Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hollywood Players Form Political Production Company

A group of Hollywood executives have teamed with a veteran Washington Democratic hand to create a political production company with an eye toward playing a major role in the 2008 election.

Among those affiliated with First Tuesday Media, as the group is known, include Chris Moore, executive producer of "Project Green Light" as well as the "American Pie" movies, Katie McGrath Abrams, a public relations exec and wife of "Lost" executive producer J.J. Abrams, Jenno Topping, executive producer of the two most recent "Charlie's Angels" films, and Chris Keyser, a television executive whose credits include "Party of Five." Laura Nichols, a longtime aide to Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) who serves as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the face of the group in Washington.

The goal of the company, which was created last year but whose existence has not previously been reported, is to use the creative minds of Hollywood to create content -- Web and television -- designed to move a political or policy message.

An example: First Tuesday Media was recently commissioned by the Center for American Progress to produce an energy video. The script was written by George Nolfi, the screenwriter for "Ocean's Twelve" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," in conjunction with Jeff Nachmanoff, screenwriter for "The Day After Tomorrow."

All told, First Tuesday has done eight to ten "projects" since its inception including for groups like Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The company remains in its infant stages but is already in discussions with donors about future financing with an eye on 2008 and beyond. The true potential for First Tuesday would be as the prime vendor for some iteration of 2004's Media Fund, which spent $58 million on television ads in the 2004 election cycle, and was run by another Gephardt operative, Erik Smith.

Those familiar with the discussions surrounding First Tuesday insist, however, that unlike the Media Fund their company is not simply an election vehicle but a longer term politics and policy venture aimed at re-branding the look and feel of online and television communications of the Democratic Party and the overall progressive movement.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 11, 2007; 10:37 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: On Location at
Next: Momentum or Menace?


Any efforts to keep the discussion open and moving forward is a welcome addition to the dialogue in my opinion.
Hotbed Media

Posted by: ed | October 14, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

wow you ppl need to get a life....

Posted by: PaulDPearl | September 12, 2007 11:08 PM | Report abuse

It needs to be made absolutely clear that the woman who calls herself "Katie McGrath" is NOT the wife of executive producer JJ Abrams. All comments by her should have NO CONNECTION to JJ Abrams either in Washington Post or in any other media outlet. All comments by "Katie McGrath" either in this or other articles should be disregarded. All connections of Katie McGrath to JJ Abrams should be deleted!

Posted by: Mrs. Jeffrey Abrams | September 12, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a coward and a fascist

Posted by: rufus | September 12, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Jeff, when people said Petraeus was lying, it was based on previous statements he had made. It wasn't based on expectations of what he might say during his testimony. MoveOn has a detailed report on the facts and figures cited by Petraeus and how they contradict facts as reported by other sources. This information was actually in their famous ad, if you're capable of reading past the headline to find it.

You say that Congress lacks "respect" because they dare to question a general. Do you have any idea how the laws of this country work? Oversight of military affairs is part of Congress' job. Sometimes that involves questioning generals. Sometimes it even involves asking tough questions, and calling the generals out if they evade or lie in response. And yes, Congress is even allowed to question lifelong soldiers and "dedicated Americans" in that way.

And speaking of respect, how about you get some respect for this nation's government? You believe that several of the country's top elected officials are siding with terrorists. How does that show respect for this country?

Posted by: Blarg | September 12, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

First of all, whomever is posting these long articles is an idiot.
No one bothers to read them, making your point lost. Link, don't cut and paste.
More importantly - Rufus....
O'Reilly didn't encourage violence by asking people to stand up to other people. Stop pretending he is the problem and take a moment to actually listen to what the man has to say. I don't agree with him all the time, but I find that what he says tends to make some sense.
That's the big problem with hardcore liberals -
you simply aren't willing to listen to anything. You've had your mind made up for you by others who refuse to listen and that's it! What kind of person is so inflexible and knowledgeable that they can't LISTEN to another person with a different opinion?
Personally, I don't have a problem with your opinion, but I am sick and tired of this endemic preconceived notions.
Before Petraeus even gave his report, democrats on the hill already made preemptive statements about what they thought he was going to say!
Before the man spoke, leftists had already decided he was lying!
Petraeus is a good man, a lifetime soldier, and a dedicated American. He is passionate about his job and has done it with honor. How dare ANY of you point fingers at him and accuse him of anything?
The one thing that Petraeus and anyone who has served knows is that honor, duty, and country are more than just slogans - they are part of their being. and the far left don't understand those ideals.
Is it any wonder that Bin Laden's rhetoric sounds EXACTLY the same as Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, and
They are all on the same side, which is against America.
And I am not surprised Petraeus' report wasn't well received. Unlike most people, I actually paid attention and watched what he had to say. I read the transcripts.
Politicians were given a chance to emote about their ill informed opinions and grandstand, while the General was cut off due to time restrictions.
I don't like America right now, but it isn't because I disagree with policy or the road we are taking - I am tired of hearing we can't win. I am tired of hearing that a Senator, who sits in an air conditioned office on the hill all day, knows better than a commanding officer who has boots on the ground and looks his soldiers square in the eye.
It's time to bring the concept of respect back to Congress.

Posted by: Jeff | September 12, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

hollywood is weak and scared in the face of islam

Posted by: James Shortz | September 12, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

"Divide and Conquer"........maybe the polical elitist's are right after all - "We the People", are too stupid to pick our leaders in government. As we continue to take sides in the "right" vs. "left" argument of distraction, the ruling polical class continue to screw the general public on a daily basis - and we keep voting these clowns into office. Think about it folks, we have been hearing the same polical arguments for decades, with the same canned political solutions from the "left" and the "right". The Federal Government continues to grow at an alarming pace, but America's problem's never get solved, we just throw more money at the problems, then are told that "if it weren't for the Dems" or "if it weren't for the Repub's, we wouldn't have all these problems". Funny how it works, same problems, different decade. Nothing ever gets solved or fixed. And as long as "We, the People" continue to lap up the nonsense the politicians feed us and fight amongst ourselves, "We, the People" are a conqured nation, fractured, and not one in charge of ourselves. WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 7:59 AM | Report abuse


Because Farenheit 9/11 worked do well for them!

Posted by: Harry B Heisler | September 12, 2007 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris Moore is a dunce !

Posted by: Chuck Roven | September 12, 2007 7:26 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me how the left leaning folks on here complain about Fox News. Sure they have their moments of being partial but don't you think the three majors, comedy central, MSNBC, etc are not as partial as well? If you say no then you truly have your head in the sand and there is no reason to listen to your views here. What really frustrates you guys is the fact a C student has made fools of the Democratic party, who are elitist by the way and feel they truly are the most intelligent group of people out there, yet at every turn he makes them look like fools (Elitist - I mean look at Al Gore telling us not to burn fuel but he burns 20 times more than the average person, do you think he will ever stop? No, he just wants you to.). By the way the American public, supported by polls, support and trust the General to make the decisions on the war compared to their trust of both Congress and the President, so where do we go from here? We stay in Iraq for several more years, build bases in Iraq so we can do quick strikes in the region for the next three generations and help offset the China and Russian alliance that has been fostered over the last several years in the region.

Posted by: SenatorTraitor | September 12, 2007 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Brilliant! We need to hear what Hollywood, that bastion of intellectual and refined cultural repository has to offer in the way of insightful daily political analysis, so they may provide a guiding light to us mare mortals. Voices like Sarandon, Penn, Sheen, Danson, Kucinich, Soros, Dixie Chiclets... As well as all those other Democratic talking point outlets such as NY Times, LA Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, they and many more have been silenced by that ubiquitous 'right wing conspiracy.' Now we can say, we are truly saved, thank you Hollywood. Brilliant!

Posted by: PKdexter | September 12, 2007 6:48 AM | Report abuse

A huge mistake, Hollywood can't craft messages with mass appeal for the average citizen.

They have no idea how we think.

When you hang around the same thinking type of crowd how can one come up with a different message to appeal to those who work hard for a living?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 5:40 AM | Report abuse

they ask hollywood to craft messages to appeal to average americans. typical.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Maybe if we're real nice & give Isreal to the Arabs, they'll not try to convert us Infildels to Islam?
With that said, let me stick my head in the sand.

Posted by: BillW | September 12, 2007 4:38 AM | Report abuse

This being the anniversary of 9/11, I can tell you that Hollywood was going to make money off it and make the terrorists look good. Low and behold, Fahrenheit 9/11. Stupid title made by and for people who never read or understood what Fahrenheit 451 was about. IT was about people staring blindly at large screens and believing whatever they saw on it, not looking for the facts.

But hey, let's forget that. Why not make a cartoony film about a terrorist named Mohammed that took over all of North Africa hundreds of years ago.

Posted by: Quentin Beck | September 12, 2007 4:13 AM | Report abuse

Republicans listen to talk radio and watch Fox News. This means that the republicans discuss and debate by means of speaking and listening.

Democrats control media and hollywood. This means they dissertate through movies, MTV, sit-coms, comedy central, hip-hop, newspapers, etc.

Republicans disco

The democrats discourse is through

Posted by: Matt | September 12, 2007 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Hey Rufus, or is it Dufus...
Number one, learn to spell. You far left crackheads are all the same: you want to change this country and turn it into a socialist European state. It's no secret anymore, you are quite open about it. After reading your ridiculous postings one thing is painfully clear: Your God is not the same one that guided our forefather's. Your God is Moveon.Org... the great masterbator of the masses. Vomit up the lard, you asses, and give us back our country!

Posted by: Hamlet | September 12, 2007 3:16 AM | Report abuse

This is great. The libs are going to wear everyone out with their vitriol (just as with the global warming vitriol).

The liberal politics and the environmental crap is going to be ignored.

Posted by: M algore | September 12, 2007 2:02 AM | Report abuse

So, who's going to be playing the role of Josef Göbbels in this company? Seriously? Have we really come to this?

(P.S. I would think this was an equally bad idea if the RNC was teaming up with Hollywood to make propaganda films.)

Posted by: papa bear | September 12, 2007 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Hollywood can't make decent movies to get people to go out. I'm waiting for one to blow my 7 bucks at a matinee. can't find one worth it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I have always been a movie buff; but it is getting so that so many movie actors are involved in smearing our country and those who defend it, I just can't watch many of the films in theaters these days without getting sick to my stomach. These people and the politician that urge them on are traitors. When will we be delivered from such as these?

Posted by: Bob Hopkins | September 12, 2007 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Well, nobody on the right should be worried. All those projects that were mentioned stink. American Pie, Oceans Twelve, Party of Five, and Charlie's Angels? Thank goodness nobody with actual talent is involved.

Posted by: Jason | September 12, 2007 12:50 AM | Report abuse

You people are a bunch of idiots

Posted by: David | September 12, 2007 12:47 AM | Report abuse

"Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities."

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2007 12:26 AM | Report abuse

You said it JS. What a sad state of affairs when we have actual living americans who are activily and publicly agreeing with those who are right NOW KILLING our guys and gals in our defense. And yeah, Hillary and Kerry and all the other hypocrites all said he had WMD with the UN after 12 resolutions. So they blame Bush who has the "MANBALLS" do something about it. Being a liberal really is a sickness. But they and the terrorists are buddies now, so I guess they will end up with each other in the end. I hope not in control of our country. God help us.

Posted by: xfiler93 | September 12, 2007 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Give Them Money: You should be ashamed. Rather than blaming the poor for not being able to get a "real" full time job, let us look at the reasons why they have no hope of getting a full time job at a decent living wage:
1. Businesses outsource low skill labour whrever possible outside the US.
2. Businesses wherever they can get away with it hire undocumented illegal workers who will work for a fraction of the minimum hourly wage and no benefits thereby reducing the average prevailing wage of low skilled jobs in an area to unsupportable levels.
3. Businesses hire legal guest workers under H-1B programs who will work for a lower salary and reduced benefits thereby making such jobs not an option.
4. Cost of trade schools and college have made it virtually impossible for the working poor to be able to attend as pell grants and low interest college loan funding are at historically low levels. Plus the fact if you are working poor, you probably went through public education system that did not properly prepare you to pass a college/trade school entrance exam.
--Your joke was unappareciated. Do you always blame the underdog?

Posted by: Santa | September 12, 2007 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Geez, a typo.. "These days, you CAN'T define the difference in what out enemies say and the democrat party."

Posted by: JS | September 12, 2007 12:00 AM | Report abuse


Couldnt agree with you more. These days, you can define the difference in what out enemies say and the democrat party.

I am so tired of hearing day after day that "oh, its so bad, we should just get out".. or "there were no WMDS"...

2 points I would like to elaborate on.. there were/are WMDS.. we found some.. Saddam used some.. Presidents for 20 years have been saying they existed and when we finally get a Prez with the gonads to do something about it.. America shrivels up. Oh my god.. he had 20 years to move the WMDS whereever he wanted to!

Last point... we started this war.. 80%+ of America was behind Bush but now cause we are lazy and fat.. we can't hack it. You can kill Babies with your abortions as long as you want.. but God forbid soldiers dying for a great cause.. You people (Liberals) make me sick. Tell us to go "green".. but not for the ELITEST libs.. Hypocrites, Liars and Cowards.

Posted by: JS | September 11, 2007 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Wow, good to see all you lefties saying pretty much what our enemies are saying. Good to see you guys are step by step in league with their talking points too!! When they kill more of us, good to know that they did it with your help in betraying and degrading our country and our troops. Liberals....they stand for and own defeat and treason. Keep up the good work, our enemies overseas are counting on you guys.

Posted by: xfiler93 | September 11, 2007 11:42 PM | Report abuse

If this has anything at all to do with J.J. Abrams it will be all hype and fury signifying nothing.

Posted by: Rambaldi Device | September 11, 2007 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Here's a novel American idea: remove the politics, remove the blatant propaganda feeding by Hollywood and the media, and focus the discussions on the best policies for America.

Lee S. Shulman from The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has a piece out entitled "Educating for Democracy" that really gets to the heart of the matter (

Controling communications, airing opinion as fact, and silencing opposing views is not the freedom that our forefathers fought for. If you want that, move to Venezuela and learn the art of Socialism first hand.

Determining the leader of America should be more sacred than pouring money into propaganda so the people will vote for the most popular candidate. Popularity never made for a great leader.

Posted by: Wildman94 | September 11, 2007 11:06 PM | Report abuse

well, i guess it becomes official. hollywood has become the propaganda arm of the dnc.

Posted by: tihspid | September 11, 2007 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Boy, these lefties are long-winded! I got bored after the first two sentences. And none of it made any sense. God bless our men and women in uniform, God bless America!

