. ‘The Democrats have articulated in the last two years a very poor agenda. It’s hard for me to believe that some of these guys could have been as either arrogant or obtuse as to not know where the American people were coming from.’ Kerry deliberately set himself apart from Kennedy...He said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls. When told his calls for ‘change’ did not match Kennedy’s re-election rhetoric, Kerry smiled and said: ‘I’m amazed people didn’t pick up on it.’”
You were clearly separating yourself from Clinton and from Kennedy on the issue of health care...
SEN. KERRY: I was upset, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: ...and delighted by Newt Gingrich?
SEN. KERRY: No, I was upset at what had happened in 1994.
This isn't the general's first whopper. Last June, the latest Democratic candidate for president implied that he "got a call" on 9/11 from "people around the White House" asking the general to publicly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Last August, Clark told a Phoenix radio station that "The White House actually back in February apparently tired to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war."
Like his other two statements, Clark's latest tale bears little resemblance to reality. While it turns out Clark did receive a call "on either Sept. 12 or Sept. 13," the call wasn't from the White House. It was from Israeli-Canadian Middle East expert Thomas Hecht, who told the Toronto Star that he called to invite Clark to give a speech in Canada. As for Clark's accusation that the White House tried to have him fired from CNN--well, the general admits he has no proof. "I've only heard rumors about it," he said.
As Clark kicked off his campaign yesterday in Little Rock, Ark., Thomas Hecht, founder of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, told the Star he placed the call to Clark and drew his attention to a potential link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda suicide hijackers.
To whom it may concern:
I hope the following email can be forwarded to Ira Kurzban, or that you can let me know how to reach him.
Dear Mr. Kurzban:
My name is [snip] With the announcement by (ret.) Gen. Wesley Clark that he would seek the Democratic nomination for presidential candidate in 2004, a number of stories have circulated that allege that:
"Ira Kurzban, attorney for the Haitian Refugee Center, managed to pry free government documents via a lawsuit on behalf of the refugees. These contained the startling information that prison officials had ordered the refugees sprayed repeatedly with highly toxic chemicals never designed for such generic use. The officer in charge of the refugee camp? None other than Gen. Wesley Clark, chief of operations at the US Navy internment camp at Guantanamo..." http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COH309A.html
I wonder if you can confirm or deny these allegations, and/or provide any additional information as to the documents you are reported to having acquired?
I thank you in advance for your kind consideration and attention.
Dear Mr [Sadly, No!],
Here is Mr Kurzban's reaction to your missive:
"This story is inaccurate. As you know, Wesley Clark was the person at the Pentagon who worked with the Government of Haiti on the military intervention preceding the President's return. The events in regard to the spraying of Haitians at the detention camps occurred at Krome, not at Guantanamo. It also occurred in 1981 not 1991 when the Haitians were at Guantanamo. I have no knowledge as to whether or not Clark ran the Guantanamo camp in 1991-94 (Nitpicker does, and he didn't. See aforementioned post). There were an number of horrible things that happened at the Guantanamo camp, but I never met Clark in connection with the camps. My only dealings with him were related to the military preparations for Aristide's return. Although he was not particularly friendly toward me, I found him to be bright, competent, enlightened and relatively easy to deal with."
John C. Kozyn, Consultant
Embassy of Haiti, Washington, D.C.
You may have forgotten Newt's advice to Republicans before the 1994 congressional elections, but I haven't. That was the infamous memo from his political action committee, GOPAC, saying that the R's should describe their D opponents — no matter who they were or what their records — as "sick," "pathetic," "bizarre," "twisted" and "traitor." If you want to know when and why civil political discourse in this country broke down, try that memo.
A self-described "pit bull" of the political right, Burton made headlines last April when he told the editorial board of the Indianapolis Star: "If I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, he'd [Clinton] be gone. This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm after him." The comment earned him a mountain of rebuke from colleagues and the press. "Dan Burton is a crude, crass man who is a disgrace to his district, his state, his party and the House," the Chicago Tribune editorialized. Burton refused to apologize.
