Friday, December 28, 2007

The 12 Biggest Mistakes Of The Presidential Campaign

I ran across this on Townhall earlier, and found it to be a good read. I don't agree with all of them, but overall it is an accurate list of the biggest mistakes the 2008 candidates have made ... so far.

I would have liked to see Kucinich on the list with his trip to an enemy nation (Syria), and attacking this country on their news channel. Ron Paul's accepting money from neo-nazis was pretty bad as well.

Whole Foods: Shoplifters Are Customers Too. Leave Them Alone.

Notice I didn't use quotes in that title. Whole Foods didn't literally say that, but they essentially said that when they fired an employee who stopped a shoplifter in Ann Arbor.

John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

There are several factors that need to be considered for this man's future lawsuit against Whole Foods. Let's examine the first one here in this paragraph. He was fired for "physically touching a customer." Since when are shoplifters customers? A customer is someone who pays for a good or service. You don't pay ... you aren't a customer.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store.

Point two is that he had clocked out. In other words ... he was not on company time. If he doesn't get paid for that time ... he isn't on the job. Things get sketchy when you fire someone who wasn't on the job.

He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

The third point is that he was assisting the manager (his boss) after being requested to do so. What's the point in chasing someone down, and asking others to help you chase them down if you won't do anything when you catch up to the crook? Now his manager becomes liable for his actions because he requested assistance.

The final point is that this did not happen on Whole Foods property. How can you fire an employee for stopping a shoplifter, while not on the clock, and not on company property?

With this logic, an employee could be fired for stopping a bank robber after work because the bank robber was in Whole Foods earlier that day. I smell a windfall in this man's future.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across Washtenaw Avenue and toward a gas station at the corner of Huron Parkway.

Before the man could cross Huron Parkway, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied, and the shoplifter got away.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.

Again, he didn't touch a customer at all.

So what was Whole Foods' response to the firing?

Kate Klotz, a company spokesperson, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Schultz said he acted as a private citizen on property that isn't owned by Whole Foods, but Klotz said where the incident happened doesn't change the policy.

"He is still considered an employee of Whole Foods Market regardless of where he was and what was happening," she said.

I would love to see the company policy that this man signed when he was hired 5 years ago. Does it really say that shoplifters are customers? I doubt it.

If merely touching the shoplifter was grounds for termination then why even chase him out of the store? Keep in mind that the store's manager gave chase, and asked for assistence which this man provided while on his own time.

As for the Whole Foods rep saying that he is considered a Whole Foods employee "regardless of where he was and what was happening" is ludicrous, and the worst kind of stupid. I refer you to my argument above about him preventing a bank robber from getting away because he was in Whole Foods earlier that day.

Schultz is right on by saying he acted as a private citizen on his own time while not on company property. He is given the right to make a citizen's arrest by the Constitution. Whole Foods has no authority to remove Schultz's constitutional protections.

What would you expect from a store run by a bunch of hippies. Physical violence won't be tolerated ... even in self defense of the store's bottom line.

Peace, Love and Masturbation!

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Think You Know Which Candidate Best Represents Your Views? Take This Quick Quiz To Find Out Who You Should Support In 2008.

I hope everyone had a great Christmas. I love getting people to sit down and take typology tests to find out what their "true" political affiliation is. Most liberals are more conservative than they thought, and the same goes for conservatives. They just need an objective method sorting through the issues.

I ran across this little quiz (2 minutes tops) that will compare your beliefs with the entire 2008 presidential field. You may think you are supporting the candidate that best represents your views, but you might be wrong. I was slightly off in my thinking. I have had Fred Thompson as my number one guy for a while now followed closely by Duncan Hunter. Well, according to the quiz I had that backwards ... who knew.

Here's my full results.

  1. Hunter 68%
  2. Thompson 63%
  3. Romney 58%
  4. Huckabee 55%
  5. Giuliani 53%
  6. McCain 45%
  7. Paul 40%
  8. Richardson 23%
  9. Edwards 15%
  10. Obama 15%
  11. Biden 13%
  12. Clinton 13%
  13. Gravel 13%
  14. Dodd 8%
  15. Kucinich 5%

Take the quiz yourself and post your results in the comments, and let us know if you were surprised by the results.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Why Do Unions Hate The Handicapped?

Once again I am forced to burden you with the knowledge that unions will use the helplessness of others to advance their causes. This time it isn't teachers refusing to give final exams to high school students, who need them for college applications, in order to increase their pay. I'm afraid this is far more distasteful, and the victims are those who most need our assistance ... those with disabilities.

NY Times:

A 10-day strike that inconvenienced about 9,000 wheelchair users and other people with disabilities who depend on Access-a-Ride, a government-financed van service, ended on Wednesday when members of Local 1181 of the Amalgamated Transit Union voted to ratify a contract settlement.

About 1,500 drivers and mechanics began their strike on Dec. 10, shutting down operations at Atlantic Paratrans, Maggie’s Paratransit, MV Transportation and Transit Facility Management. The companies operate about half of the approximately 20,500 rides provided on an average weekday under the paratransit program, which runs door-to-door van service for eligible residents.

There is nothing like using the handicapped as pawns in your contract negociations ... well played, scumbags.

Yet Another Example Of A Hate Crime Being Called "Not A Hate Crime"

I know it is getting pretty old hearing about these events, but it is necessary for you to understand that there a very clear double standard in regards to hate crimes. Apparently, whites and Jews can not be the victims of hate crimes.


The Zionist Organization of America condemned the U.S. government's Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday for failing to protect Jewish students it says have been subject to a series of anti-Semitic provocations on the campus of the University of California, Irvine.

The ZOA alleged that Muslim students on campus have given anti-Semitic speeches, distributed Judeophobic literature, and used intimidation tactics against Jewish students. The university's failure to take disciplinary action constitutes discrimination against Jewish students, the ZOA charges.

The Office of Civil Rights, which operates under the auspices of the Department of Education, said in a report released last week that some Muslim student activities were offensive to Jewish students.

But the report concludes the speeches, marches and other activities were based on opposition to Israeli policies, not the national origin of Jewish students.

So what types of "other activities" were disregarded you ask.