Posted by: mike | September 11, 2007 10:51 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious to read about this effort to put together Hollywood's "creative minds," and then read the list of (ahem) creative credits: "Charley's Angels" (poorly adapted from a hack TV series), "The Bourne Ultimatum" (a poorly adapted script from a Robert Ludlum novel), "Ocean's Twelve" (a sequel to "Ocean's Eleven," which was itself a remake of a pretty bad Sinatra movie), and "The Day After Tomorrow" (a universally despised script from a hack Sci-Fi novel). None of these people have created anything...they just leech off the talent of others. If this is Hollywood's idea of a political braintrust, I don't think any conservatives will be losing sleep.

Posted by: Elasto | September 11, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I just means I'll be bocotting some more producers and their work...which means my money will go elsewhere.....and THAT will sting more than any opinion they may produce on film

Posted by: Bob B | September 11, 2007 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Right, like Hollywood hasn't been in the business of 2 hour political ads. I think your underestimating the intelligence (severely) of most Americans. People look to Hollywood for ENTERTAINMENT. That's all. When major movie entertainers try to enter the political arena, I'm not sure they fully realize how foolish and shallow they appear.

Posted by: deddog | September 11, 2007 10:30 PM | Report abuse

No wonder the Washington Post is losing its power and ability to influence the American people...

Posted by: Nebraska Raker | September 11, 2007 10:19 PM | Report abuse

We are a country of wussies. Politically correct wimps. We are in a war and people will die. Yes, even innocent people. Did people rise up against Truman when the US bombed Hiroshima? In the proportions we see today? One bomb and the war is over. Make glass out of sand...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Just Imagine! Another left winged communist blog site out here we all can learn all the lies and social agendas the communists are trying to propagandize the internet with! You frigging communists are eventually going to force us Americans to finally rise up and throw your liberal asses out of this country and take back our government, and it's getting to be sooner than later. Those who have a sembelance of education in history and economics know what you are up to, and it is to destroy our Constitution and bring socialism to this country where millions will die just like in all communist countries in the past. You will not succeed you blithering idiots!

Posted by: gili | September 11, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

If we leave Iraq before the job is done. The only thing left for us to do will be to buy more ammunition.

Blood in the streets.

Posted by: 357 | September 11, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter, because it will fail. It will fail for one simple reason---it won't be funny.

Posted by: JJ | September 11, 2007 9:03 PM | Report abuse

So are they being paid to write and produce for the Democratic Party and other regressive organization? Or are they providing their services free of charge? If the services are free of charge to the Democratic Party and the party and it's candidates do not declare the value of the services and identify where the services came from, they've broken the law. If they charge for their services and are paid for them and are up front about their affiliation...then there isn't a problem. Although I tend to turn off Hollywood creative and business types. I've dealt with them in the past and my opinion of their ethics and sense of responsibility to follow through is no higher than the soles of my shoes.

Posted by: LynnC | September 11, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

You Silly Left-Winged Clowns !

We don't need any more of your anti-American drool.

Call me, we'll do lunch !!

Posted by: Jim Shortz | September 11, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Get the propaganda machine primed up, we're gonna lie the Democrats into office. If that doesn't work, we'll scare the American people into voting left. We saw the delusional sheep of America buy our story about Global Warming which was just a test, now we're ready to go for the real thing.

Posted by: Mike D. | September 11, 2007 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Ah poor Rufus. He only has ALL the major TV networks, most of the major newspapers like the NY "lie-a-minute" Times, Wash Post, LA Times, just about ALL the major mags like Time, US News, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Atlantic, New York, etc and most of the cable stations spouting his delusional liberal slant, but he and his pals still complain the Reps rule the airwaves. I love it!! Ha!

Posted by: Red | September 11, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Please remember that all this talk about being socialists oh i'm sorry progressive makes me sick. Think for yourselves not what other people think is what's best for you.

Posted by: 22gman | September 11, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The Left forms ANOTHER media production company. What is news about that? What did you call The West Wing?

Posted by: RMM | September 11, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

The Left forms ANOTHER media production company. What is news about that? What did you call The West Wing?

Posted by: RMM | September 11, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

To all the Hillary bashers here: your commie hero Rupert Murdoch (of Fox Pravda News) keeps running fundraisers for her. He also contributes generously to her war chest. And to further burst your ignorant little bubbles, the Clinton family and the Bush family are longtime business partners ever since the Iran/Contra drug flights out of Mena, Arkansas.

In other words, you people are being played for suckers by the same crop of Fabian socialist crooks. Bill Clinton's Fabian socialism got him the Rhodes scholarship, and George Bush Sr.'s Fabian socialism got him membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Posted by: A. Magnus | September 11, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

What a surprise!

Hollywood elitist snobs shilling for liberal politician dirt bags.

Could this really be true?

Posted by: Angelo | September 11, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

wow.. so this is the place where the horde of leftist moonbats hang out

Posted by: rock | September 11, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

CC, I respectfully ask you to ban each of the mofos who succeeded in shutting down the conversation today, at least on this thread. I know that I am not alone in this opinion.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 11, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

It's AIR AMERICA all over again....and it too shall be ignored.

Posted by: dredzo | September 11, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JIM BEAUX, | September 11, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

How to Be a Good Democrat

Virtually anyone can be a Democrat. Just simply quit thinking and vote that way. But if you want to be a GOOD Democrat, there are some prerequisites.
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of Chinese communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe Republicans telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

Posted by: Vietvet | September 11, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Saddam Translator: ABC Re-interpreted Tapes

The FBI translator who supplied the 12-hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" Wednesday night now says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments.

"What you heard on ABC News was their translation," former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Thursday.

"They came up with something different on a key element regarding terrorism in the United States," Tierney insisted.

In the "Nightline" version of a 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C. would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack.

Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity.

In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming . . . . In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?"

Tierney's full translations are set for release this weekend by The Intelligence Group in Washington, D.C.

Saddam on Tape: Terrorists Will Attack D.C.

Five years before Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Saddam Hussein predicted that Washington, D.C. would be struck by terrorists, according to audiotapes set for broadcast tonight on ABC's "Nightline."

In an ABC Radio report to promote the show, the network's lead investigative reporter, Brian Ross, revealed that the FBI translator who leaked the tapes said they contained "damning evidence that the world should know."

In one 10-year-old recording, the Iraqi dictator is said to boast that Washington would be an easy target for a nuclear or biological weapons attack. Saddam added, however, that if such an attack should come, his regime would not be directly responsible.

In fact, Saddam's 1996 warning of a terrorist attack on Washington was followed up in Iraq's state run press with even more prescient predictions.

On July 21, 2001, less than two months before 9/11, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya carried a column headlined "America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin." In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."

In 1992, Saddam's son Uday used an editorial in Babil, the newspaper he ran, to warn of Iraqi kamikaze attacks inside America, saying, "Does the United States realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross countries and cities?"
In the late 1990s, according to UPI, "a cable to Saddam from the chief of Iraqi intelligence was transmitted by Baghdad Radio. The message read, 'We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth.'"

After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders such as Yasser Arafat went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood for 9/11 victims.

The day after the attacks, in quotes picked up by Agence France-Press, Saddam proclaimed that "America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world."

"There is hardly a place [in the world] that does not have a memorial symbolizing the criminal actions committed by America against its natives," AFP quoted the Iraqi dictator complaining, based on reports in the Iraqi News agency.

For his part, Uday flat-out praised the 9/11 attacks, saying, "These were courageous operations carried out by young Arabs and Muslims," according to quotes picked up by the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat.
"Nightline's" broadcast tonight will be based on 12 hours of tapes obtained by ABC News. But that's likely only the tip of the iceberg.

In his April 2005 final report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said he had uncovered "a large collection" of recordings of Saddam chairing his Revolutionary Command Council.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes I wonder if Hollywood or Pallywood is worse?

Pallywood, "According to Palestinian Sources..." a film by Richard Landes. International news media extract a few convincing instants of staged scenes - sight-bytes, and present them as news...
Streaming video: pallywood.wmv

How they're lying about "he lied us into war."

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.

What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war" with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves.

We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:
� In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

� The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

� The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

� Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.

Everyone, that is, except Joseph Wilson IV. He first became the Democrats' darling in July 2003, when he published an op-ed claiming he'd debunked Mr. Bush's "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to purchase African yellowcake and that the Administration had distorted the evidence about Saddam's weapons programs to fit its agenda. This Wilson tale fit the "lied us into war" narrative so well that he was adopted by the John Kerry presidential campaign.

Only to be dropped faster than a Paris Hilton boyfriend after the Senate Intelligence and Butler reports were published. Those reports clearly showed that, while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried--and that Mr. Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact from his public accounts at the time.

He also omitted to explain why the CIA had sent him to Niger: His wife, who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip, a fact Mr. Wilson also denied, but which has also since been proven. In other words, the only real support there has ever been for the "Bush lied" storyline came from a man who is himself a demonstrable liar. If we were Nick Kristof and the other writers who reported Mr. Wilson's facts as gospel, we'd be apologizing to our readers.

Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats' favorite mascot because they want him as a prop for their "lied us into war" revival campaign. They must think the media are stupid, because so many Democrats are themselves on the record in the pre-Iraq War period as declaring that Saddam had WMD. Here is Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr. Rockefeller? A fool?

The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD) Hypocrisy
The following quotes highlight the recent WMD hypocrisy propagated by the "Leftist Media" and/or the Democrats who now say President Bush lied, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction, and that he took us to war for his oil buddies:

(And don't miss the May 2004, and Aug. 2005 articles!)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?" Tom Daschle, Feb. 11, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Let me understand this. Liberals (especially the kooky Hollywood ones) hate Bush, free markets, the military, any conservative, meat eaters, God, automobiles, unborn babies, justice, law abiding citizens, police, men in general (especially white ones), Christians, small businesses, big businesses, successful people, Israelites, anyone with white skin, etc. etc. Oh lets simplify it. You just hate America! What other conclusion can we arrive at based on Liberal (especially Hollywood liberal) behavior?

What's that you say? You don't hate everything. I really should not be one sided. After all you do love things and people as well.
Let's see. What do Liberals love? Hmmmmm....
Oh yeah, dictators, Chavez, ANY America hater (that goes without saying), murderers, (as long as they can vote from prison), radical Muslims, illegal aliens, Castro (and anyone else that hates America), Marx, Lenin, Stalin (He just went over the line right?), Mao, oh and did I mention ANYONE who hates America? Does that include EVERYTHING about America???? It must since they can't find a good thing to say about this great country that has lined their Hollywood pockets to the tune of trillions. Try to get THEM to give up their SUVs and air conditioned barns though and they'll go to war. That kind of sacrifice is just for us little people, not movie stars like them.

Wake up traditional Democrats, freaks have taken over your party. I would be embarrassed to be a Democrat as it is defined today. They don't care how much destruction they do to their own country to win their game. That's the problem with them. This isn't a game.
Politically I'd be fine with the D party driving itself so far down the road of kookism that it'll take decades to recover but as an American I would prefer that they step up and work productively for the country and redeem their character as a party of the people.

Posted by: Jerry | September 11, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The "Secret" JFK Tax Cuts

Democrats and the Kennedys are once again proving to be hypocrite fools suffering from the famous case of liberal amnesia. The controversy this time stems from John F. Kennedy in advertisements that support President Bush's new tax cut plan. Senator Ted Kennedy is fuming over JFK's name and image being used to support tax cuts, something he vehemently opposes. These ads in question compare the massive tax cuts of JFK to those of Reagan and Bush, and rightfully so.

This ordeal is only a small part of the larger problem; that modern day Democrats and socialists have hijacked the good name of John F. Kennedy. One of JFK's key economic plans included massive, across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those of Reagan. Much like the 1920's and 1980's, it was these tax cuts that led to the Golden Kennedy-Johnson years.

Pro-tax lobbyists claim that Kennedy's tax cuts were significantly different than the tax cuts of Reagan, and the proposed tax cuts of Bush. They claim that Kennedy's tax cuts benefited low-income families, while Republican tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. On the contrary, they are quite similar. To an extent, Kennedy's tax cuts benefited the upper and upper middle classes even more. By the time Kennedy took office, the top income tax rate had reached 94%. Kennedy originally asked for it to be reduced to 65%, but Congress slashed this down to 70%. During a speech, JFK stated, "the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth ...reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking." Without a question, it is mostly the middle and upper classes that undertake risky purchases and investment. As expected, the tax revenue from the top 1%, the top 5%, and top 20% surged as a result of income growth from the tax cuts. Tax revenue from the rich increased from almost 12% in 1963, to 15% by 1966.

The tax cuts from Republicans are no different and produced the same results. Harding and Coolidge cut the top tax rate from 73% in 1921 to 25% by 1925, and the tax share from the rich soared from 44% to 78%. Reagan picked up where Kennedy left off, slashing the highest tax rate from 70% down to 50% as part of his Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. His plan cut taxes across-the-board by 25% - this was not a tax cut solely for the rich. The top tax rate was further lowered to 28% in 1986. What resulted was the largest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States, and record lows for inflation and unemployment. Income tax revenue soared 16.3% from 1982 to 1989. Kennedy's own words concur this: "It is a paradoxical truth, that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates".

Apparently, it's fine for a Democratic President to push for tax cuts that will spur economic growth, but not for a Republican like Ronald Reagan, and now George W. Bush. To say that JFK's tax cut was any different is a blatant lie. In a way, Kennedy's tax cut could have benefited the rich even more. Any tax cut from rates as high as over 90% will have a much larger impact than a tax cut on tax rates from 20 through 50%.

Bush only plans to reduce the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 33%. Kennedy cut taxes for the rich by one-third. Bush's income tax cut is only a one-sixth reduction. Additionally, Bush's tax cut would return less than 7 cents on each dollar earned, whereas Kennedy's tax cut returned 26 cents on each dollar. These are facts conveniently left out by Ted Kennedy and other Democrats - that Kennedy too drastically cut taxes for the rich, and that Reagan's tax cuts were across-the-board and caused tax revenue to increase. The evil Republicans' tax cuts even propose an end to the marriage penalty tax and the tax on Social Security benefits!

Part of Ted Kennedy's argument is that Kennedy's tax cut returned less money to those earning above $300,000. Well, of course. During the 1960's, the size of the upper class was considerably lower. From population growth and upward mobility caused by the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan, the number of people earning as much is larger. Ted also fails to take into account the rising value of the dollar. A current income of $300,000 translates to $50,000 forty years ago. Neither did Kennedy curb federal spending or the national debt, possibly the most trivial and over-exaggerated economic concerns.