(Bill Clinton is) The most accomplished, polished liar that we have ever had serving in the White House.
(M)aybe (General Wesley Clark) figures that military defeat plus baby-burning is an unbeatable platform in a Democratic primary.
Gen. Wesley Clark was in charge of refugee camps in the 1980s and 1990s where Haitian refugees who were fleeing first Baby Doc Duvalier (and later the new regime installed by the US following the overthrow of the elected Aristide government in the early 1990s), were packed, under appalling conditions condemned by the Center for Constitutional Rights, among many others. In the 1980s, many Haitian male refugees incarcerated at Krome (in Miami), and Fort Allen (in Puerto Rico) reported a strange condition called gyneacomastia, a situation in which they developed full female breasts.
Ira Kurzban, attorney for the Haitian Refugee Center, managed to pry free government documents via a lawsuit on behalf of the refugees. These contained the startling information that prison officials had ordered the refugees sprayed repeatedly with highly toxic chemicals never designed for such generic use. The officer in charge of the refugee camp? None other than Gen. Wesley Clark, chief of operations at the US Navy internment camp at Guantanamo, and later head of NATO forces bombing Yugoslavia. The documents go on to say that lengthy exposure to the particular chemicals can cause hormonal changes that induce development of female breasts. Medical studies of female Haitian refugees in New York revealed that they had a much higher rate of cervical cancer than the rest of the female population.
February 1980-June 1982: Commander, 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division July 1983-July 1984: Pentagon, in staff positions August 1984-January 1986: Commander Operations Group, National Training Center April 1986-March 1988: Commander, 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division October 1989-October 1991: Commander, National Training Center October 1991-August 1992: Pentagon August 1992-April 1994: Commander, 1st Cavalry Division April 1994-June 1996: Pentagon June 1996-July 1997: CINC, US Southern Command July 1997-2000: Supreme Allied Commander, NATO
No doubt he’s made his share of enemies. He doesn’t suffer fools easily and wouldn’t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he’s ripped into during the past three decades.
Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a “Perfumed Prince.” Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time. (Link via Daily Kos.)
Christmas 1989 thus saw an amazing epiphany as Bill Clinton, arch-narcissist, self-centered monster, seducer of women, and oral sex addict, found his selfish heart melting.
The Grinch hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that his head wasn't screwed on quite right.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
And what happened then...?
Well...in Who-ville they say
That the Grinch's small heart
Grew three sizes that day!
HUME: How do you get your news?
BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything.
Leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Serbia, Radovan Karadzic, the self-declared President of the Serbian Bosnian Republic, and General Ratho Mladic, commander of Bosnian Serb military forces, must eventually explain whether and how they sought to ensure, as they must under international law, that their forces complied with international law. They ought, if charged, to have the opportunity of defending themselves by demonstrating whether and how they took responsible action to prevent and punish the atrocities I have described which were undertaken by their subordinates. - Lawrence Eagleburger, Statement at the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, Geneva, Switzerland, December 16, 1992
Meeting with Mladic was especially useful... How many people, I reflected at the time, have the opportunity to size up a potential adversary face-to-face? He carried a reputation among the UN forces for cunning and forcefulness, I found him coarse and boastful. He knew far less than he thought about NATO, airpower, and the capabilities of the United States.
The story ran in the next morning's paper: "Despite Warning, US General Met With Serb War Crimes Suspect." This was untrue -- there was no warning -- but the story generated several phone calls and a couple letters from people disapproving of the visit, as well as a letter to the Presidnte from two members of Congress calling for my dismissal...
The fact was that I had not received instructions not to visit. Fortunately, I had strong support within the Defense Department, the National Security Council staff, and at State for having visited both sides to lay the basis for a proper policy analysis. I heard that the President sent a letter back to the Congress in my defense, and, after a few meetings with Congressional staffers, the controversy died. -Waging Modern War, Pages 40-41
Democrat Wesley Clark, in the presidential race for less than a week, is tied with President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a poll that shows several Democratic candidates strongly challenging the Republican incumbent.