"A Holocaust memorial was destroyed; that swastikas repeatedly defaced property on the campus; that a rock was thrown at a Jewish student; and that other Jewish students were harassed and verbally threatened with such statements as 'slaughter the Jews,' 'dirty Jew,' 'go back to Russia,' 'burn in hell,' and 'f_ _king Jew,'"

Yeah, dirty Jew is only opposition to Israeli policies ... RIIIGHT!

Note the school is UC Irvine, a school with a long history of radical Muslims who support murder. LGF has made a habit of documenting the extremists on UC Irvine's campus ... check it out here.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Viva La Revolution ... Lieberman Endorses McCain

Complete shock and awesome! H/T (Hotair) ...

Yep, The US Is Still Doing Better Than Kyoto Countries On Emissions

It's been a year since you were last told that the US is doing better at reducing emissions than the Kyoto nations. Now it seems that some nations to have signed Kyoto are increasing their emissions by 80%.


Just as Norwegian delegates to the UN's conference on climate change started heading home from Bali, came news that Norway's own carbon emissions rose 80 percent from 1990 to 2004. Statoil's refinery at Mongstad is the biggest contributor.

So how exactly do they plan to fix this problem? Well, they don't. Instead they are invoking the Ultimate Scam, and using carbon credits.

Erik Solheim, the government minister in charge of environmental issues who was in Bali last week, admits that Norway's own high level of emissions is "embarrassing." That's why the government plans to donate NOK 15 billion (nearly USD 3 billion) over the next five years to help preserve the world's rain forests. That's viewed as an efficient way of offsetting carbon emissions.

I hate to be a scrooge so close to the holidays, but only the worst of dimwits view carbon credits as an efficient way of offsetting emissions. Let's not forget that Guyana slammed Kyoto's carbon credit scheme, and Kyoto's carbon credit program has also been causing deforestation.

Basically, Kyoto along with all of the signatory nations are FUBAR. Meanwhile, the US continues to grow its economy, reduce its emissions, and all without sacrificing any freedoms to a foreign body while throwing away billions of dollars. God bless capitalism!

Friday, December 14, 2007

Republicans Are Able Stop Ban On Waterboarding


"Hispanics Worry About Deportation." Talk About A Misleading Headline.

This has got to be one of the most misleading articles I've read in months. It comes to us courtesy of the Houston Chronicle.

More than half of Hispanic adults in the U.S. worry they or someone close to them could face deportation, reflecting a growing anxiety over expanded enforcement efforts, according to a new nationwide survey by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said the debate over immigration reform and Congress' failure to pass legislation have made life more difficult for Hispanics.

Let's be clear ... hispanic adults aren't afraid of deportation, illegal aliens are. Obviously most illegals are hispanics, but this is just another attempt to "humanize" illegal aliens. In other words, they want to earn your sympathy by removing "illegal" from their official title.

With Al Qaeda In Iraq All But Completely Defeated ... We Are Learning The Fate Of Their Rivals

We all know AQI is getting their asses handed to them by the coalition, but we are now making some grim discoveries as a result of AQI fleeing their former territory.


More than 150 bodies have been unearthed in recent months from mass graves around Lake Tharthar. It is seen as the grisly legacy of al-Qaida control of Iraq’s western deserts before the group was ousted early this year in an uprising by local tribes.

Each mass grave uncovered around Tharthar and elsewhere in Iraq — so far at least 12 burial sites — appears to offer more evidence of the fate of Iraqis who challenged al-Qaida and its backers.

The graves help explain the decision by Sunni tribal leaders to fight back. Of the 23 sets of remains in one grave, authorities were able to identify only Awad and two others. That is typical in Iraq, where officials usually lack such forensics aids as DNA and dental records.

An estimated 375,000 Iraqis have vanished as a result of checkpoint kidnappings and other violence by Sunni and Shiite extremists.

Isn't it about time we finally admit who the real bad guys are?

Friday, December 07, 2007

Tom Cruise Weeps As Germany Says No To Scientology


Scientology is a major no-no in Germany. In fact, it's been ruled unconstitutional!


Germany's federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.

The ministers have asked Germany's domestic intelligence agency to examine whether the Church's legal status as an association could be challenged.

Scientology is not recognized as a religion in Germany.

A Church of Scientology statement said the ministers were "completely out of step with the rest of the world".

The attempted ban is "a blatant attempt at justifying the on-going and never-ending discrimination against the Church of Scientology and its members in Germany," said the Church in a statement.

Bummer Tom.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Great News! Murder At Two Year Low In Baghdad Boundary Region

Not going to find this in the MSM anywhere, but it is true non-the-less.


Reported murders in a region adjacent to Baghdad on the city’s eastern boundary have dropped to levels not seen in two years, a senior commander in the region said today.

Barring any extreme spike in murders this month, Army Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., commander of 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, said he expects the year to finish out with as many as 400 fewer reported murders in the area than reported in 2005.

Someone should tell Harry "Pinky" Reid that the surge is responsible for this positive development.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Jews Are Responsible For Global Warming

Happy Hanukkah Jews! Bye the way, you are destroying the planet.

At least that is the latest global warming insanity being spewed by those who ignore the "inconvenient truth" that the sun is warming up all the planets in our solar system.


In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

"The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won't need another miracle," said Liad Ortar.

Uh, yeah. So now fire is destroying the planet? Let's recap the things that are destroying the planet ... well a couple of them anyway ... the biggest producer of carbon is the ocean, the biggest producer of methane is termites, now there's fire, and let's not forget the sun. All perfectly natural entities crucial to Earth's survival. Interesting how these things that are so vital to Earth's survival happen to be more responsible for global warming than anything else.

Today, Jews are not allowed to light the last candle. Tomorrow, no more birthdays.

CNN Says White Ron Paul Supporter Not "Diverse" Enough To Ask Questions At Debate

Yeah I know ... the CNN debates are over. This is true, but while the planted questioners are worthy of discussing for the remainder of the election ... there is one story that has not been heard by the country. Truth is, this story is actually far WORSE than the Democrat plants at both the Republican and Democrat CNN debates. Why? It shows the hypocrisy of CNN to allow Democrats to ask Republicans questions while not allowing the reverse. This story also shows exactly how racist CNN really is in the name of "diversity."

It all got started in the lead up to the CNN Democrat debate here in Las Vegas, NV. A College of Southern Nevada environmental class wanted to ask the Democrat candidates about alternative fuels. The class is called "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming." The question submitted by the class was chosen as a question to ask the Democrat candidates, but there was a problem. Terrell Potter, 21, was to be the student to ask the question, but CNN didn't like that.