The only fundamental difference lies in the end to double taxation on dividends. Business income is already taxed through a corporate tax. When shareholders are paid this income as dividends, and taxed again, this double taxation discourages investment in the stock market, and for businesses to pay dividends to shareholders. And unlike forty years ago, the numbers and types of people invested in the stock market have skyrocketed. Regardless, the parallels shown in the pro-Bush tax cut advertisements are real. All three Presidents have passed massive tax cut legislation, including the infamous "tax cuts for the rich".

Ted Kennedy and his comrades in the Democratic Party have exploited the legacy of Kennedy. Being the relatives of one of the most popular Presidents, it is fairly easy to fool the public into believing them. However, their sole claim to any legitimacy is shattered by the fact that the very same tax cuts they are vocal opponents of, were not only passed, but also defended by Kennedy. The Kennedys and Democrats will go to great lengths to suppress this, as if they have the sole rights to an ex-President's public record, video footage, and words. It's extremely strong partisanship. Kennedy is a Democrat. They hate the fact that he cut taxes, so they conveniently hide that detail whenever they attack tax cuts. Kennedy is like Teflon when it comes to tax cuts.

Why do schools and the liberal media rarely, if ever, mention JFK's tax cuts, but readily focus on, and denounce the tax cuts of Reagan? Why do they only mention the boom of the 60's and its social programs, but never mention the positive aspects of the Reagan years? Could it be that the socialists only intend taxes to continually increase, and that any tax cut, that in any way helps the largest taxpayers, is only a "tax cut for the rich"? This thinking is what led to the 90 % tax rates that a member of their own party cut.

The advertisements in dispute are fully justified. One only needs to examine the true economic policy and beliefs of JFK. History is on the side of tax cuts - the same side of Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. If JFK had been alive today, it is likely he would have switched to the Republican Party. Actual quote from Kennedy: "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits." Yep, JFK was a supply-sider, one of those greedy, rich, white, [insert liberal buzzword here] politicians who likes to cut taxes.

John F. Kennedy - the last, and one of the few, good Democrats.

Sorry Ted: JFK cut taxes

Among Camelot-crazed liberals, quoting President John F. Kennedy in support of a Republican tax-cut proposal is as much a sacrilege as quoting the Bible in defense of Bill Clinton's sexual behavior - in fact, judging from their acceptance of Rev. Jesse Jackson, much more so. So it is all the more understandable that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the president's younger brother and the biggest political beneficiary of JFK's legacy, is pretty steamed about an ad running in support of President George W. Bush's tax-cut proposal.

One conservative group is running an ad supporting the Bush tax cut, narrated by publisher and professional tax-cut enthusiast Steve Forbes, that quotes President Kennedy's 1962 address before the Economic Club of New York. This speech was the beginning of Kennedy's campaign for an across-the-board tax cut that eventually passed following his assassination and was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Like Ronald Reagan before him, President Bush and his supporters are bolstering the case for a tax cut by touting the positive economic results of the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut. This ad however uses the martyred president's image and voice in the service of a cause his Democratic Party opposes.

Sen. Kennedy and his niece Caroline Schlossberg, the 35th president's daughter, wrote the group a letter denouncing the ad and insisting that the use of JFK cease and desist. Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer quipped that their response was as if the Taliban had blown up the giant JFK bust in the Kennedy Center. They huffed and puffed about intellectual dishonesty and intone, "If President Kennedy were here today, he would vigorously oppose President Bush's irresponsible tax scheme." Family lineage notwithstanding, this assertion is no less unverifiable and ridiculous than the never-ending arguments about what Martin Luther King would support or oppose if he were still alive today.

It's true. While Ted Kennedy voted for his brother's tax cut in 1964, he has a long public record of opposing tax relief from the original Kemp-Roth bill in 1978 to the tax cuts proposed by congressional Republicans in the last session. But that has no bearing on what his brother would support today or what he in fact did as president, anymore than President Reagan's policies were impacted by the childish ideology of Patti Davis.

Keepers of the flame take note: While President Kennedy is an icon of modern American liberalism on a par with Franklin D. Roosevelt, he did not always take positions that would endear him with today's Ben and Jerry-munching left. He was a proponent of increased defense spending and an aggressive anti-communist stance during the Cold War. His friends in the Senate included Joe McCarthy, who he did not vote to censure, and Barry Goldwater. And he proposed what was at the time the biggest tax cut in history.

Ted and Caroline argue in their letter that only 6 percent of President Kennedy's tax cut went to those earning $300,000 or more annually, that much-ballyhooed top 1 percent. President Bush's proposal is often said to give more than 40 percent of the tax cut to the top 1 percent, more than seven times as much. Even by the president's own estimates, the aggregate dollar amount going to the wealthiest taxpayers is much higher than what President Kennedy proposed.

There are several reasons for this. First, the top 1 percent was paying 20 percent of income taxes collected in 1962 (under a 91 percent top marginal rate) compared to 35 percent today (under a 39.6 percent top marginal rate). Second, there are more people with incomes in excess of $300,000 today than with comparable incomes in today's dollars 40 years ago. Third, many low-income Americans have been dropped off the tax rolls entirely and no longer pay any income tax. President Kennedy's tax cut and the prosperity it generated helped along each and every one of those trends.

Ultimately, what percentage of the tax cut the top 1 percent got is irrelevant and misleading. The tax cut that eventually became law in 1964 cut the top rate to 70 percent, or by 21 percentage points compared to the 6.6-point cut Bush is suggesting. The Kennedy tax cut equaled more than 2 percent of the economy, nearly double the 1.1 percent represented by Bush's proposal, and 12.6 percent of federal revenues - more than twice the 6 percent of revenues represented by the Bush tax cut. Kennedy wanted to let the highest income earners keep an additional 27 cents on the dollar rather than just six cents on the dollar as Bush proposed. Kennedy cut the bottom to tax rate to 14 percent while Bush would cut it down to 10 percent.

It is perfectly valid for proponents of across-the-board tax relief today to cite the historical experience of such reductions in the past. President Kennedy's tax cuts touched off what was then the longest economic expansion in US history, with 5.1 percent annual growth rates from 1964 to 1967. Tax collections from the wealthiest taxpayers and federal revenues generally increased. All these trends were arrested by President Johnson's Vietnam-era income tax surcharge in 1968.

In addition to the results and substance of the tax cut, it is perfectly responsible for Republicans to cite President Kennedy's views on taxation and tax cuts in principle. In the address the ad campaign cites, Kennedy calls for "an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes." He argued "that our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power, [and] reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." Kennedy explicitly endorsed rate reductions for high-income taxpayers in language that foreshadowed supply-side economics, proposing tax cuts "for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and ... invest more capital."

Kennedy further argued in a January 24, 1963 message to Congress, "As I have repeatedly emphasized, our choice today is not between a tax cut and a balanced budget. Our choice is between chronic deficits resulting from chronic slack, on the one hand, and transitional deficits temporarily enlarged by tax revision designed to promote full employment and thus make possible an ultimately balanced budget." Lest members of Congress failed to get the point: "I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus."

It should be noted that many of Kennedy's more liberal economic advisors opposed the tax cut, most notably John Kenneth Galbraith. So did some Republicans who were fixated on green-eyeshade budgeting, such as a congressman from Kansas by the name of Robert Dole. Supply-side economics did not yet exist as economic theory and as Walter Heller has argued, the tax cut was at least part designed with Keynesian demand-side intentions. Nevertheless, JFK rejected arguments against marginal rate cuts that are identical to those being made by Ted today. That is something the ad campaign legitimately points out, to the chagrin of the senior senator from Massachusetts.

The Kennedy family has tried to behave as if it has ownership of JFK's presidential legacy, from this dust-up over the tax cut ads to Patrick Kennedy's near fisticuffs with Bob Barr over a congressional speech that quoted the former president. For politically active Kennedys to accuse others of exploiting the legacy of Camelot is sheer hypocrisy. Not one of them, Ted included, would likely have gone as far in politics were it not for their relation to Jack Kennedy.

Not everything Kennedy did as president can be used to justify his younger brother's political agenda. Just as Kennedy Treasury official Henry Fowler cited the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts of Andrew Mellon in support of their tax cut, the late Norman Ture was an architect of both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts - with the former being one of the experiences that began his pioneering work in supply-side theory. Much of the foreign-policy team with which Reagan won the Cold War was comprised of JFK-admiring Democrats (Max Kampelman, Richard Perle, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow, etc.). Are they too to be banned from using the words and image of President Kennedy?

I hope that more Republicans point out the success of the Kennedy tax cuts in arguing for a new tax cut today, Kennedy clan carping be damned. Ted Kennedy may have made a career out of righteous indignation, but at times it gets a bit tiresome.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
CIA document:

In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency�Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect�was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets," the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)

At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capacity. At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq's interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between "secular" Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception�an Iraqi "window" into the world of open diplomacy�namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam's ambassador to the Holy See until 2000. Those who knew him at that time remember a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades, with a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth. (Actually, as a fan of Das Rheingold and G�tterd�mmerung in particular, I find I can live with this. Hitler secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar.)

In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.

If the above was all that was known, it would surely be universally agreed that no responsible American administration could have overlooked such an amazingly sinister pattern. Given the past Iraqi record of surreptitious dealing, cheating of inspectors, concealment of sites and caches, and declared ambition to equip the technicians referred to openly in the Baathist press as "nuclear mujahideen," one could scarcely operate on the presumption of innocence.

However, the waters have since become muddied, to say the least. For a start, someone produced a fake document, dated July 6, 2000, which purports to show Zahawie's signature and diplomatic seal on an actual agreement for an Iraqi uranium transaction with Niger. Almost everything was wrong with this crude forgery�it had important dates scrambled, and it misstated the offices of Niger politicians. In consequence, IAEA Chairman Mohammed ElBaradei later reported to the U.N. Security Council that the papers alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been demonstrated to be fraudulent.

But this doesn't alter the plain set of established facts in my first three paragraphs above. The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade "in Africa." It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached. What motive could there be for a forgery that could be instantly detected upon cursory examination?

There seem to be only three possibilities here. Either a) American intelligence concocted the note; b) someone in Italy did so in the hope of gain; or c) it was the product of disinformation, intended to protect Niger and discredit any attention paid to the actual, real-time Zahawie visit. The CIA is certainly incompetent enough to have fouled up this badly. (I like Edward Luttwak's formulation in the March 22 Times Literary Supplement, where he writes that "there have been only two kinds of CIA secret operations: the ones that are widely known to have failed�usually because of almost unbelievably crude errors�and the ones that are not yet widely known to have failed.") Still, it almost passes belief that any American agency would fake a document that purportedly proved far more than the administration had asked and then get every important name and date wrapped round the axle. Forgery for gain is easy to understand, especially when it is borne in mind that nobody wastes time counterfeiting a bankrupt currency. Forgery for disinformation, if that is what it was, appears at least to have worked. Almost everybody in the world now affects to believe that Saddam Hussein was framed on the Niger rap.

According to the London Sunday Times of April 9, the truth appears to be some combination of b) and c). A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was�follow me closely here�that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.

Zahawie's name and IAEA connection were never mentioned by ElBaradei in his report to the United Nations, and his past career has never surfaced in print. Looking up the press of the time causes one's jaw to slump in sheer astonishment. Here, typically, is a Time magazine "exclusive" about Zahawie, written by Hassan Fattah on Oct. 1, 2003:

The veteran diplomat has spent the eight months since President Bush's speech trying to set the record straight and clear his name. In a rare interview with Time, al-Zahawie outlined how forgery and circumstantial evidence was used to talk up Iraq's nuclear weapons threat, and leave him holding the smoking gun.

A few paragraphs later appear, the wonderful and unchallenged words from Zahawie: "Frankly, I didn't know that Niger produced uranium at all." Well, sorry for the inconvenience of the questions, then, my old IAEA and NPT "veteran" (whose nuclear qualifications go unmentioned in the Time article). Instead, we are told that Zahawie visited Niger and other West African countries to encourage them to break the embargo on flights to Baghdad, as they had broken the sanctions on Qaddafi's Libya. A bit of a lowly mission, one might think, for one of the Iraqi regime's most senior and specialized envoys.

The Duelfer Report also cites "a second contact between Iraq and Niger," which occurred in 2001, when a Niger minister visited Baghdad "to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger's economic problems." According to the deposition of Ja'far Diya' Ja'far (the head of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program), these negotiations involved no offer of uranium ore but only "cash in exchange for petroleum." West Africa is awash in petroleum, and Niger is poor in cash. Iraq in 2001 was cash-rich through the oil-for-food racket, but you may if you wish choose to believe that a near-bankrupt African delegation from a uranium-based country traveled across a continent and a half with nothing on its mind but shopping for oil.

Interagency feuding has ruined the Bush administration's capacity to make its case in public, and a high-level preference for deniable leaking has further compounded the problem. But please read my first three paragraphs again and tell me if the original story still seems innocuous to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Ignored Warnings About Hsu's Dirty Cash Despite being warned months ago that a shady Chinese fundraiser ran an illegal enterprise, Hillary Clinton gladly accepted his hefty donations
Judicial Watch

Posted by: crooked clintons | September 11, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Al Franken: Claims to support affirmative action and has accused conservatives of racism due to their opposition to affirmative action, yet public records reveal that of 112 people Franken either hired or had a hand in getting hired to work on his films, television series' and radio show, only one was black; also, though he has stated that conservatives spread "filth, sleaze, and bile through the media appartus," Franken has made jokes considered tasteless by many about Bob Dole's WWII injury, John McCain's time spent as a POW (stating, "Anybody could get captured. Essentially, he sat out the war") and the menstrual cycle of one of Newt Gingrich's daughters. He was also quoted in the Harvard Crimson during his Saturday Night Live days, "I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the (Harvard Hasty) Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia."

Noam Chomsky: One of the premiere anti-capitalists and anti-militarists in academia today, Chomsky, a self-described "anarchist-socialist," has been paid millions by the Pentagon�which he once called "the most hideous institution on this earth"�over the last 40 years, as well as various corporations, which he has described as "just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism." When asked by Schweizer about his seeming contradiction, Chomsky responded (via email), "I think we should be responsible for what we do, not for the bureaucratic queston of who stamps the paycheck." Chomsky then went on to rationalize his wealth achieved via Pentagon contacts by stating that anyone who uses the Internet, which was created the U.S. military, is guilty of working for the Pentagon. Though he has lectured that other university professors should ween themselves of Pentagon funding in the form of grants and scholarships, he has yet to do so himself.