Clark, a retired Army general, garnered 49 percent support to Bush's 46 percent, which is essentially a tie given the poll's margin of error. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was conducted Sept. 19-21, beginning two days after Clark announced he would become the 10th Democratic candidate for the party's nomination.
The Gallup poll has always been friendly to Bush. Nothing ideological or nefarious. But whatever methodology they used always gave Bush some of his highest numbers amongst the various polling outfits.
So it's amazing to see a 9-point drop in Bush's approval numbers over the past three weeks. That's no typo. The floor is collapsing under the Bush presidency.
Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East "think tank" in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization.
Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.
Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.
"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.
In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.
Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.
He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House"; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy.
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein." I said, "But--I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
I am just as willing to lie about Wesley Clark as I was to lie about Bill and Hillary Clinton and, when possible, I'll do both at the same time.
The attorney general followed with a sarcastic harangue of critics of the Patriot Act. "The charges of the hysterics are revealed for what they are: castles in the air," he scoffed. "Built on misrepresentation. Supported by unfounded fear. Held aloft by hysteria." And he continued: "Allow me to take a moment to clarify who should, and who should not, be worried about these tools in the hands of law enforcement. If you are spending a lot of time surveilling nuclear power plants with your al Qaeda pals, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If your idea of a vacation is two weeks in a terrorist training camp, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If you have cave-side dinners with a certain terrorist thug named bin Laden . . . if you enjoy swapping recipes for chemical weapons from your 'Joy of Jihad' cookbook . . . you might be a target of the Patriot Act."
But there was widespread agreement among these Republicans that the speech did little if anything to help steady his standing, which had been hurt by a stream of bad news from Iraq and disclosures about the administration's handling of prewar intelligence.
Several of these Republicans complained about the decision to have Bush stand and read from a TelePrompTer instead of showing him seated and speaking more conversationally.
"Can you find anybody on Capitol Hill who thinks, 'Boy, that really gave us momentum?' " one presidential adviser asked. "The setting was a failure. The linguistics were bad. The language was off. It wasn't typical Bush language, and he should have been in front of a group. He isn't at his best discussing the appropriations process."
Apply Now to be on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy!
We're looking for straight guys, both single and married, of all ages and backgrounds to help become more stylish, more cultured and more desirable straight men.
If you live in the greater New York City area and have a big event coming up where you want to reveal a "new and improved" you to your wife, girlfriend, family, friends or co-workers, download and complete our preliminary candidate questionnaire and email it with a recent digital photo to firstname.lastname@example.org.
But what the hey..........but the piece "George Will embarrasses himself again". Well whoever wrote it...is full of shit himself or herself. And the person who wrote can't be all that stupid.
Oh I see.....what was written was just fun and games. I see how this works.
(Hometown withheld by Nitpicker)
The information transmitted may contain confidential material and is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action by person(s) or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the information from your system and contact the sender.
The Democrats are not quite prepared to say that we should not be spending any money on Iraq, and they all line up for the $66 billion earmarked for "protecting our troops" (although, as their own Dennis Kucinich points out, the best and cheapest way to protect troops is to bring them home).
But when it comes to the other $20-odd billion for infrastructure, the Democrats have had a field day blasting the administration. The universal theme is: Why there and not here?
Sen. John Edwards gave the usual formulation: "This is the same administration who says we can't afford a real prescription drug benefit, we can't afford to invest in our public schools, we can't afford to address the serious health care crisis in America, but the American taxpayer can afford to pay for everything that's happening in Iraq right now." Rep. Rahm Emanuel is more pithy: "[For] Iraq, $2 billion to the electric grid; [for] America, a blackout."
The President's unilateral assertion of U.S. power has redefined America's role in the world. Here was Bush breaking every liberal idol: the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, deference to the U.N., subservience to the "international community." It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor.