Review Journal:

CNN had chosen a question sent in by a College of Southern Nevada environmental class. The students in the class "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming" posed an alternative energy question that the network found suitable. But it didn't find student Terrell Potter, 21, to be the right messenger.

Potter said he is a registered Democrat who voluntarily told CNN he had donated to the presidential campaign of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Was he sunk merely because of the donation, or because that while he is a student of biodiversity, he is just too caucasian for prime time? What if Mr. Potter happened to be black? Would CNN have overlooked the donation? What if the donation had come from his mother?

Now the article is written by Erin Neff, a typically distasteful opinion writer who hates Republicans and often is caught lying, or at best not checking her facts. However, she is dead on in this piece. She makes all the right connections, and it is well worth the read.

Because it was Erin Neff writing the piece I had to get independent corroboration, and I did indeed find it in a letter to the editor of the Review Journal. The writer? Monica Brett, the Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the College of Southern Nevada, and the professor of Terrell Potter.

Here is her letter on the CNN fiasco involving her students:

My students submitted a question to CNN for consideration at tonight's presidential debate at UNLV. An e-mail came back asking if one of my students would be happy to present this question at the debate. No criteria was listed.

I then told my students to nominate someone. I watched as they put democracy into action. After the selection process was complete, I contacted CNN and they first asked if he was "diverse." I was then told that CNN wanted to represent "diversity." When I mentioned his ethnicity -- he was white -- I was told that there was no "guarantee" he would be called upon.

The next thing I knew, CNN phoned me with an urgent message. "We have a problem," I was told. "Because your student mentioned that he gave money to (GOP presidential candidate Rep.) Ron Paul, we cannot have him ask a question. Nor can we now have any of your students ask. Why did you select him?"

Needless to say, no one at CNN looked at the quality or importance of my students' question. It is an insult to what this country stands for to censor somebody due to what party he currently is "considering" supporting. Can't a Democrat ask a Republican a question -- and vice versa? How else can we make politically informed decisions?

Monica Brett



There is a couple of things we need to consider here.

  1. Why is CNN ok with Democrats (including members of Hillary's official campaign) asking Republicans questions, but it's not ok for someone supporting a Republican candidate to ask Democrats questions?
  2. Why should Terrell's race have been a factor?
  3. Why did CNN then forbid anyone else in the class to ask the question?
  4. And why were they so curious as to why the class chose Terrell to ask the question?
  5. Finally, if CNN was able to do the proper research, and background check, on Terrell ... how is it that prominent Hillary Clinton personnel always "trick" CNN at all of their debates. They always claim they had no idea that these people were prominent Democrats associated with Hillary. This also raises the question of why non of the Youtubers could be identified for who they really were by CNN when it took bloggers literally no time to do so. Clearly CNN has displayed to ability to conduct the proper background checks with regards to Terrell.

Without a doubt ... CNN should be banned from conducting anymore debates for at least the next two presidential elections.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Racist, Genocidal Maniac President Bush Asks For More Funds To Help African AIDS Victims

Maybe the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) crowd thinks Bush wants to poison them with a fake form of treatment. That way he, Rove, and Cheney can prolong the suffering of these people while they kick back and stuff their faces with popcorn.


A regal-looking Zambian woman known as "Auntie Bridget" noted that she is both a beneficiary and an implementer of the president's ambitious anti-AIDS initiative. Known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the program is devoting about $15 billion over five years to buy antiretroviral drugs, create prevention programs and fund assistance for people suffering from the disease all over the world.

Wait ... does this mean that Kanye was wrong? President Bush DOESN'T want to kill all black people? Naaaaaah?

Turkey Authorizes Military Strikes Against Kurds In Iraq

It's been coming for a while now, but Turkey's Prime Minister finally confirmed what we all knew would happen.


Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says the Turkish government has authorized the army to carry out a cross-border operation against Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq.

In televised comments Friday, Mr. Erdogan said the decision to carry out the operation was made at a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. He said Turkish President Abdullah Gul approved of the plan.

Looks like the Dems will get a chance to see if Turkey and the US will part ways as friends.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Ron Paul Says Surge Failed, & We Lost In Southern Iraq

Scroll Down For Updates ... I Have The Video Of Paul Endorsing Sadr, Saying The Surge Failed, & We Lost ...

This guy is becoming even more of an idiot than I thought. It's ok to want out of Iraq, but it's another thing to lie about it in order to get votes.

He was properly smacked by McCain for his comments. To which Ron Paul supporters tried to boo McCain, but were drowned out with cheers for McCain as McCain schooled Paul on the facts of Vietnam.

I will post video as soon as I have it, and the latest numbers of a decline in violence in Iraq. Which Paul says is because the Brits are pulling out of Basra. Problem is that the violence in Basra declined 80% WHILE the Brits were there. They are pulling out because there is no more need for them there.


Here is a graph that shows the decline in violence in Iraq since the surge.

H/T: Gateway Pundit ...

  • Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
  • Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
  • Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
  • Basra violence is down by 90%.
  • Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
  • IED attacks down by 55%.
  • Average daily attacks down by 42%.

The numbers were taken from Aljazeera, DefenseLink, and Investor's Business Daily.

Here is a link to confirm those numbers further, and below is a video from the Pentagon Channel (courtesy of Amy Proctor).

Let's not forget that Iraq has just asked us to stay indefinitely while kicking the UN to the curb. This happened just days after AQI's last stronghold in Iraq was taken by the coalition.

As AQI is running for their lives ... 6000 Sunnis just signed up with the coalition to cut off their escape routes.

I've been telling you for a while now about the progress in Iraq before, and since, the surge.

It's bad enough that Ron Paul believes in conspiracies, opposed Amber Alert, thinks it's ok for minor children to be taken out of state to get abortions without the parents knowing, is a huge porker, and don't even get me started on his views of the CIA and FBI. He's got to tone down the lies about Iraq, and focus on potential conflicts in the future.

As soon as I can find video of Ron Paul saying we lost ... I'll post it.

Update 2:

Here is the transcript for the debate when Ron Paul said the surge failed.

"Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn’t worked. There’s less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They’re in charge up north — the Shia — the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there’s no violence up there or nearly as much."