Chomsky's public condemnations of capitalism, which he calls a "grotesque catastrophe," are similarly contradicted by his private lifestyle. Mr. Chomsky lives in an $850,000 house and has a $1.2 million vacation home, both in Massachusetts. A critic of the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich," he has called tax rebates "equivalent to a welfare payment," yet has set up trusts in his children's and tax attorney's names in order to avoid future payment of inheritance taxes. His loathing of copyrights and patents has also not stopped him from copyrighting his lectures, speeches and articles over the years (which can be downloaded�for a fee�off the Internet). After speaking at a benefit sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left where Chomsky stated, "A democracy requires a free, independent and inquiring media," a reporter named Deborah Bolling was told that she would have to pay $35 to interview him. Perhaps most damning is his impressive stock portfolio, which includes shares in oil companies, military contractors and pharmaceuticals.

While Chomsky has championed free speech and denounced what he sees as a lack thereof in the United States, he has often visited Communist nations completely devoid of free speech and given speeches celebrating the sociopolitical systems of Laos, Cambodia, China, North Vietnam and Cuba, although chomsky frequently denounces the imprisonment of political dissidents in those nations and speaks out against the various human rights abuses so rapant in totalitarian regimes.

George Soros: Wants higher taxes on wealthy individuals, one of which he is, claiming he would bear any tax increase to help the poor. Soros, however, has most of his money in Bahamian banks where it is immune from U.S. taxes. The tax hike he calls for would barely affect him.

Barbra Streisand: Though she claims to be a champion of the working class, the environment and women's rights, in private her actions contradict her public proclamations. Brad Meltzer, a former employee who was on good terms with Striesand during his 18 months working for her, states, "She was generous in terms of large amounts�big charities, things like that, but absolutely mean and niggardly about the salaries of the working people she hired. I recall once that Jon [Peters] had hired some young Mexican workers who had no green cards and paid them $3.50 an hour, but the work wasn't getting done fast enough. Barbra wanted them to work overtime. She told me to fire them and have them replaced. It killed me, but I did it." Also, any contractors hired to do work on her Malibu ranch have had to place liens on the property in order to get paid, the bills ranging from $4,500 to $50,000. Kris Kristofferson, her co-star in the film A Star is Born, once said, "Filming with Streisand is an experience which may have cured me of the movies."

Although she claims that the working men and women of America deserve higher wages, her production company, Barwood Films, usually films in Canada, where she can pay lower wages and receive tax breaks that she cannot get in the United States. Ms. Streisand has often accused Republicans and conservatives of greed, yet, in 1993, she admitted to the Washington Post she was almost broke due to her lavish spending. Despite claiming she would "rather pay more taxes" than receive tax breaks, Streisand took a $15 million write-off for Malibu property she donated to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, even though she had failed to find a buyer when the property was on the market for $11.9 million. This landed her in trouble with the IRS, and she ended up negotiating a settlement for an undisclosed amount.

Streisand told Tikkun magazine that "We continue to thrive on this earth, but in order to do so, we must adapt to a more sustainable way of life. While there is still some time to alter our way of living, we must begin to behave respectfully and honor these sacred gifts�our rolling hills, the depths of our blue oceans and rivers, the richness of our forests and plants and the vastness of our land." Contradicting this statement, Ms. Streisand has consumed in excess both water and air conditioning in her private life, and invested greatly in oil companies and Halliburton. She also sued Ken and Gabrielle Adelman for $50 million when the Adelmans posted aerial photos of her Point Dume estate while it was undergoing extensive development. This raised the ire of many in the environmentalest movement, who opposed such development, and the case was thrown out by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.

Finally, while she publicly supports affirmative action for blacks, and has publicly stated her deep kinship with black Americans, Ms. Streisand rarely hires blacks to produce or direct her films. Out of 63 producers and directors she has hired over the years, only one was black.

This is from the Congressional Record in Washington DC. It shows that the original purpose of the ACLU was not to protect the Constitution of the United States of America but to destroy it.



The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union

Extension of Remarks of Hon. John H. Rousselot of California In The House Of Representatives Wednesday, September 20, 1961

Mr ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, many people have becomed very concerned about the connections of certain persons involved in the affairs of the American Civil Liberties Union with Communist front groups. They are asking the question: Does the ACLU really promote adherence to rights guaranteed the individual by the Constitution?..................

One quick way to evaluate the ideology of organizations is through consideration of the statements and claims of their leaders. So it seems neccessary for a realistic appraisal of the civil rights policy of the American Civil Liberties Union that we develop the factual background of their prominent officials and leaders.

It has taken us months of painstaking research to prepare this pamphlet; it will take you only minutes to read it. So please read it and then pass it on and inform others of the information you are about to learn.


These are a few of the past and present prominent officials and leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Communism is my goal
1. Roger Baldwin, founder and guiding light of the ACLU for over 30 years, is now a member of the National Committee of the ACLU. Mr Roger Baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952). In an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934), Roger Baldwin said: "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental.". (He said he did not care who died for his cause)

Entry of Roger Baldwin in the Harvard reunion book on the occasion of the 30th anniversary reunion of his class of 1905 (1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal." (he said the goal of the ACLU is to take freedom from the people.)

2. Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU. Dr. Harry Ward has a record of over 200 Communist front affiliations and citations listed by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HCUA). Dr. Harry Ward was chairman of one of the largest Communist fronts to flourish in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy," which was placed on the Attorney General of the United States list of subversive organizations on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward is the author of "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books which clearly show Dr. Ward's love for the Soviet system of government. The California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, in their 1948 report, page 246, said: "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympaties of the members and sponsors of the "Friends of the Soviet Union.". (Dr. Ward said the goal of the ACLU was the over throw of the constitution)

3. Abraham L. Wirin, chief counsel for the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU, sometimes referred to as "Mr. ACLU."

In 1934 A. L. Wirin formed a law partnership with Leo Gllagher and Grover Johnson (reference: Daily Peoples World, Mar. 5, 1934, official publication of the Communist Party on the west coast). Mr Leo Gallagher ran for State office on the Communist Party ticket in 1936 and Grover Johnson, when asked by a governmental investigating agency if he had ever been a member of the Communist Party, refused to answer the question on the grounds that he might incriminate himself.

In 1954, A. L. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board of National Lawyers Guild (reference: Los Angeles Daily Journal, Jan 13, 1954). The National Lawyers Guild has been cited as a Communist Front organization by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) September 21, 1950. (Four years before, Mr. Wirin was a candidate for the executive board.) (As chief counsel his goal was to take liberity, freedom, God and Morality from the next generations through the schools and the courts.)

4. Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU:

In 1952, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe, U.S. Navy serial No. 316900, was discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve under conditions other than honorable.

In 1950, Dr. Monroe was fired from his position as head of the English department of San Francisco college for refusing to sign a loyalty oath. (The purpose of loyalty oaths is to protect the unsuspecting individual from lending his name to a Communist cause and from becoming a Communist dupe. The requirements of loyalty oaths have multiplied the obstacles to the Communists in recruiting memberships for their front organizations and maintaining discipline over fellow travelers in Government service. Few people will swear to an oath knowing it to be false and knowing that they might be liable to indictment and imprisonment for perjury. This requirement places a most difficult hurdle in front of the Communists attempting to ensnare an unsuspecting recruit into their conspiracy.)

In 1953, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe was listed as being chairman of the Federation for Repeal of the Levering Act (ie., loyalty oaths), which was cited as being a Communist front organization by the California State Senate Committee on Education in its 1952 report to the State legislature. (His goal was to stop any reference to loyality to America. If we can stop patriotism in the children we will have the nation)

5. Rev. A. A. Heist, executive director of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU in 1952, and Dr. Monroe's predecessor. Rev. A. A. Heist was a signer of the statement to the President of the United States, defending the Communist Party (reference: Daily Worker Mar 5, 1941). In 1952, the Reverend Heist resigned his position in the ACLU to become director of a new organization which he founded, called the Citizens' Committee to Preserve American Freedoms (CCPAF). This organization is run by its executive secretary, Mr. Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist. At a meeting of the district council of the southern California district of the Communist Party, United States of America, Dorothy Healy, well-known Communist and chairman of the district council, said, "The party preferred public protest meetings against the HCUA to be held by the Citizens Committee To Preserve American Freedoms rather than under party auspices because Communists could attend without danger of being exposed as party members." (Reference HCUA, H. Rept. 259, Apr 3, 1950, "Report on the Southern California District of the Communist Party". The Citizens Committee To Preserve American Freedoms was cited as being a Communist front organization by the HCUA on April 3, 1959.

The Reverend Heist stated in a speech to an audience of high school and junior college students in Pasadena that "the Constitution of the United States is outmoded, outdated, and impotent." (One of the stated goals of the ACLU is to preserve the Constitution. but the founding fathers of the ACLU wanted to destroy it.)

In 1948, the Reverend Heist protested the withdrawal of the use of their hall by Occidental College to an identified Communist poet, Langston Hughes, who was to speak on a poem of his entitled, "Goodbye, Christ," which called for "Christ, Jesus, Lord God Jehovah" to "beat it" and "make way for a new guy named Marx, Communist Lenin, Peasant Stalin, and worker me." (Reference: Hollywood Citizen News, February 26, 1948.) This would not be a strange protest from an atheistic Communist, but when it comes from a Methodist minister?

6. Carey McWilliams, a member of the national committee of the ACLU in 1948, who now figures prominently in the affairs of the ACLU, has been identified in sworn testimony, according to Government documents, as a member of the Communist Party. Carey McWilliams has a record of over 50 Communist-front affiliations and citations. He is the editor of "Rights," the official publication of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee which has been cited as a Communist front by the HCUA (November 8, 1957).


7. Prof. William A. Kilpatrick, prominent member of the ACLU on the east coast, was for many years head of Teacherc College, Columbia University. In his book, "The Teacher and Society," published in 1939, Professor Kilpatrick said that "the revolution by force and violence was probably necessary in Russia, but it would not be necessary in America. Here, the same goals could be acheived by effectuating change within the framework of the Constitution." (in other words our goal is to let the constitution destroy itself in the courts.)

8. William Z. Foster, former head of the Communist Party, United States of America, was a former member of the National Committee of the ACLU. 9. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, former member of the National Committee of the ACLU until 1940, is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, United States of America.

In the report on "Communist Propaganda in America" (published 1935, A.F.L.) as submitted to the State Department, by William Green, the late president of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Green states that: "During all the years since the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia, propaganda in the United States has been conducted, not only through agencies directly set up by the Communist high command, but through agencies and organizations in which non-Communists of good standing and repute have been induced to participate. A careful studyof these organizations shows that they are so related through interlocking directorates that apparently some hundreds of organizations are dominated by an interlocking group of directors numbering not more than 60. Their tactics may perhaps be called the tactics of irritation, since their purpose is to create dissatisfaction as widely as possible and to bring into disrepute the authorities, and the established institutions of the country. As an example, the American Civil Liberties Union may be cited."

To support Mr. Green's statement of "the interlocking directorates," we discovered that when we looked at the record of the top 15 past and current leaders of the ACLU, we found that they had a combined record of over 1000 Communist front affiliations and citations.

Section II

What others think of the ACLU

1. Daily Worker, March 22, 1957. In reference to an ACLU meeting (New York chapter) featuring John Gates, editor of the Daily Worker, "it remains an axiom of our time, that to defend the rights of Communists is to defend the rights of all Americans." (We as a nation are forced to spend $50 billion a year to defend ourselves from the Communists.)

2. California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report, page 107: "The ACLU may be definitely classified as a Communist front or transmission belt organization." "At least 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who come in conflict with the law."

3. House Committee To Investigate Communist Activities in the United States, report 2290 entitled, "Investigation of Communist Propaganda": "It is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to protect the Communists in their advocacy of force and vilence to overthrow the U.S. Government."

4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, special commission to investigate Communist avtivities: "The ACLU, with its front of respectability and with its large membership of sincere, worthy citizens, has provided important legal talent and a camouflage of decency behind which Communist forces have agitated and promoted their campaigns."

Section III

Odd Coincidences

1. The ACLU, long an advocate of unlimited freedom of the press and freedom of speech, asked Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson to withdraw a pamphlet entitled "How to Spot a Communist," prepared by the 1st Army and used by the Watertown, Mass., arsenal (New York Times, June 12, 1955).

2. The ACLU protested the publishing by the League of Decency of a list of movies and books that the league considered immoral. (Reference: Daily Worker, Mar. 22, 1957). (It has long been known that one of the primary aims of the Communist Party is to subvert the morals of the American public.)

3. The ACLU, when queried by Columnist Lawrence Fertig as to why "They did not defend the most basic of all civil liberties--the right of a man to earn his living without paying tribute to any other individual or private organization" (right to work laws in various States), replied, "there are no civil liberties grounds on which such statutes should be supported," (reference: Fortnights magazine, July 1955).

4. The ACLU has voiced the opinion many times that "they welcome investigation," but they unleash their vitriolic abuse upon the American Legion and brand the American Legion as a fascist group because they not only investigated the ACLU, but have requested the HCUA every year since 1953 to investigate the ACLU.

5. The ACLU has been the recipient of numerous grants from the Garland Foundation (American Fund for Public Service) which is the notorious bankroll for Communist front organizations. The Garland Fund is characterized by the California Senate Fact Finding Commission, 1948 report, page 247, as "the source of revenue for Communist causes is generally referred to as the Garland Fund."

The Garland Fund has also been cited by the United States House Special Committee on Un-American Activities as follows: "The Garland Fund was a major source for the financing of Communist Party enterprises," (reference: H. Rept. 1311, Mar 9, 1944).

Among those who have served as directors of the Garland Fund and who were directly responsible for the disbursement of funds to the different Communist Front organizations and who were or are now prominent members of the governing body of the ACLU are: Roger Baldwin, Harry F. Ward, William Z. Foster, Robert Morss Lovett, Morris L. Ernst, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Oswald Garrison Villard, and E. M. Borchard.

6. Frank Wilkinson, an identified Communist and chief hatchetman for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee and the Citizens Committee to Preserve American Freedoms in the "Operation Abolition" program, who, so far as we know, is not even a member of the ACLU, seems to be so prominent in the affairs of the ACLU. Also, an odd coincidence that a new organization that has been formed and which calls itself the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee (NCAHUAC) and has eight key members in the organization that have been identified as members of the Communist Party gives its mailing address at 617 North Larchmont Boulevard, Los Angeles 4, Calif., which is also the mailing address of the Citizens Committee to Preserve American Freedoms (CCPAF) and that of the 12 national committee members of the NCAHUAC, eight are currently officers or executive committee members of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (interlocking directorates?).