On the domestic front, more shock. Democrats understand that the Bush tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to come.
Partly Kafka with 35% chance of McCarthy
In the wake of the extraordinary speech George Bush gave in the Rose Garden Monday afternoon, here are several modest predictions: --Yasser Arafat will be gone as the leader of the Palestinian Authority within a year--probably within six months. And he will be gone in the best possible manner: not made a heroic ``martyr" by an Israeli bomb or bullet, nor sent into yet another forced exile to wreak more destruction as a heroic leader-in-exile. No, this time the tired, old, failed, disgraced little tyrant without a country will leave as the loser he is; he will be forced into retirement by his own long-suffering people.
--The Palestinians will elect leaders who at least credibly promise a representative government of laws, who at least credibly promise to reject terror and murder and war as the means toward statehood, who at least credibly are committed to achieving a workable two-state, side-by-side peace with Israel. The peace process will begin anew, with some (fragile) hope.
--Israel and the United States will respond by supporting the development of something that has never existed in history, a functioning Palestinian state. While taking heroic measures to protect itself, Israel will support this development with major concessions. The Palestinian people will also support this process. So will the important Arab states. A nascent peace will take hold.
--In a matter of only a few years, Palestine will be one of two new Arab democratic states. The other neonatal Arab democracy will be Iraq. These unthinkable developments will revolutionize the power dynamic in the Middle East, powerfully adding to the effects of the liberation of Afghanistan to force Arab and Islamic regimes to increasingly allow democratic reforms. A majority of Arabs will come to see America as the essential ally in progress toward liberty in their own lands.
Within the boundaries of gambling and guessing, I believe all this might really come to pass. The reason I do is that George Bush believes it might.
By all indications, the discussion will be about using our irresistible military might against a single country in order to bring down its leader. We should instead be talking about using all our political, moral and military genius to support a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East from tyranny. That is our real mission, the essence of the war in which we are engaged, and the proper subject of our national debate.
Saddam Hussein is a terrible evil, and President Bush is entirely right in vowing to end his reign of terror. But this is not just a war against Iraq, it is a war against terrorist organizations and against the regimes that foster, support, arm, train, indoctrinate and command the terrorist legions who are clamoring for our destruction. There are four such regimes: in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Israeli forces killed a Hamas militant during a firefight with gunmen in the Gaza Strip yesterday, hours after Palestinian President Yasser Arafat said he would fight to the death if Israel tried to expel or kill him.
Israeli helicopter gunships killed Jihad Abu Swerah, 34, a senior activist in the Izz-el-Deen al-Qassam armed wing of Hamas during an attempt to arrest him at his home in Gaza.
The raid was part of a series of Israeli measures to clamp down on militants behind the killing of 38 people in suicide bombings in Israel over the past month in a cycle of tit-for-tat violence that has derailed a US-backed peace plan.
Speaking in his partly demolished West Bank headquarters on Wednesday, Mr Arafat pointed to his machine-gun lying on the floor and said he would use it to defend himself.
Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned.
This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran's alleged nuclear programme...
Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.
It is not known whether Saudi Arabia has taken a decision on any of the three options. But the fact that it is prepared to contemplate the nuclear option is a worrying development.
The Bush administration named Syria and Libya yesterday as "rogue states" whose weapons of mass destruction must not just be controlled but must be eliminated by whatever means necessary.
Syria, it said, is of particular concern because it has been supporting terrorist groups and letting militants cross its border into Iraq to fight U.S. forces.
HANNITY: ...when you hear this criticism of our commander in chief and it is now a daily barrage of ad hominum, mean-spirited low attacks against him, a failure, miserable failure, gang leader, right on down the line, he intentionally lied about the situation in Iraq. How does that make you feel?
WESLEY: Well, I'll tell you, we get clear guidance from our chain of command, and it has been clear throughout the campaign, and it's been guidance that we've been able to execute relatively freely. And those things, you know, obviously are political issues that I know are out there.