I've seen a few people post my story in full around the net (please provide a link back to me), and I've been reading comments from RP supporters saying how violence went down because the Brits left. Not so, and here's the proof.

As you can see, when the Brits initially pulled back violence went up. What Paul and his supporters keep neglecting to tell you is that we only maintain control of Iraqi territory until the Iraqis can take over security there. This is hardly an empirical strategy Rep. Paul.

I outlined how much of Iraq is being turned over to Iraqi forces here.

The Brits pulled back because Basra was always a relatively safe place in Iraq due to the low diversity level, and the Iraqis were ready to take control there. So they did, and they kicked the crap out of the Shiite militia to restore order. That's the template for Iraq. Once the Iraqis are ready ... let them do the work, but they have to be ready. If we pull back when they aren't ready ... the results will be disastrous.

Paul also said that Sadr won in souther Iraq. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on Paul's part. Not only has Sadr not won ... his forces are in shambles.

After Sadr went into hiding shortly before the surge, his forces split into rival factions. He would later reemerge to attempt to reunite his militia, but a particularly nasty battle for Sadre's forces in Karbala forced him to call for a 6 month cessation of hostilities so he could repair the damage done to his organization.

Hardly the actions of someone who was victorious.

Finally, I found the video from the debate where Ron Paul says the surge failed, we lost, and seemed to endorse a Sadr victory in Basra as a good thing.

Oh, and Rep. Paul, those people in the north are called the Kurds. They want us to stay, and it isn't a good sign to have a presidential candidate that can't identify who the Kurds are. Especially with the issues between Kurds and Turkey.

Here's another video where Ron Paul talks about his $4.3 million raised on Guy Fawkes day. The question and answer start at 1:38 into the vid.

Paul forgot to mention that a decent chunk of that money came from Stormfront, a white supremacist group, and whether or not he's returned any of the racist's money. Since he cited the full $4.3 million ... I doubt he's refunded anything.

Here's a link about the Paul/Stormfront connection.


Here's a vid with Stormfront radio.

You get the idea.

I am in no way saying that Paul is a racist, but racists have latched onto his campaign, and he is not preventing their support from reaching his campaign funds. Nor is he denouncing them.

It is also important to note that while the honcho at Stormfront only donated $500 ... he and other racist groups lobbied for Paul in mass for the 5th of November fundraiser.

US Army Releases List Of Offensive Words. Guess What Word Is Left Off The List.

H/T: MM ...

Obviously, there is a major problem with many of these terms being "offensive", and there is great concern in reading this list as a former grunt myself. If you are in the Army, but aren't allowed to say you were a guinea pig ... there is a problem.

It isn't the ridiculous things that have been deemed offensive by the Army that I'd like to focus on here, but the lack of one particular derogatory slur.

There are a couple of words and phrases referring to homosexuals ... except for THAT one ... fagot.

Sorry John Edwards ... looks like you are still fair game according to the Army. They don't include the f word in their list of offensive terms.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Iraq Asks The US To Stay In Iraq Indefinitely

Uh oh ... spaghetti oh!

Just days after al Qaeda's last stronghold in Iraq fell to the coalition ... Iraq has offered a deal to the US to stay in Iraq for the long haul.

Fox News:

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.

In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the U.N. to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008.

Yep, Iraq wants the UN out and the US in.

The US will also get some economic benefits from the deal as well.

The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.

The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

It is important to note that this is not a treaty, and further negotiations will continue throughout 2008.

Breaking News: Vice President Cheney In Hospital For Irregular Heart Beat

I'm watching Fox News right now and they just broke in that Cheney is in the hospital for an irregular heart beat involving the upper chambers of the heart. He was admitted because of a lingering cough from a cold.

They will try a form of treatment in which they will shock Cheney's heart. This will stop his heart temporarily, and hopefully his heart will restart and beat normally.

It won't be long now before the liberal sites start hoping that his heart doesn't restart again.

Best wishes to Cheney and his family.

Let's Face It, Hillary Will Struggle As President Because She Is A Woman


Before I start getting the obligatory hate mail stating that I am a misogynist, I must clarify that I am ok with a woman as president. While there are numerous reasons to not support Hillary, we should not kid ourselves that her gender will inhibit her ability to lead as president.

Last week on my show, my co-host and I were railing Hillary for playing the gender card, and then denying doing so. I have no problem with the gender card being played, but I would like her to admit that she's doing it.

We began to give reasons why Hillary's sex is important to her ability to lead should she win. My co-host, a woman, stated that she wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a woman ... even if she did like her politics. Simply because of the global situation the US is in right now. Whether you like it or not ... Middle Eastern nations will not respect a woman, even if she is president of the United States.

A young woman called to say that she didn't care what other countries thought of Hillary. She would not allow another country's opinion of Hillary to sway her vote.

On the surface this sounds like the proper attitude in selecting a leader. I immediately reminded her that the Democrats have made it a part of their official platform to attack President Bush because of what other nations think of him ... especially Hillary.

The notion that we should elect a president based on whether they are popular in other nations is laughable. That is what Bush supporters have been saying for years now. However, the Democrats have said the exact opposite. They believe that we should elect a president that is popular in other countries because they feel that will ease relations. The problems is that Hillary is not popular in the most important, and volatile, part of the world that she will deal with as president ... the Middle East.

It is one thing to have the Middle East not like a US president because they are tough. There is at least the possibility of respect if our leader is a man. A woman is not afforded that courtesy. Not only will Hillary be unpopular in the Middle East, but she will have no respect ... simply because she is a woman. Which means she may not be an effective leader for our country when it comes to that part of the world. That could be dangerous.

I cited Condaleeza Rice as an example. Condi is infinitely more intelligent, articulate, experienced, and likable compared to Hillary. Yet she struggles in the Middle East, and you'd be foolish to think her sex has nothing to do with it.

Now this doesn't mean that no woman can be effective in the Middle East as president, but you owe it to yourself, the country, and the world to find out if Hillary is that woman. So far, no one has asked the questions that will allow the voters to determine if Hillary can be effective with her Middle East policy.

So far, all we know about Hillary's Middle East policy is that she would talk to Iran without conditions. She also said she would leave US troops in Iraq, but allow ethnic cleansing without US interference.