If any ACLU spokesman charges that this report is biased, our answer is that is is biased only on the side of Americanism--that its only fault for those who don't like it is its bias in favor of truth and fact. in our months of investigation we were unable to find one occasion where the ACLU has something good to say about America. We were able, however, to find many occasions where the ACLU and its leaders had something good to say about Soviet Russia or did something that would benefit Soviet Russia.

In our opinion, the ACLU and its brother organizations have mastered the technique of Josef Goebbels and practiced by the Moscow Communists to the nth degree. "Tell a lie, make it big, and tell it often enough so that soon everyone will believe it." They have been spouting forth the statement that "the rights of all Americans are being threatened" so long and so hard that already everyone is looking for the Gestapo FBI, the Fascist police, the minions of that inquisition, the HCUA, behind every bush and every telephone.

Deep down in the hearts of all good Americans we know that this is a lie and if we stop and think of its source, then we can look at it in its true light.

Nicolai Lenin said, "We must build communism with non-Communist hands," Please don't let it be your hands.

A Soviet dialectician's definition of a Communist front

George Dimitrov, "Advice to the Lenin School of Political Warfare," as quoted in the report of the American Bar Association Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives--CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, August 22, 1958, page 17719. "As Soviet power grows, there will be greater aversion to Communist Parties everywhere. So we must practice the techniques of withdrawal. Never appear in the foreground; Let our friends do the work. We must always remember that one sympathizer is generally worth more than a dozen militant Communists. A university professor, who, without being a party member, lends himself to the interests of the Soviet Union, is worth more than a hundred men with party cards. A writer of reputation or a retired general are worth more than 500 poor devils who don't know any better than to get themselves beaten up by the police. Every man has his value, his merit.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Hollywood likes to revise history to suit their own ends:
A longtime smear campaign has clouded the truth
Nearly 40 years after the death of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, twice-elected United States Senator from Wisconsin, the term "McCarthyism" is still widely used as a convenient epithet for all that is evil and despicable in the world of politics. Hardly a month passes without some reference to "McCarthyism" in the print or electronic media. Despite the frequency with which the term is invoked, however, it is quite clear that not one critic of McCarthy in a hundred has the slightest idea of what he said and did during that controversial period from 1950 to 1954.

Whether Joe McCarthy was right or wrong, it is important that we know the truth about him. If he was wrong, then we can learn some important lessons for the future. If he was right, then we need to be vitally concerned about the issues he raised because virtually nothing has been done to deal effectively with those issues since the mid-1950s.

This article will attempt to answer many of the questions asked about Joe McCarthy and the criticisms directed at him. The responses are based on years of study of McCarthy's speeches and writings, congressional hearings in which he was involved, and more than a score of books about him, most of them highly critical and condemnatory.

I. The Years Before 1950

Q. Was Joseph McCarthy a lax and unethical judge?
A. Joe McCarthy was elected as a circuit judge in Wisconsin in 1939 and took over a district court that had a backlog of more than 200 cases. By eliminating a lot of legal red tape and working long hours (his court remained open past midnight at least a dozen times), Judge McCarthy cleared up the backlog quickly and, in the words of one local newspaper, "administered justice promptly and with a combination of legal knowledge and good sense."

Q. Did McCarthy exaggerate his military record in World War II?
A. Although his judgeship exempted him from military service, McCarthy enlisted in the Marines and was sworn in as a first lieutenant in August 1942. He served as an intelligence officer for a bomber squadron stationed in the Solomon Islands, and also risked his life by volunteering to fly in the tail-gunner's seat on many combat missions. Those who quibble about the number of combat missions he flew miss the point -- he didn't have to fly any.

The enemies of McCarthy have seized on his good-natured remark about shooting down coconut trees from his tail-gunner's spot (an ABC television movie about McCarthy in the late 1970s was entitled Tail Gunner Joe) to belittle his military accomplishments, but the official record gives the true picture. Not only were McCarthy's achievements during 30 months of active duty unanimously praised by his commanding officers, but Admiral Chester Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, issued the following citation regarding the service of Captain McCarthy:

For meritorious and efficient performance of duty as an observer and rear gunner of a dive bomber attached to a Marine scout bombing squadron operating in the Solomon Islands area from September 1 to December 31, 1943. He participated in a large number of combat missions, and in addition to his regular duties, acted as aerial photographer. He obtained excellent photographs of enemy gun positions, despite intense anti-aircraft fire, thereby gaining valuable information which contributed materially to the success of subsequent strikes in the area. Although suffering from a severe leg injury, he refused to be hospitalized and continued to carry out his duties as Intelligence Officer in a highly efficient manner. His courageous devotion to duty was in keeping with the highest traditions of the naval service.

Q. Was McCarthy backed by the communists in his 1946 campaign for the U.S. Senate?
A. In 1946, Joe McCarthy upset incumbent U.S. Senator Robert La Follette by 5,378 votes in the Republican primary and went on to beat Democrat Howard McMurray by 251,658 votes in the general election. The Communist Party of Wisconsin had originally circulated petitions to place its own candidate on the ballot as an independent in the general election. When McCarthy scored his surprising victory over La Follette, the communists did not file the petitions for their candidate, but rallied instead behind McMurray. Thus, Joe McCarthy defeated a Democratic-Communist Party coalition in 1946.

Q. Had Joseph McCarthy ever spoken out against communism prior to his famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1950?
A. Those who contend that McCarthy stumbled across communism while searching for an issue to use in his 1952 re-election campaign will be disappointed to know that the senator had been speaking out against communism for years. He made communism an issue in his campaign against Howard McMurray in 1946, charging that McMurray had received the endorsement of the Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper. In April 1947, McCarthy told the Madison Capital Times that his top priority was "to stop the spread of communism."

During a speech in Milwaukee in 1952, Senator McCarthy dated the public phase of his fight against communists to May 22, 1949, the night that former Secretary of Defense James Forrestal was found dead on the ground outside Bethesda Naval Hospital. "The communists hounded Forrestal to his death," said McCarthy. "They killed him just as definitely as if they had thrown him from that sixteenth-story window in Bethesda Naval Hospital." McCarthy said that "while I am not a sentimental man, I was touched deeply and left numb by the news of Forrestal's murder. But I was affected much more deeply when I heard of the communist celebration when they heard of Forrestal's murder. On that night, I dedicated part of this fight to Jim Forrestal."

Thus, Joe McCarthy was receptive in the fall of 1949 when three men brought to his office a 100-page FBI report alleging extensive communist penetration of the State Department. The trio had asked three other senators to awaken the American people to this dangerous situation, but only McCarthy was willing to take on this volatile project.

II. A Lone Senator (1950-1952)

Q. What was the security situation in the State Department at the time of McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950?
A. Communist infiltration of the State Department began in the 1930s. On September 2, 1939, former communist Whittaker Chambers provided Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle with the names and communist connections of two dozen spies in the government, including Alger Hiss. Berle took the information to President Roosevelt, but FDR laughed it off. Hiss moved rapidly up the State Department ladder and served as an adviser to Roosevelt at the disastrous 1945 Yalta Conference that paved the way for the Soviet conquest of Central and Eastern Europe. Hiss also functioned as secretary-general of the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco, helped to draft the UN Charter, and later filled dozens of positions at the UN with American communists before he was publicly exposed as a Soviet spy by Whittaker Chambers in 1948.The security problem at the State Department had worsened considerably in 1945 when a merger brought into State thousands of employees from such war agencies as the Office of Strategic Services, the Office of War Information, and the Foreign Economic Administration -- all of which were riddled with members of the communist underground. J. Anthony Panuch, the State Department official charged with supervising the 1945 merger, told a Senate committee in 1953 that "the biggest single thing that contributed to the infiltration of the State Department was the merger of 1945. The effects of that are still being felt." In 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall and Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson engineered the firing of Panuch and the removal of every key member of his security staff.

In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret memorandum to Marshall, calling to his attention

a condition that developed and still flourishes in the State Department under the administration of Dean Acheson. It is evident that there is a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect communist personnel in high places but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involves a large number of State Department employees, some in high official positions.

The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.

It was also during the mid-to-late 1940s that communist sympathizers in the State Department played a key role in the subjugation of mainland China by the Reds. "It is my judgment, and I was in the State Department at the time," said former Ambassador William D. Pawley, "that this whole fiasco, the loss of China and the subsequent difficulties with which the United States has been faced, was the result of mistaken policy of Dean Acheson, Phil Jessup, [Owen] Lattimore, John Carter Vincent, John Service, John Davies, [O.E.] Clubb, and others." Asked if he thought the mistaken policy was the result of "sincere mistakes of judgment," Pawley replied: "No, I don't."

Q. Was Joseph McCarthy the only member of Congress critical of those whose policies had put 400 million Chinese into communist slavery?
A. No, there were others who were equally disturbed. For instance, on January 30, 1949, one year before McCarthy's Wheeling speech, a young congressman from Massachusetts deplored "the disasters befalling China and the United States," and declared that "it is of the utmost importance that we search out and spotlight those who must bear the responsibility for our present predicament." The congressman placed a major part of the blame on "a sick Roosevelt," General George Marshall, and "our diplomats and their advisers, the Lattimores and the Fairbanks," and he concluded: "This is the tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away." The congressman's name was John F. Kennedy.

Q. What did McCarthy actually say in his Wheeling speech?
A. Addressing the Ohio County Women's Republican Club on February 9, 1950, Senator McCarthy first quoted from Marx, Lenin, and Stalin their stated goal of world conquest and said that "today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity." He blamed the fall of China and other countries to the communists in the previous six years on "the traitorous actions" of the State Department's "bright young men," and he mentioned specifically John S. Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane Keeney, Julian Wadleigh, Dr. Harlow Shapley, Alger Hiss, and Dean Acheson. The part of the speech that catapulted McCarthy from relative obscurity into the national spotlight contained these words:

I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.

Q. Wasn't it reported that McCarthy used the number 205 in his Wheeling speech, lowered it to 57 later, and then raised it again to 81?
A. Yes, this was reported, and here is the explanation: In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department's payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals -- the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive.

The enemies of McCarthy have juggled these numbers around to make the senator appear to be erratic and to distract attention from the paramount question: Were there still persons in the State Department betraying this nation? McCarthy was not being inconsistent in his use of the numbers; the 57 and 81 were part of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter.

Q. Was it fair for McCarthy to make all those names public and ruin reputations?
A. That is precisely why McCarthy did not make the names public. Four times during McCarthy's February 20th speech, Senator Scott Lucas demanded that McCarthy make the 81 names public, but McCarthy refused to do so, responding that "if I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a communist when he is not a communist, I think it would be too bad." What McCarthy did was to identify the individuals only by case numbers, not by their names.

By the way, it took McCarthy some six hours to make that February 20th speech because of harassment by hostile senators, four of whom -- Scott Lucas, Brien McMahon, Garrett Withers, and Herbert Lehman -- interrupted him a total of 123 times. It should also be noted that McCarthy was not indicting the entire State Department. He said that "the vast majority of the employees of the State Department are loyal" and that he was only after the ones who had demonstrated a loyalty to the Soviet Union or to the Communist Party.

Further, McCarthy admitted that "some of these individuals whose cases I am giving the Senate are no longer in the State Department. A sizable number of them are not. Some of them have transferred to other government work, work allied with the State Department. Others have been transferred to the United Nations."

Q. What was the purpose of the Tydings Committee?
A. The Tydings Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that was set up in February 1950 to conduct "a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are, or have been, employed by the Department of State." The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Millard Tydings, a Democrat, set the tone for the hearings on the first day when he told McCarthy: "You are in the position of being the man who occasioned this hearing, and so far as I am concerned in this committee you are going to get one of the most complete investigations ever given in the history of this Republic, so far as my abilities will permit."

After 31 days of hearings, during which McCarthy presented public evidence on nine persons (Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Philip Jessup, Esther Brunauer, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley, Gustavo Duran, John Stewart Service, and Owen Lattimore), the Tydings Committee labeled McCarthy's charges a "fraud" and a "hoax," said that the individuals on his list were neither communist nor pro-communist, and concluded that the State Department had an effective security program.

Q. Did the Tydings Committee carry out its mandate?
A. Not by a long shot. The Tydings Committee never investigated State Department security at all and did not come close to conducting the "full and complete study and investigation" it was supposed to conduct. Tydings and his Democratic colleagues, Brien McMahon and Theodore Green, subjected McCarthy to considerable interruptions and heckling, prompting Senator Henry Cabot Lodge to protest that McCarthy "never gets a fair shake" in trying to present his evidence in an orderly fashion. So persistent were the interruptions and statements of the Democratic trio during the first two days of the hearings that McCarthy was allowed only a total of 17 and one-half minutes of direct testimony.

While the Democrats were hostile to McCarthy and to any witnesses who could confirm his charges, they fawned over the six individuals who appeared before the committee to deny McCarthy's accusations. Tydings, McMahon, and Green not only treated Philip Jessup like a hero, for one example, but refused to let McCarthy present his full case against Jessup or to cross-examine him. Furthermore, the committee majority declined to call more than 20 witnesses whom Senator Bourke Hickenlooper thought were important to the investigation.

And when Senator Lodge read into the record 19 questions that he thought should be answered before the committee exonerated the State Department's security system, not only did the Democrats ignore the questions, but some member of the committee or the staff deleted from the official transcript of the hearings the 19 questions, as well as other testimony that made the committee look bad. The deleted material amounted to 35 typewritten pages.

It is clear then that the Tydings Committee did not carry out its mandate and that the words "fraud" and "hoax" more accurately describe the Tydings Report than they do McCarthy's charges.

Q. So was McCarthy right or wrong about the State Department?
A. He was right. Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave the Tydings Committee to be investigated, 62 of them were employed by the State Department at the time of the hearings. The committee cleared everyone on McCarthy's list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy's list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.

Q. Can you cite some particular examples?
A. Sure. Let's take three of McCarthy's nine public cases -- those of John Stewart Service, Philip Jessup, and Owen Lattimore. * Five years before McCarthy mentioned the name of John Stewart Service, Service was arrested for giving classified documents to the editors of Amerasia, a communist magazine. The Truman Administration, however, managed to cover up the espionage scandal and Service was never punished for his crime. McCarthy also produced considerable evidence that Service had been "part of the pro-Soviet group" that wanted to bring communism to China, but the Tydings Committee said that Service was "not disloyal, pro-communist, or a security risk." Over the next 18 months, the State Department's Loyalty Security Board cleared Service four more times, but finally, in December 1951, the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Review Board found that there was "reasonable doubt" as to his loyalty and ousted him from the State Department.