HANNITY: You hear that. I mean, they're basically saying, "Hey, he's putting you guys in harm's way and he lied to get you there." That was a question said to Senator Graham the other night.
"Did the president intentionally lie?"
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. I've had it. You know, we work together as a country. And I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric. This is not legitimate criticism of something they disagree with. This is nothing but political attacks by blind, ambitious politicians.
And you guys are fighting that war, in the meantime. You're over there listening to that commander in chief that they're throwing down the stairs every day.
WESLEY: I appreciate your concern, Sean. But I guess that's how it works out at the political level. But isn't that the beauty of democracy?
HANNITY: We have loud-mouthed Democratic politicians?
WESLEY: That's why we're there and I think that not a lot of that criticism comes...
COLMES: Thank you for serving our country and thank you for serving us to give us the right for this dissidence we have here in America. That's what America's all about. And I thank you for your service to America, as many Americans do.
Something very interesting you did there was you would go around and visit people...
DOBBS: Matthew Felling says polls are a crutch for journalists and are often misconstrued. He is the media director for The Center For Media and Public Affairs and joins us now from the Washington studios. Thank you for being here... We should explain, and I neglected to do so, that we were to be joined by Frank Gallup -- Newport -- of the Gallup Organization here to debate this issue. But since only the con side of our pro-con look is here, we thought it would be appropriate, at least, to hear your views. Why do you think polling is so popular if it so invalid?
FELLING: Well, polling is popular because we watch the results and we listen to the numbers in the same way that we listen to sports scores. There's something tangible that we can actually see and that we can track over time. And they also have the credibility of accuracy, because we like to think that numbers capture something fully. It reminds us of physics class.
But on all three layers, polls are tremendously flawed. The pollsters can be mischievous. The respondents can be clueless. And the reporters who cover these polls can often misconstrue the findings, or read too much in to them. Which happens on a day to day basis during an election year.
DOBBS: And we're going to be inundated with polls. This organization will be -- CNN -- be conducting a number of polls and an increasing number of them over the course of the campaign. This broadcast will continue to conduct its polls, but our are basically just our polls, so they are what our viewers make them.
DOBBS: Well, the idea, one of the fascinating things that you brought up in the book, talking about Michael Moore, and the book is how stupid white guys...
INGRAHAM: Stupid white men.
DOBBS: You point out that he's one of the elites posing as populist extraordinaire.
Clark has criticized the supposed and alleged errors of U.S. planning in Iraq – notwithstanding that his campaign in Kosovo was based on an unending series of errors, above all his claim that his air campaigns could destroy Serbian military capabilities without harming the Serbian civilian population.
NATO's top commander has warned that the Pentagon must "be open to other possibilities," including an invasion of Kosovo in the fall if the allied air campaign hasn't produced a peace agreement with Belgrade by the end of summer, Pentagon officials said Friday.
Behind closed doors on Thursday, NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark gave Pentagon officials the same upbeat assessment he regularly gives publicly: that the air campaign is working and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is losing.
But Clark also warned U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that given Milosevic's stubbornness, there is no guarantee that punishing bombing attacks alone will force a peace deal and that an invasion should not be ruled out.
A reader responded to the post above and pointed out that Wesley Clark has appeared on the History Channel's "Time Machine" program to comment on the battles of Hannibal. According to the reader, Clark said that his own campaign in Kosovo was closely modeled on Hannibal's in Italy. Of course, Hannibal lost his war, even despite all the babies he sacrificed to Moloch. You'd think a Rhodes Scholar like Clark would know that. On the other hand, maybe he figures that military defeat plus baby-burning is an unbeatable platform in a Democratic primary ....
From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned. After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead U.S. soldiers over Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons, the U.S. released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario.