What else do we really know about Hillary's Middle East policy? How will she deal with those countries we are not at war with? Can she warm relations with those countries, and how will she do it? How will she stick up for human rights in those countries ... especially women's rights?

While none of those questions have been answered, or asked for that matter, the last one about women's rights could easily have been addressed by Hillary during the last debate here in Las Vegas.

The current situation in Saudi Arabia provided Hillary the opportunity to shine, and show the American people that she will stick up for women's rights ... even if it meant going against an ally.

A woman in Saudi Arabia was kidnapped, and gang raped by seven men. She was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes from a whip because the man she was with before they were kidnapped was not her husband. Apparently, her family attempted to bring the media into the case. As a result of this effort, the court increased her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Though people have survived 200 lashes in the past ... they have also died from it. The family said they will appeal the ruling, but have been told by the Saudi court that if she loses the appeal, the sentence will increase yet again.

Now why didn't anyone at the debate ask Hillary (or the other candidates) how they would handle the incident? Oh yeah, I forgot everyone who asked a question was a plant.

Let's not forget that Hillary labels herself a champion of women's rights. What's wrong with asking her to address the current situation in Saudi Arabia? It has everything she would need to prove that she can be a strong leader in dealing with that part of the world. She can prove that she will stick up for women's rights against an ally, and that she has that extra toughness required of a woman to have influence in that region.

She also had the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration for its weak stance on the matter. Yet she is silent ... why?

It is possible she doesn't even know it is happening. She wouldn't be the first candidate to forget about reading the news while campaigning. She may not really care about the woman, and the situation surrounding her. Perhaps she doesn't want to anger a critical US ally in the Middle East ... which warrants criticism. Then there is the possibility that she doesn't want to expose the Middle East's lack of reception to her leadership. All are plausible, and all are very concerning to prospective voters.

We can no longer ignore the fact that Hillary is different from the other candidates, and her gender will provide unique challenges never before encountered by a US president. The American voter needs to assess whether or not Hillary has what it takes to address the challenges we face in the Middle East today. Yet we continue to refuse to ask those all important questions of the defacto next president.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Various Air Show Photos

To see photos and video of specific aircraft go to the homepage and scroll down, or click the links below.

A-10 Thunderbolt II

USAF Thunderbirds

F-22 Raptor

Here are some various photos from Aviation Nation at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, NV on November 10, 2007

Very cool formation towards the end of the show with a Mustang, Phantom, Warthog, & Raptor flying together.

AD-1 Skyraider painted camo.

My grandpa's personal favorite, the F-86 Sabre. It was right next to the Mig-15 also. We got some good shots of the two of them together, but we need to fix the levels. The sun was bouncing off of all the planes at that time of day.

And finally, me with an F-5B Tiger ... one of my favorite aircraft.

The F-22 Raptor - Kick Ass!


Without a doubt, that shot was the photo of the day. If you could see this at full resolution you'd die. That's how sexy this plane is.

I've read all the performance stats, and heard the stories of a single F-22 taking on multiple F-16s and F-15s and winning. However, you just can not appreciate how kick ass this plane really is until you see it in person. Shanna got some magnificent shots, and I got some great video of the maneuvers this plane can do, but it will not do it justice.

The following set of pictures is great because of what Shanna captured. Not all of the photos are in the best light, but that's not why I'm showing them to you. Shanna caught the F-22 with its bay doors opened, and she also caught a sequence of photos showing the bay doors closing. We didn't realize she had these shots until we got home.

Below is the video of the F-22's flight demonstration. There was an interesting experience with our cameras at the show. The stealth aircraft wouldn't stay in focus a lot of the time ... weird.

The USAF Thunderbirds


The Thunderbirds put on one hell of a show. They were performing as we got to Aviation Nation. Shanna got some great pics of the Thunderbirds, and I figured I would share a couple with you. Just keep in mind that these photos are compressed for the internet ... you should see the originals!

While the photos are fantastic ... my favorite part is in the video below. After performing, the Thunderbirds did a "drive by" right where we were. They paraded themselves a mere few feet away, and allowed us to get great shots and video ... enjoy.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)

Please keep in mind that the quality of the photos below are at a low resolution to be posted on the web. The true photos are phenomenal!

This particular plane is sentimental to me. Not only did I grow up a big fan of this aircraft, but later in life it was the A-10 that we used to call for close air support when I was a grunt.

There is a false cockpit painted on the bottom of the aircraft. This next photo perfectly displays why that would be confusing to the enemy.

Here's the video I recorded at the air show of the A-10. Please keep in mind I am on crutches looking up, and trying to get the aircraft in frame.

US Air Power On Display

My wife and I went to the Aviation Nation air show this last weekend to celebrate Veteran's Day, and the birthdays of the Air Force and Marine Corps.

I will be uploading pictures and video for you to enjoy. Some of the vids are great, but there are moments when you can tell I'm trying to film while on crutches looking up. The photos were taken by my wife Shanna. Any use of the photos requires her permission, and you are welcome to inquire about purchasing some of the shots from her if you'd like. You'll understand why you may want to buy them when I get them up on the site.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Biden Says What We All Know: "Democrats Have No Faith In The American People"

Hell, we've been saying that for a long time. Decades actually if you count every year Rush has been on the air. This really isn't news that Democrats feel this way, but it is news to hear one of them finally say it.

Biden said:

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

“We’ve got to trust the American people more,” Biden said.

“I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them,” he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

Seriously, think about it. The entire Democrat platform is based on not believing you can take care of yourself ... that they need to help you in some way.

Even their stance on the military right now is the same thing. The poor, uneducated, helpless military needs us to help them understand what is really happening around them. They are just kids who had no alternative but to enlist, and the idea that they support this war just shows that they are truly naive ... we Democrats must help them.

Richard Belzer best summed it up when he said:

That's bull---t: ask them! They're not, they don't read twenty newspapers a day. They're under the threat of death every minute. They're not the best people to ask about the war because they're gonna die any second. You know, the soldiers are not scholars, they're not war experts.

Now Belzer is a third rate actor on a popular third rate show, and shouldn't be taken seriously ... I know. However, he isn't the first or last Democrat to say such things. Keep in mind he was responding to Congresswoman Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen statements about her visit to Iraq in which she stated that the military personnel she spoke with told here:

"We're proud of our mission, we know what we're doing over here. We don't want you guys in Washington to lose it over there."