Was the career of Service ruined by this decision? Not on your life. The Supreme Court reinstated him in 1956 and Service was the American consul in Liverpool, England until his retirement in 1962. He then joined the faculty of the University of California-Berkeley and visited Red China in the fall of 1971 at the invitation of communist tyrant Chou En-lai. Following his return from the country he helped to communize, Service wrote four articles for the New York Times and was the subject of a laudatory cover interview in Parade magazine.

As for Philip Jessup, all that Joe McCarthy said was that he had an "unusual affinity for communist causes." The record shows that Jessup belonged to at least five communist-controlled fronts, that he associated closely with communists, and that he was an influential member of the Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR), which the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) described in 1952 as "a vehicle used by Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives." The SISS also reported that 46 persons connected with the IPR while Jessup was a leading light there had been named under oath as members of the Communist Party.

The Senate apparently felt that McCarthy was closer to the truth than the Tydings Committee because in 1951 it rejected Jessup's nomination as a delegate to the United Nations. After the Senate adjourned, however, President Truman appointed him anyway. In 1960, President Eisenhower named Jessup to represent the United States on the International Court of Justice, and Jessup served on the World Court until 1969. He died in 1986.

Owen Lattimore was one of the principal architects of the State Department's pro-communist foreign policy in the Far East. In a closed session of the Tydings Committee, Senator McCarthy called Lattimore the "top Russian spy" in the department. (That charge, by the way, was leaked to the public not by McCarthy but by columnist Drew Pearson.) McCarthy later modified his statement on Lattimore, saying that "I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether or not he has been an espionage agent," and went on to say that "13 different witnesses have testified under oath to Lattimore's Communist membership or party-line activities." Although the Tydings Committee cleared Lattimore of all charges, another Senate committee, the SISS, vindicated Joe McCarthy when it declared in 1952 that "Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy."

Was Lattimore hurt by this or by his subsequent indictment for perjury? Of course not. He continued on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University, went to Communist Outer Mongolia for the Kennedy State Department in 1961, became head of a new Chinese studies department at Leeds University in England in 1963, and returned to the United States in the 1970s for speeches and lectures.

Q. Even if McCarthy was right about Service, Jessup, and Lattimore, weren't there hundreds of others who were publicly smeared by him?
A. This is one of the most enduring myths about McCarthy, and it is completely false. It is a fact, wrote William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell in McCarthy and His Enemies, that from February 9, 1950 until January 1, 1953, Joe McCarthy publicly questioned the loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 persons, and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46. We have discussed three of the senator's major targets, and Buckley and Bozell pointed out that McCarthy "never said anything more damaging about Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, and John Carter Vincent, than that they are known to one or more responsible persons as having been members of the Communist Party, which is in each of these instances true."

While McCarthy may have exaggerated the significance of the evidence against some other individuals, his record on the whole is extremely good. (This is also true of the 1953-54 period when he was chairman of a Senate committee and publicly exposed 114 persons, most of whom refused to answer questions about communist or espionage activities on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them.) There were no innocent victims of McCarthyism. Those whom McCarthy accused had indeed collaborated in varying degrees with communists, had shown no remorse for their actions, and thoroughly deserved whatever scorn was directed at them.

Q. What about McCarthy's attack on General George Marshall? Wasn't that a smear of a great man?
A. This is a reference to the 60,000-word speech McCarthy delivered on the Senate floor on June 14, 1951 (later published as a book entitled America's Retreat From Victory) One interesting thing about the speech is that McCarthy drew almost entirely from sources friendly to Marshall in discussing nearly a score of Marshall's actions and policies that had helped the communists in the USSR, Europe, China, and Korea. "I do not propose to go into his motives," said McCarthy. "Unless one has all the tangled and often complicated circumstances contributing to a man's decisions, an inquiry into his motives is often fruitless. I do not pretend to understand General Marshall's nature and character, and I shall leave that subject to subtler analysts of human personality."

One may agree or disagree with McCarthy's statement that America's steady retreat from victory "must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men." That statement was very controversial in 1951, but after no-win wars in Korea and Vietnam, decades of Soviet expansionism throughout the world, the weakening of America's military, and its increasing subservience to United Nations authority, it doesn't seem so controversial anymore.

Q. Can it be true that State Department policy toward the communists didn't change very much even after McCarthy helped get many pro-communists out of the department?
A. Unfortunately, it is true. McCarthy, you see, only scratched the surface. He did prompt a tightening of security procedures for a while, and the State Department and other sensitive federal agencies dismissed nearly 4,000 employees in 1953 and 1954, although many of them shifted to nonsensitive departments. Some of these security risks returned to their old agencies when security was virtually scrapped during the Kennedy Administration.

During the mid-1950s, State Department security specialist Otto Otepka reviewed the files of all department personnel and found some kind of derogatory information on 1,943 persons, almost 20 percent of the total payroll. He told the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee years later that of the 1,943 employees, 722 "left the department for various reasons, but mostly by transfer to other agencies, before a final security determination was made." Otepka trimmed the remaining number on the list to 858 and in December 1955 sent their names to his boss, Scott McLeod, as persons to be watched because of communist associations, homosexuality, habitual drunkenness, or mental illness.

McLeod's staff reviewed the Otepka list and narrowed it down to 258 persons who were judged to be "serious" security risks. "Approximately 150 were in high-level posts where they could in one way or another influence the formulation of United States foreign policy," said William J. Gill, author of The Ordeal of Otto Otepka. "And fully half of these 258 serious cases were officials in either crucial intelligence assignments or serving on top-secret committees reaching all the way up and into the National Security Council." As many as 175 of the 258 were still in important policy posts as of the mid-1960s.

Bear in mind that communist penetration of the U.S. government was not confined to the State Department. On July 30, 1953, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, chaired by Senator William Jenner, released its report, Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments. Among its conclusions:

The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States Government and this penetration has not been fully exposed.
This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to top level policy and operating positions in our government.
The agents of this penetration have operated in accordance with a distinct design fashioned by their Soviet superiors.
Members of this conspiracy helped to get each other into government, helped each other to rise in government, and protected each other from exposure.
Summarizing the 1952 testimony of former Soviet courier Elizabeth Bentley, who had identified 37 Soviet agents within the U.S. government, the subcommittee also said that "to her knowledge there were four Soviet espionage rings operating within our government and that only two of these have been exposed." In October 1953, a Soviet defector named Colonel Ismail Ege estimated that a minimum of 20 spy networks were operating within the United States in 1941-42, when he was chief of the Fourth Section of Soviet General Staff Intelligence.

On February 5, 1987, the New York Times reported that an 18-month investigation by the House Intelligence Committee "had uncovered 'dangerous laxity' and serious 'security failures' in the government's system of catching spies. Even though 27 Americans have been charged with espionage in the last two years, and all but one of those brought to trial have been found guilty, the committee said in a report that it still found 'a puzzling, almost nonchalant attitude toward recent espionage cases on the part of some senior U.S. intelligence officials.'" According to the Times, "the investigation found 'faulty hiring practices, poor management of probationary employees, thoughtless firing practices, lax security practices, inadequate interagency cooperation -- even bungled surveillance of a prime espionage suspect.'"

The same "nonchalant attitude" toward communist spies that Joe McCarthy denounced in the early 1950s still exists today. Only there is no Joe McCarthy in the Senate urging that something be done to correct this dangerous situation. Nor are there any congressional committees investigating communist subversion in government. The destruction of Joe McCarthy not only removed him from the fight, but it also sent a powerful message to anyone else who might be contemplating a similar battle: Try to ferret communists and pro-communists out of the government and you will be harassed, smeared, and ultimately destroyed.

Q. But why do we need congressional committees? Can't the FBI do the job?
A. The function of the FBI is to gather information and pass it along to the agency or department where the security problem exists. If the FBI report is ignored, or if the department does take action and is overruled by a review board, only a congressional committee can expose and remedy this situation. For example, in December 1945, the FBI sent President Truman a report showing that his Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White, was a Soviet spy. Truman ignored the warning and, early in 1946, promoted White to executive director of the U.S. Mission to the International Monetary Fund. The FBI sent Truman a second report, but again he did nothing. White resigned from the government in 1947, and his communist ties were exposed by Elizabeth Bentley when she appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948.

The FBI warned the State Department in the mid-1940s of extensive communist penetration of the department, but the warning was disregarded for the most part. It was not until Joseph McCarthy turned the spotlight on the situation that dozens of security risks were removed. The FBI had also sent some 40 confidential reports about the communist activities of Edward Rothschild, an employee of the Government Printing Office, but Rothschild wasn't removed from his sensitive position until his background was exposed by the McCarthy Committee in 1953.

III. Committee Chairman (1953-54)

Q. Granted that congressional investigating committees can serve an important purpose, weren't McCarthy's methods terrible and didn't he subject witnesses to awful harassment?
A. Now we're into an entirely different phase of McCarthy's career. For three years, he had been one lone senator crying in the wilderness. With the Republicans taking control of the Senate in January 1953, however, Joe McCarthy became chairman of the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee. No longer did he have to rely solely upon public speeches to inform the American people of the communist threat to America. He was now chairman of a Senate committee with a mandate to search out graft, incompetence, and disloyalty inside the vast reaches of the American government.

McCarthy's methods were no different from those of other senators who were generally applauded for vigorous cross-examination of organized crime figures, for instance. The question of methods seemed to come up only when subversives or spies were on the witness stand. And those who most loudly deplored McCarthy's methods often resorted to the foulest methods themselves, including the use of lies, half-truths, and innuendos designed to stir up hysteria against him. What some people seemingly do not understand is that communists are evildoers and that those who give aid and comfort to communists -- whether they are called dupes, fellow travelers, liberals, or progressives -- are complicit in the evil and should be exposed and removed from positions of influence.

Traitors and spies in high places are not easy to identify. They do not wear sweatshirts with the hammer and sickle emblazoned on the front. Only painstaking investigation and exhaustive questioning can reveal them as enemies. So why all the condemnation for those who expose spies and none for the spies themselves? Why didn't McCarthy's critics expose a traitor now and then and show everyone how much better they could do it? No, it was much easier to hound out of public life such determined enemies of the Reds as Martin Dies, Parnell Thomas, and Joe McCarthy than to muster the courage to face the howling communist wolfpack themselves.

Q. So McCarthy's treatment of persons appearing before his committee was not as bad as has been reported?
A. Exactly. Let's look at the record. During 1953 and the first three months of 1954 (McCarthy was immobilized for the remainder of 1954 by two investigations of him), McCarthy's committee held 199 days of hearings and examined 653 witnesses. These individuals first appeared in executive session and were told of the evidence against them. If they were able to offer satisfactory explanations -- and most of them were -- they were dismissed and nobody ever knew they had been summoned. Those who appeared in public sessions were either hardened Fifth Amendment pleaders or persons about whom there was a strong presumption of guilt. But even those witnesses who were brazen, insulting, and defiant were afforded their rights to confer with their counsel before answering a question, to confront their accusers or at least have them identified and have questions submitted to them by their counsel, and to invoke the First and Fifth Amendments rather than answer questions about their alleged communist associations.

Of the 653 persons called by the McCarthy Committee during that 15-month period, 83 refused to answer questions about communist or espionage activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, but their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the Army, the Navy, the Government Printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, the Veterans Administration, and the United Nations. Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York. Nineteen of the 83, including such well-known communist propagandists as James S. Allen, Herbert Aptheker, and Earl Browder, were summoned because their writings were being carried in U.S. Information Service libraries around the world.

Charles E. Ford, an attorney for Edward Rothschild in the Government Printing Office hearings, was so impressed with McCarthy's fairness toward his client that he declared: "I think the committee session at this day and in this place is most admirable and most American." Peter Gragis, who appeared before the McCarthy Committee on March 10, 1954, said that he had come to the hearing terrified because the press "had pointed out that you were very abusive, that you were crucifying people.... My experience has been quite the contrary. I have, I think, been very understandingly treated. I have been, I think, highly respected despite the fact that for some 20 years I had been more or less an active communist."

Q. Weren't McCarthy and some members of his staff guilty of "bookburning" and causing a ruckus in Europe in 1953?
A. This accusation was made in reference to the committee's inquiry into communist influences in State Department libraries overseas. In his book McCarthy, Roy Cohn, the committee's chief counsel, conceded that he and committee staffer David Schine "unwittingly handed Joe McCarthy's enemies a perfect opportunity to spread the tale that a couple of young, inexperienced clowns were bustling about Europe, ordering State Department officials around, burning books, creating chaos wherever they went, and disrupting foreign relations." In point of fact, however, the trip and subsequent hearings by the committee provided information that led to the removal of more than 30,000 communist and pro-communist books from U.S. Information Service libraries in foreign countries. The presence of such books was in obvious conflict with the stated purpose of those libraries "to promote better understanding of America abroad" and "to combat and expose Soviet communistic propaganda."

Q. But didn't McCarthy summon to those hearings a man whose major sin was having written a book on college football 21 years earlier?
A. In March 1953, the McCarthy Committee heard testimony from Reed Harris, deputy head of the State Department's International Information Administration and author of King Football. Harris' book, however, was not confined to football. The author also advocated that communists and socialists be allowed to teach in colleges and said that hungry people in America, after "watching gangsters and corrupt politicians gulp joyously from the horn of plenty," just might "decide that even the horrors of those days of fighting which inaugurated the era of communism in Russia would be preferable to the present state of affairs" in the United States.

The following colloquy between Harris and Senator John McClellan is never quoted by McCarthy's critics:

McClellan. Here is what I am concerned about. In the first place, I will ask you this: If it should be established that a person entertained the views and philosophies that you expressed in that book, would you consider that person suitable or fit to hold a position in the Voice of America which you now hold?
Harris. I would not.
McClellan. You would not employ such a person, would you?
Harris. I would not, senator.
McClellan. Now we find you in that position.
Harris. That is correct.

Before shedding any tears for Mr. Harris, who resigned his post in April 1953, be advised that when anti-McCarthy hysteric Edward R. Murrow took over the U.S. Information Agency in 1961, he hired Reed Harris as his deputy.

Q. What about that poor old black woman that McCarthy falsely accused of being a communist?
A. That woman was Annie Lee Moss, who lost her job working with classified messages at the Pentagon after an FBI undercover operative testified that she was a member of the Communist Party. When she appeared before the McCarthy Committee early in 1954, Mrs. Moss, who lived at 72 R Street, SW, Washington, DC, denied she was a communist. Her defenders accused McCarthy of confusing Mrs. Moss with another woman with a similar name at a different address. Edward R. Murrow made the woman a heroine on his television program and the anti-McCarthy press trumpeted this episode as typical of McCarthy's abominations. And so things stood until September 1958, when the Subversive Activities Control Board reported that copies of the Communist Party's own records showed that "one Annie Lee Moss, 72 R Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., was a party member in the mid-1940s." Mrs. Moss got her Pentagon job back in 1954 and was still working for the Army in December 1958.