As soldiers serving in Iraq, we have been told that our purpose here is to help the people of Iraq by providing them the necessary assistance militarily as well as in humanitarian efforts. Then tell me where the humanity was in the recent Stars and Stripes account of two children taken to a U.S. military camp by their mother, in search of medical care. The children had been unknowingly playing with explosive ordnance they had found and as a result were severely burned. The account tells how they, after an hourlong wait, were denied care by two U.S. military doctors. A soldier described the incident as one of many "atrocities" he had witnessed on the part of the U.S. military.
Thankfully I have not been a personal witness to any atrocities, unless of course you consider, as I do, this war to be the ultimate atrocity.
This isn't a simple board game of Axis and Allies this is a game people are playing with real people, people with families, not robots, you have college students out here missing over a year of college to sit and get yanked around without explanation. It has been told to the officers I have spoken to that 3rd PERSCOM refers to moving soldiers as "drug deals". You do this for me and I'll make sure your soldiers go home etc.
Yes, without a doubt I am proud to serve my country. I understand I'm not able to ETS while I am here, that is fine. I am here to serve out of obligation and duty. What I'm wondering is if there are any checks and balances for those who are making decisions here? Everyone keeps saying it is up in the air, including the personnel responsible for deciding who is going where. It feels as if every decision is off the cuff. In this situation there should be plans in place and decisions made before the rubber hits the road. I know there was a conference in Atlanta but nothing has been heard of from that. We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of suck it up drive on. We just want somewhere to drive on to.
But I have finally discovered the ROOT CAUSE of Saddam's secularism. Islam, like Judaism, has a taboo against the depiction of anything, human images included. By now you may be getting my point. How can one reconcile this puritanical taboo with the narcisism of a guy who wanted his own image, in pictures, statues etc., to be constantly shown everywhere in his country? No way.
Thus between pictures of Saddam, statues of Saddam, Saddam and more Saddam everywhere on one side, and Islam on the other, it was Islam that had to go.
Life on the streets of Baghdad. Saddam's smiling image is everywhere, but there are few smiles on the faces of Iraqis.
One of (Congressman Joe Wilson's) first visits (in Korea) was to a school for gifted children. "The classrooms had no electricity, except to power the computers," says Wilson. Despite all the scarcity, there was no shortage of pictures of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. They hung from a wall in each room.
It's exactly the same in Iraq, where you see these pictures of the leader everywhere and in every possible guise. You see pictures of Saddam as soldier, philosopher, farmer, photographer, writer, everything. In the north [of Iraq], you see Saddam mostly as an intellectual or a judge or a photographer. In the south, you see Saddam with the traditional peasant headdress on and as a farmer. Well, in North Korea, the Great Leader knows more about farming than all the farmers put together and more about football than all the football players put together. The difference is that in North Korea people seem to accept that idea without question.
State Department types were taken aback last week to find that a longtime diplomatic photo exhibit along a busy corridor to the cafeteria had been taken down. The two dozen mostly grainy black and white shots were a historic progression of great diplomatic moments, sources recalled.
There was an original political cartoon from the Jefferson era showing Britain and France pick-pocketing the Americans; there were pictures of negotiations with Indian tribes over land; President Woodrow Wilson at Versailles; former secretary of state Elihu Root somewhere; Roosevelt and Churchill signing the Atlantic Charter; former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze in cowboy boots at Jackson Hole; a splendid shot of the old State Department building; and a photo of President Ronald Reagan at a meeting with a very young Colin L. Powell seated behind him.
Then they were gone. And what was put up in their place? What else? A George W. Bush family album montage of 21 large photos of the president as diplomat. He's speaking at the United Nations and meeting with foreign leaders. There are several shots of Bush with first lady Laura Bush -- exiting a plane, touring the Forum in Rome and visiting Japan. (There's one of just Laura Bush and Jordan's Queen Noor at a U.N. conference.) There's one of Bush meeting in happier days with his very good friend Jacques Chirac, president of France, and another with his even better friend, Gerhard Schroeder, chancellor of Germany. There's a fine shot of him yucking it up in Beijing with former Chicom boss Jiang Zemin, aka the Robin Williams of the Middle Kingdom.