That's when Belzer blew up.

Then Ros-Lehtinen cited the knowledge of her Marine officer stepson in Iraq. To which Belzer responded by saying:

“Doesn't mean he's a brilliant scholar about the war because he's there.”

See? They can't take care of themselves.

Biden is generally a distasteful man, but he is right on here. The conservative movement has dominated the liberal movement because we have faith in the American people, and the left doesn't. We believe you only need opportunity to succeed. You don't need your hand held, nor do you need handouts to get by. When Republicans start ignoring this premise, and believing that they know better than the people ... the people don't show up to vote, and Congress is taken over by the Democrats.

Should the American people always be trusted? No. Should they never be trusted? No. The middle ground is where we will find success. You can't always do what the people say, but you should always listen to what they have to say because they will surprise you.

Brazil Finds HUGE Oil Reserve. What's This Mean For Ethanol?


As you know, Brazil has one of the largest bio-fuels programs in the world. About 18% of their country's fuel is ethanol from sugar cane. While Brazil did this to ensure that it was fuel self-sufficient, and didn't have to import fuel, greenies have been touting Brazil as a model for environmentalism. With the new oil find, it looks like Brazil is less interested in making the planet more green, and more interested in making some more green themselves.


The Brazilian government says huge new oil reserves discovered off its coast could turn the country into one of the biggest oil producers in the world.

Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, says it believes the offshore Tupi field has between 5bn and 8bn barrels of recoverable light oil.

A senior minister said Brazilian oil production had the potential to match that of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Petrobras delivered its estimate after analysing test results.

Making Brazil one of the largest oil producers clearly removes them from any environmental model put forth by the greenies.

Naturally, the government is thrilled.

The news, which led to a sharp rise in company shares, was also given an enthusiastic welcome by the government.

The senior minister in charge of the cabinet, Dilma Rousseff, said if the deposits turned out to be as significant as first thought, it would place Brazil in the same league as Venezuela and countries in the Arab world.

With a reserve like this, the country could be transformed into an exporter of petroleum, she said.

"This has changed our reality," she said.

Yep, you poor greenies have just lost the "moral high ground" argument as it applies to Brazil. They don't give a damn about the environment ... they want to make money.

Let's not forget that this UN expert says it is immoral to use food crops for fuel.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Iran Enriching Uranium In Huge Amount ... Israel Ready To Strike

Remember when Iran told the world that they only wanted to have heavy-water nuclear reactors so they could cure cancer and AIDS? Then they claimed to have cured AIDS without the help of uranium? Funny thing was that they didn't end their nuclear program with that great scientific breakthrough (that they didn't share with anyone). Perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying Iran didn't have any gays had something to do with it. Then again, that was just a slip of the tongue.

Anyway, we all know there have been some major problems with Iran cooperating with the UN on their nuclear program. They have been impeding the UN's ability to monitor their program and they are enriching uranium at a march larger scale than originally thought.

Just so you know, about a 100 enrichment centrifuges are necessary to enrich uranium to about 3.5% to be used in a nuclear reactor. You'd need thousands of enrichment centrifuges to enrich uranium to 90% for a bomb. Iran has 3,000 enrichment centrifuges, and Israel is getting itchy.

A claim by President Ahmadinejad that Iran has 3,000 working uranium-enriching centrifuges sent a tremor across the world yesterday amid fears that Israel would respond by bombing the country’s nuclear facilities.

Military sources in Washington said that the existence of such a large number could be a “tipping point”, triggering an Israeli air strike. The Pentagon is reluctant to take military action against Iran, but officials say that Israel is a “different matter”. Amid the international uproar, British MPs who were to have toured the nuclear facility were backing out of their Iran trip.

Even before President Ahmadinejad’s announcement, a US defence official told The Times yesterday: “Israel could do something when they get to around 3,000 working centrifuges. The Pentagon is minded to wait a little longer.” US experts say 3,000 machines running for long periods could make enough enriched uranium for an atomic bomb within a year.

What's most amazing about this fiasco is the UN's flip-flopping of the issue. First the UN says Iran is violating the treaty, then they aren't ... etc. It's like the oil-for-food scandal all over again.

Who Would Have Thought Muslims Would Help Christians Put Up A Cross In Baghdad?


Well, a lot of people actually. Mostly military personnel who've been to Iraq. Michael Yon has more.

Mexican Trucks To Be Monitored By Satelite

This will at least be of some comfort for you NAU folks out there.

Commercial trucks traveling to or from Mexico will be outfitted with a satellite tracking device to assuage fears that participants in a cross-border pilot program may not follow safety rules.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA, will spend $367,000 on 100 devices for trucks from the United States and Mexico to monitor them as they pick up and deliver loads, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.

The decision to require the installation of satellite-tracking technology was made after members of Congress questioned participants' compliance with U.S. safety and trade laws, said Melissa Mazzella DeLaney, an FMCSA spokeswoman.

Viva Le Resistance!

The Founder Of The Weather Channel Says Global Warming Is The "Greatest Scam In History"

Do you all remember when the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen said the American Meteorological Society should revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe? Then those who don't believe man is behind global warming were compared to holocaust deniers?

Well, now the person who founded the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is speaking out against those like Heidi Cullen. He says global warming is a huge scam.


It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.


The guy has been a meteorologist since 1953. You can read more about him here.

I wonder if he'll get as much attention as Heidi did from the MSM when she made her opinions clear ... I doubt it.

Oh, and to make this story even more fun ... he does the weather in San Diego now. That's the same San Diego that just had those major fires that Harry Reid attributed to global warming (at least partly). That was just a few days before Reid started talking about how very cold it was.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

What If I Were To Tell You That Bono Just Ripped Terrorists

We all know that Bono is a media darling, and every time he speaks they put his words in print. We are usually inundated with Bono quotes and images for days after the event, but not this time. Why? Well usually Bono is advocating a liberal cause that gets him the great media publicity. However, when Bono speaks with a little more conservative zeal ... nothing.

News Busters:

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Bono said of the Islamic fundamentalists:

I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.