Q. Mrs. Moss might have gotten her job back, but what about all those individuals who lost their jobs in defense plants?
A. During its probe of 13 defense plants whose contracts with the government ran into hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the McCarthy Committee heard 101 witnesses, two of whom -- William H. Teto and Herman E. Thomas -- provided the committee with information about the Red spy network and the efforts of the communists to set up cells in the plants. The committee's exposures led to the dismissal of 32 persons and the tightening of security regulations at the plants. The president of General Electric, for example, issued a policy statement expressing concern about "the possible danger to the safety and security of company property and personnel whenever a General Electric employee admits he is a Communist or when he asserts before a competent investigating government body that he might incriminate himself by giving truthful answers concerning his Communist affiliations or his possible espionage or sabotage activities."

At the time McCarthy's investigations were halted early in 1954, his probers had accumulated evidence involving an additional 155 defense workers, but he was never able to question those individuals under oath. On January 12, 1959, Congressman Gordon Scherer, a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, said that he knew of a minimum of 2,000 "potential espionage agents and saboteurs" working in the nation's defense plants. But there were no congressional investigations in this vital area after Senator McCarthy was stymied in 1954.

Q. What were the Fort Monmouth hearings all about? Weren't all of those fired eventually given back their jobs?
A. The Army Signal Corps installation at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey was one of the nation's most vital security posts, since the three research centers housed there were engaged in developing defensive devices designed to protect America from an atomic attack. Julius Rosenberg, who was executed in 1953 for selling U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, worked as an inspector at Fort Monmouth from 1940 to 1945 and maintained his Signal Corps contacts for at least another two years after that. From 1949 to 1953, the FBI had been warning the Army about security risks at Fort Monmouth, but the Army paid little attention to the reports of subversion until the McCarthy investigation began in 1953.

During 1953 and 1954, the McCarthy Committee, acting on reports of communist infiltration from civilian employees, Army officers, and enlisted personnel, heard 71 witnesses at executive sessions and 41 at open hearings. The Army responded by suspending or discharging 35 persons as security risks, but when these cases reached the Army Loyalty and Screening Board at the Pentagon, all but two of the suspected security risks were reinstated and given back pay. McCarthy demanded the names of the 20 civilians on the review board and, when he threatened to subpoena them, the Eisenhower Administration, at a meeting in Attorney General Herbert Brownell's office on January 21, 1954, began plotting to stop McCarthy's investigations once and for all.

Virtually all of those suspended were eventually restored to duty at Fort Monmouth and anti-McCarthyites have cited this as proof that McCarthy had failed once again to substantiate his allegations. But vindication of McCarthy came later, when the Army's top-secret operations at Fort Monmouth were quietly moved to Arizona. In his 1979 book With No Apologies, Senator Barry Goldwater explained the reason for the move:

Carl Hayden, who in January 1955 became chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate, told me privately Monmouth had been moved because he and other members of the majority Democratic Party were convinced security at Monmouth had been penetrated. They didn't want to admit that McCarthy was right in his accusations. Their only alternative was to move the installation from New Jersey to a new location in Arizona.

Q. Speaking of the Army, who was the dentist that McCarthy said was a communist?
A. His name was Irving Peress and here is some background information. In December 1953, an Army general alerted Senator McCarthy to the incredible story of this New York dentist who was drafted into the Army as a captain in October 1952; who refused a month later to answer questions on a Defense Department form about membership in subversive organizations; who was recommended for dismissal by the Surgeon General of the Army in April 1953; but who requested and received a promotion to major the following October. Roy Cohn gave the facts on Peress to Army Counsel John G. Adams in December 1953, and Adams promised to do something about it.

When still no action had been taken on Peress a month later, McCarthy subpoenaed him before the committee on January 30, 1954. Peress took the Fifth Amendment 20 times when asked about his membership in the Communist Party, his attendance at a Communist training school, and his efforts to recruit military personnel into the party. Two days later, McCarthy sent a letter to Army Secretary Robert Stevens by special messenger, reviewing the testimony of Peress and requesting that he be court-martialed and that the Army find out who promoted Peress, knowing that he was a communist. On that same day, February 1st, Peress asked for an honorable separation from the Army, which he promptly received the next day from Brigadier General Ralph W. Zwicker, his commanding officer at Camp Kilmer, New Jersey.

McCarthy took the next logical step and summoned General Zwicker to a closed session of the committee on February 18th. There was no reason at that time for McCarthy to suppose that Zwicker would be anything but a frank and cooperative witness. In separate conversations with two McCarthy staff members, on January 22nd and February 13th, Zwicker had said that he was familiar with Peress' communist connections and that he was opposed to giving him an honorable discharge, but that he was ordered to do so by someone at the Pentagon.

When he appeared before McCarthy, however, Zwicker was evasive, hostile, and uncooperative. He changed his story three times when asked if he had known at the time he signed the discharge that Peress had refused to answer questions before the McCarthy Committee. McCarthy became increasingly exasperated and, when Zwicker, in response to a hypothetical question, said that he would not remove from the military a general who originated the order for the honorable discharge of a communist major, knowing that he was a communist, McCarthy told Zwicker that he was not fit to wear the uniform of a general.

Q. So McCarthy really did "abuse" Zwicker and impugn his patriotism as the critics have charged?
A. Let's jump ahead three years and get Zwicker's own assessment of his testimony on February 18, 1954. At a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 21, 1957, Zwicker stated: "I think there are some circumstances ... that would certainly tend to give a person the idea that perhaps I was recalcitrant, perhaps I was holding back, and perhaps I wasn't too cooperative.... I am afraid I was perhaps overcautious and perhaps on the defensive, and that this feeling ... may have inclined me to be not as forthright, perhaps, in answering the questions put to me as I might have been otherwise."

That wasn't the only time that General Zwicker was less than forthright. In testimony before the McClellan Committee (formerly the McCarthy Committee) on March 23, 1955, Zwicker denied giving McCarthy staffer George Anastos derogatory information about Irving Peress in their telephone conversation of January 22, 1954. When Anastos and the secretary who had monitored the conversation both testified under oath and contradicted Zwicker, the McClellan Committee forwarded the transcript of the hearing to the Justice Department for possible prosecution of Zwicker for perjury. After sitting on the matter for 19 months, the Justice Department finally, in December 1956, declined to undertake criminal prosecution of Zwicker for "technical" reasons.

On April 1, 1957, the Senate approved a promotion for Zwicker by a vote of 70 to 2, with Senators McCarthy and George Malone opposed. All the members of the Senate had gotten a phone call from the Pentagon or the White House urging them to vote for Zwicker. The recalcitrant General served three more years in the Army before retiring.

Q. Does anyone know who promoted Peress and told Zwicker to sign the communist major's honorable discharge?
A. After studying the 1955 McClellan hearings on the Peress case, Lionel Lokos, in his book Who Promoted Peress, concluded that Colonel H.W. Glattly signed the letter to the Adjutant General, recommending the promotion of Irving Peress; and Major James E. Harris, in the name of the Adjutant General, signed Peress' letter of appointment to major.

As for Peress' discharge, Army Counsel John Adams and Lieutenant General Walter L. Weible ordered General Zwicker to sign the honorable separation from the Army. The McClellan Committee sharply rebuked Adams for his action, saying that he "showed disrespect for this subcommittee when he chose to disregard Senator McCarthy's letter of February 1, 1954, and allowed Peress to be honorably discharged on February 2, 1954."'

In its report on the Peress case, the McClellan Committee said that "some 48 errors of more than minor importance were committed by the Army in connection with the commissioning, transfer, promotion, and honorable discharge of Irving Peress." As a result, the Army made some sweeping changes in its security program, including a policy statement that said "the taking of the Fifth Amendment by an individual queried about his Communist affiliations is sufficient to warrant the issuance of a general discharge rather than an honorable discharge." That these reforms came about at all was due to the persistence of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who displayed the courage to expose Peress against the wishes of the Army, the White House, and many of his fellow Republicans. "No one will ever know," wrote Lionel Lokos, "what it cost Senator McCarthy to take the stand he did in the Peress case -- what it cost him in terms of popularity and his political future. We only know that the price of asking 'Who Promoted Peress' came high and that Senator McCarthy didn't hesitate to pay that price."

IV. Army-McCarthy Hearings

Q. What was the gist of the Army-McCarthy Hearings?
A. On March 11, 1954, the Army accused Senator McCarthy and his staff of using improper means in seeking preferential treatment for G. David Schine, a consultant to McCarthy's committee, prior to and after Schine was drafted into the Army in November 1953. McCarthy countercharged that these allegations were made in bad faith and were designed to prevent his committee from continuing its probe of communist subversion at Fort Monmouth and from issuing subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board. A special committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Karl Mundt, was appointed to adjudicate these conflicting charges, and the hearings opened on April 22, 1954.

The televised hearings lasted for 36 days and were viewed by an estimated 20 million people. After hearing 32 witnesses and two million words of testimony, the committee concluded that McCarthy himself had not exercised any improper influence in behalf of David Schine, but that Roy Cohn, McCarthy's chief counsel, had engaged in some "unduly persistent or aggressive efforts" in behalf of Schine. The committee also concluded that Army Secretary Robert Stevens and Army Counsel John Adams "made efforts to terminate or influence the investigation and hearings at Fort Monmouth," and that Adams "made vigorous and diligent efforts" to block subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board "by means of personal appeal to certain members of the [McCarthy] committee."

In a separate statement that concurred with the special committee report, Senator Everett Dirksen demonstrated the weakness of the Army case by noting that the Army did not make its charges public until eight months after the first allegedly improper effort was made in behalf of Schine (July 1953), and then not until after Senator McCarthy had made it known (January 1954) that he would subpoena members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board. Dirksen also called attention to a telephone conversation between Secretary Stevens and Senator Stuart Symington on March 8, 1954, three days before the Army allegations were made public. In that conversation, Stevens said that any charges of improper influence by McCarthy's staff "would prove to be very much exaggerated.... I am the Secretary and I have had some talks with the [McCarthy] committee and the chairman, and so on, and by and large as far as the treatment of me is concerned, I have no personal complaint."

In his 1984 book Who Killed Joe McCarthy?, former Eisenhower White House aide William Bragg Ewald Jr., who had access to many unpublished papers and memos from persons involved in the Army-McCarthy clash, confirms the good relations that existed between McCarthy and Stevens and the lack of pressure from McCarthy in behalf of Schine. In a phone conversation on November 7, 1953, McCarthy told Stevens not to give Schine any special treatment, such as putting him in the service and assigning him back to the committee. McCarthy even said that Roy Cohn had been "completely unreasonable" about Schine, that "he thinks Dave should be a general and work from the penthouse of the Waldorf."

Ewald also reported a phone conversation between Stevens and Assistant Secretary of Defense Fred Seaton on January 8, 1954, in which Stevens admitted that Schine might not have been drafted if he hadn't worked for the McCarthy Committee. "Of course, the kid was taken at the very last minute before he would have been ineligible for age," said Stevens. "He is 26, you know. My guess would be that if he hadn't been working for McCarthy, he probably never would have been drafted."

Another thing confirmed by Ewald was the secret meeting at the Justice Department on January 21, 1954, when a group of anti-McCarthyites came up with a plan to stop McCarthy either by asking the Republican members of his committee to talk him out of subpoenaing members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board or, if that didn't work, by drawing up a list of alleged efforts on behalf of David Schine and threatening to make the list public unless McCarthy backed off.

Those at the January 21st meeting were Attorney General Herbert Brownell, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Henry Cabot Lodge, Deputy Attorney General William Rogers, White House Chief of Staff Sherman Adams, White House aide Gerald Morgan, and John Adams. After John Adams inadvertently mentioned this meeting during the Army-McCarthy Hearings, and McCarthy wanted to find out more about it, President Eisenhower issued an executive order on May 17, 1954 forbidding any employee of the Defense Department "to testify to any such conversations or communications or to produce any such documents or reproductions."

Q. Did the Army-McCarthy Hearings serve any good purpose?
A. Yes. Despite the inordinate focus on trivia and the clever distractions introduced by Joseph Welch, counsel for the Army, the hearings alerted the American people as never before to the dangers of communism.

Q. How about some examples of clever distractions?
A. Let's consider three tricks pulled by Joe Welch to divert people's attention away from the central issue of communist subversion:

• The "Cropped" Photograph. On April 26th, a photo was introduced showing Secretary Stevens posing willingly for a smiling photograph with Private Schine at Fort Dix, New Jersey on November 17, 1953, a time when Stevens was supposed to be mad at Schine for seeking special treatment from the Army. Welch produced another photo the next day showing the base commander in the picture with Stevens and Schine and said that the first one was "a shamefully cut-down version." But the innocent deletion of the base commander from the photograph did not change its meaning -- that Stevens was not angry with Schine at a time that the Army said he was.

• The "Purloined" Document. On May 4th, Senator McCarthy produced a two and one-quarter-page document with the names of 34 subversives at Fort Monmouth, half of whom were still there. The document, which had been given to McCarthy by an intelligence officer in 1953, was a summary of a 15-page report that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had sent on January 26, 1951 to Major General A.R. Bolling, chief of Army Intelligence. Instead of being concerned that the Army had not acted on the FBI report and had not tried to root out the subversives at Fort Monmouth, Welch kept harping on how McCarthy got the summary and where it came from. McCarthy refused to tell him. Welch ascertained that Hoover had not written the two and one-quarter-page document in McCarthy's possession and termed it "a carbon copy of precisely nothing." In point of fact, however, the document was an accurate summary of Hoover's original report, but Welch made it appear that McCarthy was presenting phony evidence.

• The Fred Fisher Episode. On June 9th, the 30th day of the hearings, Welch was engaged in baiting Roy Cohn, challenging him to get 130 communists or subversives out of defense plants "before the sun goes down." The treatment of Cohn angered McCarthy and he said that if Welch were so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), which Attorney General Brownell had called "the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party." Welch then delivered the most famous lines from the Army-McCarthy Hearings, accusing McCarthy of "reckless cruelty" and concluding: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

The fact of the matter was that Fred Fisher's connection with the National Lawyers Guild had been widely publicized two months earlier. Page 12 of the April 16th New York Times had carried a picture of Fisher and a story about his removal from Welch's team because of his past association with the NLG. If Mr. Welch was so worried that McCarthy's remarks might inflict a lifelong "scar" on Fisher's reputation, why did he dramatize the incident in such histrionic fashion? The reason, of course, was that McCarthy had fallen into a trap in raising the Fisher issue, and Welch, superb showman that he was, played the scene for all it was worth. Was Fred Fisher hurt by the incident? Not at all. He became a partner in Welch's Boston law firm, Hale & Dorr, and was elected president of the Massachusetts Bar Association in the mid-1970s.