Bono goes on to show that he does not engage in Bush Derangement Syndrome, despite the urgings of the Rolling Stone's anti-Bush reporter. In response to the reporter's statement that "But this Administration destroyed that." when they discussed the outpouring of support for the United States immediately following the attacks of Spetember 11, Bono says of President Bush,

There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

This time there doesn't seem to be the media affection we typically see for Bono. No Bush Derangement Syndrome, no MSM coverage.

Islamic Death Threat Posted On YouTube ... YouTube Takes No Action


The threat is against British councillor Alan Craig who opposes a "mega mosque" that is being planned near the 2012 Olympics.

You can read the full story at the Daily Mail.

YouTube has a history of allowing Islamists to spread their propaganda on their site while making sure that conservative videos, and anti-Islamist material is taken down. Make sure you read this story about how terrorists are using YouTube for recruiting and propaganda.

So if you want conservative videos without dealing with the anti-American and liberal stance at YouTube then check out QubeTV.

10% Of Illegals With Serious Drug & Weapons Offenses Allowed To Enter U.S.

When I say "allow" I mean they are allowed to enter due to a broken system. Many would say that a 90% success rate is pretty solid, and in most other circumstances they'd be right. The problem is 10% of 12 million is still 1.2 million illegals who are serious drug and weapons offenders that have been able to sneak past our border guards. Keep in mind that most believe there are more than 12 million illegals in this country, but 1.2 million violent criminal aliens running wild in the US is unacceptable by any measure. I'm also not so sure the real number is only 10%, and I'm also assuming that they miss at least 10% every year.

The Statesman:

A new congressional review found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers failed to stop roughly 1 in 10 illegal immigrants and serious drug and weapons violators from entering the United States through airports and official land border crossings last year, the Washignton Post reported Tuesday.

Are we making strides in catching illegal aliens at the border? Yes, but we are falling behind in getting illegals out of the US once they are already here.

So, Now John Edwards Is A Conservative On Immigration?


We all know that Edwards doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. Mainly because he's a kook, and not a smart one either. However, he has latched onto the most important issue among 2008 voters ... immigration.

Most Americans support a hard-line stance on illegals, and Edwards has (up to this point) been the exact opposite of what the American people want on this issue.

We must remember that there is an election to win, and Edwards being himself hasn't been getting it done. So ... it's time for the tried-and-true Democrat strategy to gain ground in an election ... change yourself.

Huffington Post:

At the debate and on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, Edwards drew a distinction between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, saying he disagreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to grant drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Clinton backs the proposal as a way of solving crimes and promoting road safety.

Moreover, Edwards said that while states should have say over the issue until comprehensive reform can be passed, once reform is enacted, licenses should only be granted to those immigrants who are on the path to citizenship.

Now his base (Huffington Post, Daily Kos types) are not too happy with his complete reversal of his stance on illegals.

Edwards' stance contrasts sharply from what he advocated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, when he was unequivocal in his support for issuing driver's licenses to the undocumented.

So how does a candidate who has embraced progressive stances on many critical issues from 2004 to 2008 shift conservative on immigration? The answer, some analysts say, lies in the political dynamics of Iowa, the first caucus state.

First off, I'd like to point out that Edwards' new stance on licenses is not a conservative position as is being stated in the quoted post. True it is more conservative than the typical liberal stance, but not quite conservative.

As for this being a tactic to win the all important Iowa ... it's more likely than not, very true.

I've been reading what some liberal bloggers have been saying about Edwards' turnaround, and they seem to miss the point. They are critical of Edwards because this new stance is "conservative", but that is not the issue. The crux is that Edwards, like Clinton, has decided that it is more important to lie to potential voters in order to win. I credit Obama for not having done this.

We now have two of the three Democrat front-runners who have openly shown you their willingness to tell you what you want to hear rather than what they believe. That should be far more upsetting to liberals than Edwards taking a "conservative" stance on an issue.

Another Mass Grave Found In Iraq

This time 22 bodies were found in a mass grave just NW of Baghdad.

Monday, November 05, 2007

60 Minutes Lies About Saddam's WMDs

I'll save the overall argument about Saddam's wmd programs for another time. I'm writing a book about it so I'm not giving out a bunch of free info on the matter. You can always join the over 1,500 people that have taken The Iraq War Test to learn more. Bottom line is that we found BM-21 rockets loaded with sarin and ready to fire during the invasion ... case closed.

The reason I'm focusing on the uranium argument here with 60 Minutes is that the 500 tons of uranium found, and removed from Iraq, is a slam dunk as it is the most reported story of Saddam having banned substances before the invasion. If you don't know the story of the 500 tons of uranium you should ...

  1. Recuse yourself from any wmd discussion because you don't know what the hell you're talking about ... and
  2. You should read on because I will give you more info, and provide you with links to the story.

Now back to 60 Minutes' lying ways.

Before we start in on 60 Minutes it is important to know the highly liberal stance they take. For instance, they did a whole segment on the Appeal for Redress (an anti-war petition from military personnel) a while back, but they refused to provide the same airtime to the Appeal for Courage (a pro-war petition from military personnel) even though the Appeal for Courage has more signatures. I've received the runaround from 60 Minutes about the issue, and I've spoken with LT. Nichols about the matter. For a giggle, you should look at both appeals media page to see the huge distortion in media coverage. LT. Nichols, by the way, is in Iraq.

Last week, 60 Minutes ran this story ...

Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? No, he did not. We've known that for some time now. So where did the intelligence come from that he was building up his arsenal? Fantastically, the most compelling part came from one obscure Iraqi defector who came in and out of history like a comet. His code name, ironically, was "Curve Ball" and his information became the pillar of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war. Who is Curve Ball and how did he fool the world's elite intelligence agencies?

60 Minutes spent two years, and traveled to nine countries, trying to solve the mystery. We talked to intelligence sources, to people who knew Curve Ball and to people who worked with him. As correspondent Bob Simon reports, Curve Ball's real name has never been made public, nor has any video of him, until now.

A very "unbiased" and "honest" introductory isn't it. Too bad the wmd statements are completely false, but I digress.

We do know that we were fed some bad intel on Iraq's wmd programs ... that is not in dispute. Charles Duelfer said as such in his report, and congressional testimony. He essentially said that Saddam did have the weapons programs, but they were not as advanced as we thought. More on that later.

60 Minutes then went on to out "Curve Ball" as Rafid Ahmed Alwan, and break down how he became an informant. It is important that you know he refused to see any Americans and was interrogated by Germany for a year and a half. Transcripts of what he said were sent to the CIA by Germany. The CIA was actually denied requests to debrief "Curve Ball" before making their case against Iraq to President Bush. 60 Minutes never blames Germany for misleading the US.

60 Minutes also completely ignores that the wmds found before the invasion by the UN. Here's an example, but you have to do the rest of the legwork.

They also ignore that every UN weapons inspector said Saddam was hiding weapons programs before the invasion. Yes I know some of them changed their mind suddenly after years of their own saber rattling. In response to that I would say to check out ex-inspector Richard Butler, and ask yourself why Ritter suddenly went from saying Saddam was hiding weapons to Saddam is a great guy. The answer to that is that Ritter started receiving money funneled out of the oil-for-food scandal, and was essentially paid by Saddam to make an anti-war film. It makes me wonder why other inspectors changed their tune so quickly.

So what did Duelfer really have to say about Saddam's weapons programs? Not what you've heard from your teenage friends on the left-wing blogs ... I guarantee it. Again, the programs were not as advanced as we thought, but he did have them. You can read his congressional testimony here. Listen to this little tidbit that 60 Minutes and others always leave out:

There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by
forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas. However, over time there was decay in the team.

Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made
clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them.

He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear
component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat,
clearly implying matching Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

What? You've never heard Duelfer say that before? Curious.

Here's what Duelfer said about the chemical and biological chapters of his report:

Once inspections began in 1991, Iraq chose to yield most of its weapons and bulk
agent as well as the large facilities that were widely known to exist. As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.

Let's recap so far. At a bare minimum Saddam did not declare and destroy all of his wmds, he committed hundreds of violations with respect to conventional weapons (most notably developing long range missiles), and he retained the infrastructure, knowledge and desire to restart his wmd programs once sanctions ended. All things listed as concerns for the future, and reasons for war.

Wait til you hear what Duelfer had to say about Saddam using the oil-for-food program to increase his wmd capability.

Over time, and with the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance
of the Oil for Food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to reestablish CW production capacity.

By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two.

Uh huh ... so with the oil-for-food program Saddam was able to buy off at least one UN inspector, and increase his wmd capability. Nice.

Iraq decided to retain the main BW production facility, but under guise of using it to produce singlecell protein for animal feed. These decisions were taken with Saddam’s explicit approval.

Preservation of Iraq’s biological weapons capabilities was simpler than any other
WMD area because of the nature of the material.

What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had
experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended---and sanctions were eroding.

Duelfer also highlighted the threat of such knowledge being given to terrorists, which Saddam openly supported.

A risk that has emerged since my previous status report to Congress is the
connection of former regime CW experts with anti-coalition forces. ISG uncovered
evidence of such links and undertook a sizeable effort to track down and prevent any
lash-up between foreign terrorists or anti-coalition forces and either existing CW stocks or experts able to produce such weapons indigenously. I believe we got ahead of this problem through a series of raids throughout the spring and summer. I am convinced we successfully contained a problem before it matured into a major threat. Nevertheless, it points to the problem that the dangerous expertise developed by the previous regime could be transferred to other hands. Certainly there are anti-coalition and terrorist elements seeking such capabilities.

Take the statements above with his previous statements to Congress 7 months earlier, and you start to see the picture that 60 Minutes ignored in their latest report.

Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.

Then there is the dual use chemicals.

With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program.

Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX.

Since many of you out there don't believe chemical and biological weapons are "really" wmds ... here's info on Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.

One significant effort illustrating this was a high-speed rail gun program under the direction of two senior scientists associated with Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. Documents from this project show that the scientists were developing a rail gun designed to achieve speeds of 2-10 kilometers per second. The ostensible purpose for this research was development of an air defense gun, but these speeds are what are necessary to conduct experiments of metals compressing together at high speed as they do in a nuclear detonation. Scientists refer to these experiments as “equation of state” measurements.

Not only were these scientists developing a rail gun, but their laboratory also contained documents describing diagnostic techniques that are important for nuclear weapons experiments, such as flash x-ray radiography, laser velocimetry, and high-speed photography. Other documents found outside the laboratory described a high-voltage switch that can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, laser detonation, nuclear fusion, radiation measurement, and radiation safety. These fields are certainly not related to air defense.

It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development.

No - he - did - not - just - say - that! Oh yes he did. Charles Duelfer, author of the famously misquoted Duelfer Report did just say that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.

Duelfer and Kay also stated that they found:

"Uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

Duelfer also went on to talk about the secret missile program that the UN failed to uncover even though Iraq test fired these missiles right under the UN's nose. Duelfer also stated that foreign assistance was utilized in assisting Iraq in these missile programs in violation of UN sanctions.

What were the three countries that were caught violating UN sanctions by assisting Saddam's weapons programs again? Ah yes, I remember, Russia, France and GERMANY! The same Germany that 60 Minutes fails to criticize for feeding us incorrect information from "Curve Ball."

Since we all now know that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program ... that brings me to the 500 tons of uranium we found in Iraq that so many news agencies choose to ignore these days. Of course, they didn't ignore it when it happened because it was a huge story. How soon we forget eh?

Here's a couple of links for the 500 tons of uranium. Full urls left in place so you know they are separate articles. -- this quotes a NY Times article

Yep ... Saddam had 500 tons of uranium (1.8 tons partially enriched), and a clandestine nuclear weapons program. So how many nuclear bombs could this 500 tons of uranium have produced as a result of this clandestine nuclear weapons program? The answer is 142 nuclear bombs.

Too bad 60 Minutes didn't do any show prep before they ran this story. Especially since they said they spent two years on said story.

Just to add salt to the wound ... a friend of mine stationed in al Asad, Iraq sent me several pictures of chemical warheads. I figured I would share one with you today.

Al Asad is where Saddam's air force was found buried under the sand. Coincidently that's where they found this bad boy. When they removed the protective coverings they discovered that it was loaded with sarin bomblets. Notice that this is not an old, harmless weapon. It is modern, and in very good condition.

Below is a reference image of a US sarin warhead with its bomblets. Again, the bottom photo is older, and from an American warhead. It was not found in Iraq. It is only demonstrating what a sarin bomblet is.

Too bad 60 Minutes hasn't paid attention to what is really coming out of Iraq, and no the pictures are not classified.



Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com