V. The Watkins Committee

Q. Didn't the Senate finally censure McCarthy for his conduct during the Army-McCarthy Hearings?
A. No! McCarthy was not censured for his conduct in the Army-McCarthy Hearings or for anything he had ever said or done in any hearings in which he had participated. Here are the facts: After McCarthy emerged unscathed from his bout with the Army, the Left launched a new campaign to discredit and destroy him. The campaign began on July 30, 1954, when Senator Ralph Flanders introduced a resolution accusing McCarthy of conduct "unbecoming a member of the United States Senate." Flanders, who two months earlier had told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority," had gotten his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group called the National Committee for an Effective Congress.

McCarthy's enemies ultimately accused him of 46 different counts of allegedly improper conduct and another special committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Senator Arthur Watkins, to study and evaluate the charges. Thus began the fifth investigation of Joe McCarthy in five years! After two months of hearings and deliberations, the Watkins Committee recommended that McCarthy be censured on only two of the 46 counts.

So when a special session of the Senate convened on November 8, 1954, these were the two charges to be debated and voted on: 1) That Senator McCarthy had "failed to cooperate" in 1952 with the Senate Subcommitee on Privileges and Elections that was looking into certain aspects of his private and political life in connection with a resolution for his expulsion from the Senate; and 2) That in conducting a senatorial inquiry, Senator McCarthy had "intemperately abused" General Ralph Zwicker.

Many senators were uneasy about the Zwicker count, particularly since the Army had shown contempt for committee chairman McCarthy by disregarding his letter of February 1, 1954 and honorably discharging Irving Peress the next day. For this reason, these senators felt that McCarthy's conduct toward Zwicker on February 18th was at least partially justified. So the Zwicker count was dropped at the last minute and was replaced with this substitute charge: 2) That Senator McCarthy, by characterizing the Watkins Committee as the "unwitting handmaiden" of the Communist Party and by describing the special Senate session as a "lynch party" and a "lynch bee," had "acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity."

On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to "condemn" Senator Joseph McCarthy on both counts by a vote of 67 to 22, with the Democrats unanimously in favor of condemnation and the Republicans split evenly.

Q. Was the Senate justified in condemning McCarthy on these counts?
A. No, it was not. Regarding the first count, failure to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, the subcommittee never subpoenaed McCarthy, but only "invited" him to testify. One senator and two staff members resigned from the subcommittee because of its dishonesty towards McCarthy, and the subcommittee, in its final report, dated January 2, 1953, said that the matters under consideration "have become moot by reason of the 1952 election." No senator had ever been punished for something that had happened in a previous Congress or for declining an "invitation" to testify.

As for the second count, criticism of the Watkins Committee and the special Senate session, McCarthy was condemned for opinions he had expressed outside the Senate. As David Lawrence pointed out in an editorial in the June 7, 1957 issue of U.S. News & World Report, other senators had accused McCarthy of lying under oath, accepting influence money, engaging in election fraud, making libelous and false statements, practicing blackmail, doing the work of the communists for them, and engaging in a questionable "personal relationship" with Roy Cohn and David Schine, but they were not censured for acting "contrary to senatorial ethics" or for impairing the "dignity" of the Senate.

The chief beneficiary of the Senate destruction of Joe McCarthy was the communist conspiracy. Former communist Louis Budenz, who knew the inner workings of that conspiracy as well as anyone, said that the condemnation of McCarthy left the way open "to intimidate any person of consequence who moves against the conspiracy. The communists made him their chief target because they wanted to make him a symbol to remind political leaders in America not to harm the conspiracy or its world conquest designs."

Q. Who were the 22 Republican senators who voted against the condemnation of Joe McCarthy?
A. More than a dozen senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote against him but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them by the White House and by leaders of both political parties. The 22 men who did put principle above politics were Senators Frank Barrett (Wyoming), Styles Bridges (New Hampshire), Ernest Brown (Nevada), John Marshall Butler (Maryland), Guy Cordon (Oregon), Everett Dirksen (Illinois), Henry Dworshak (Idaho), Barry Goldwater (Arizona), Bourke Hickenlooper (Iowa), Roman Hruska (Nebraska), William Jenner (Indiana), William Knowland (California), Thomas Kuchel (California), William Langer (North Dakota), George Malone (Nevada), Edward Martin (Pennsylvania), Eugene Millikin (Colorado), Karl Mundt (South Dakota), William Purtell (Connecticut), Andrew Schoeppel (Kansas), Herman Welker (Idaho), and Milton Young (North Dakota).

VI. The Years 1955-1957

Q. Did Joseph McCarthy become a recluse in the 29 months between his condemnation and his death?
A. No, he did not. He worked hard at his senatorial duties. "To insist, as some have, that McCarthy was a shattered man after the censure is sheer nonsense," s

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"The Nazis used the term "defeatist" alot to brand Germans who were beginning to seriously doubt Hitler's direction during WW2." Fascinating, I didn't know that "defeatist" was a german word.

Even if you were my idealogical twin I would not read the book you posted. Dude, remember this generation's short attention spans...

Mark in Austin,
I agree with you, there is no progressive movement. But, it does sound good and positive - hey, we're Progressive! My question is does that make everyone else Regressive? I was reading a liberal blog several weeks ago on what it means to be "liberal" and there was a lot of discussion that since "liberal" has become a derrogatory term, many would like to be known as "progressives". But nobody could nail down what that meant exactly. If you can't determine what it means to be Progressive, i don't think you can have a movement.

Posted by: Dave! | September 11, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton State Department Documents Outlined bin Laden Threat to the United States in Summer 1996

�Top Secret� Analysis Warned Clinton Administration

"[bin Laden] has Wherewithal to Strike U.S. Interests"

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released two declassified �Top Secret� State Department documents that warned Clinton administration officials of the activities and influence of Osama bin Laden following his alleged �expulsion� from Sudan in May 1996. The documents, authored by the State Department�s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, discuss bin Laden�s travels, his prolonged stay in Afghanistan, financial networks, anti-Western threats in press interviews, ties to the Khobar Towers bombing and bin Laden�s �emboldened� threats against U.S. interests.

The State Department documents were produced to Judicial Watch last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed with the State Department on December 11, 2001 concerning the government of Sudan�s reported offer to share intelligence files on Osama bin Laden. The Clinton administration also reportedly rebuffed an offer by Sudanese officials to turn bin Laden himself over to the U.S.

According to the declassified documents, bin Laden�s many passports and his private plane allow him considerable freedom to travel �with little fear of being intercepted or tracked.� Bin Laden reportedly even traveled to London where he gave a press interview subsequent to his departure from Sudan. The report also warns that bin Laden�s prolonged stay in Afghanistan �could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum.� One analysis document, dated July 18, 1996, asks the provocative question: �Terrorism/Usama bin Ladin: Who�s Chasing Whom.�

The documents predict that even if bin Laden were forced to keep on the move, it would prove no more than an inconvenience since, �. . . his informal and transnational network of businesses and associates remains resilient.� The report goes on to explain that bin Ladin on the move, �. . .can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost worldwide.�

�This is not a case of hindsight being 20/20,� said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. �These documents prove the Clinton administration knew the danger Osama bin Laden posed to the United States back in 1996 and yet failed to take any meaningful action to stop him.�

Click here to read the actual Clinton State Department documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, and click here to read a New York Times article written about Judicial Watch�s discovery.
August 17, 2005
State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat.

Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents.

Adam Ereli, a spokesman for the State Department, said the documents should be viewed in the context of what was happening globally in 1996, rather than in the hindsight of events after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In 1996, Mr. Ereli said, "the question was getting him out of Sudan."

"The priority was to deny him safe haven, period, and to disrupt his activities any way you could," he continued. "There was a lot we didn't know, and the priority was to keep him on the run, keep him on guard, and try to maximize the opportunities to nail him."

Before the East Africa bombings in 1998, however, Mr. bin Laden "wasn't recognized then as the threat he is now," Mr. Ereli said. "Yes, he was a bad guy, he was a threat, but he was one of many, and by no means of the prominence that he later came to be."

The State Department assessment, written July 18, 1996, after Mr. bin Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was thought to be relocating to Afghanistan, said Afghanistan would make an "ideal haven" for Mr. bin Laden to run his financial networks and attract support from radicalized Muslims. Moreover, his wealth, his personal plane and many passports "allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked," and his public statements suggested an "emboldened" man capable of "increased terrorism," the assessment said.

While a strategy of keeping Mr. bin Laden on the run could "inconvenience" him, the assessment said, "even a bin Laden on the move can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost world-wide."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office. The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks.

Michael F. Scheuer, who from 1996 to 1999 led the Central Intelligence Agency unit that tracked Mr. bin Laden, said the State Department documents reflected a keen awareness of the danger posed by Mr. bin Laden's relocation.

"The analytical side of the State Department had it exactly right - that's genius analysis," he said in an interview when told of the declassified documents. But Mr. Scheuer, who wrote a book in 2004 titled "Imperial Hubris," under the pseudonym "Anonymous," that was highly critical of American counterterrorism strategies, said many officials in the C.I.A.'s operational side thought they would have a better chance to kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan than they did in Sudan because the Sudan government protected him.

"The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."

Vanity Fair Credits NewsMax for Clinton's bin Laden Woes

The June edition of Vanity Fair is hitting newsstands and it credits for most of Clinton's post-9/11 woes.

While ex-President Clinton has managed to rise above most of the scandals that characterized his White House years, Vanity Fair magazine says that the episode that continues to damage his legacy most is a recording by of Clinton's admission that he turned down a deal for Osama bin Laden's arrest in 1996.

"The hardest charge to dismiss is the most devastating," reports Vanity Fair in its June issue. "Five years before 9/11, it was said, Osama bin Laden had been presented to Bill Clinton on a silver platter, and he refused to take him."

Before NewsMax released its smoking-gun tape, Vanity Fair says, Clinton officials such as former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger denied up and down that Sudan had any intention of extraditing bin Laden.

Others, such as U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney, however, claimed otherwise.

"Who was right hadn't been resolved when Clinton addressed a businessman's group on Long Island on February 15, 2002," the magazine said. "A tape recording obtained by the right wing Web site captured Clinton saying the following:

"'Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

"'They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"'So I pleaded with the Saudis to take take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato.'"

Though there was ample intelligence and evidence that bin Laden indeed had been behind attacks against Americans, contradicting Clinton's claim, Vanity Fair noted, "Although the [Clinton] admission passed without notice in most of the mainstream media, the damage was done.

"According to a January 2002 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who thought history would rate Clinton's presidency as 'poor' was more than half again what it had been the year before."

Two years later, the infamous tape continues to haunt the Democratic Party's most popular figure.

Vanity Fair notes that when Clinton was grilled about his bin Laden admission by the 9/11 Commission last month, he called it "a misquote," apparently hoping the commissioners didn't know it was on tape.

As NewsMax noted at the time, after 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey compared Clinton's testimony to his February 2002 remarks, he told a radio interviewer, "[This is] much different from what we heard."

Kudos to Vanity Fair for covering the bombshell the mainstream press has tried to bury for more than two years.

We think it's an important part of the historical backdrop to America's darkest day ever - and we trust Vanity Fair's readers will think so too.

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:53 p.m. EDT

Clinton Denies Taped bin Laden Admission, Blames 'Misquote'

During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey.

"Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.

A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton's bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.

After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said: "But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I've heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that."

"Really?" said a perplexed Kerrey. "Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn't have a recollection of that."

Clinton made the bombshell admission to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002. Though the LIA videotaped his appearance, the group has refused requests for copies from NBC News, Fox News and NewsMax.

Though NewsMax has the only publicly available recording of Clinton's remarks that day, they were also reported by Newsday the next day.

Transcript of Clinton's admission:

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. [End of Excerpt]

To hear ex-President Clinton make the admission that he denied making to the 9/11 Commission, Click Here.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Saddam Hussein violated numerous United Nations resolutions following the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam's military continuously shot at U.S. and British planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. He offered $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. We know he possessed chemical and biological weapons because he used them during the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people, the Kurds.

-- The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" -- the highest certainty allowed -- that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. All 16 intelligence agencies contributing to the NIE unanimously agreed on the chemical and biological weapons assumptions, with disagreement only on how far along Saddam was toward acquiring nukes.

-- Weapons inspectors found no WMD stockpiles, leading many Americans to feel that the president either lied or cherry-picked intelligence to lead us into war. But the Robb-Silverman Commission concluded that the president didn't lie. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report concluded that the president did not lie. The British Butler Commission, which examined whether Prime Minister Tony Blair "sexed up" the intelligence to make a case for war, concluded the PM didn't lie.

-- Kenneth Pollack, an opponent of the Iraq war, served as Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton administration. Pollack writes that during his 1999-2001 tour on the National Security Council, " . . . the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. . . . The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. . . . Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. . . . Germany . . . Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. . . . In sum, (SET ITAL) no one (END ITAL) doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

-- Meanwhile, neighboring Iran defiantly pursues nuclear weapons. Bush reasoned that a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq would destabilize Iran, accomplishing regime change without military force. This would encourage the rest of the Arab world to direct their grievances toward their own leaders, rather than against the "infidels."

-- We remain in Iraq because, as former Secretary of State James Baker put it, "[I]f we picked up and left right now . . . you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."

-- Former Secretary of State and informal Bush adviser Henry Kissinger -- who knows something about the consequences of cutting and running -- wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."

-- The political aim of our Islamofascist enemies is a worldwide Caliphate, or Islamic world. Renowned Islam expert Bernard Lewis recently reiterated his support for the war: "The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise [to bin Laden and his followers]. They were expecting more of the same -- bleating and apologies -- instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. . . . [T]he effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us."

True, 2,800 of our best have died. Any figure above zero is a tragedy. But America -- on both sides of the Civil War -- lost more than 600,000 soldiers, or 2 percent of the country's population of 31 million. Of our country's 132 million, we lost more than 400,000 in World War II, or .3 percent of our population. In the Korean War, we lost 37,000, and the Vietnam War saw 58,000 dead.

Many people say that after failing to find stockpiles of WMD, Bush "switched" rationale for the war. Consider this excerpt from a New York Times editorial about a speech Bush gave weeks before the coalition entered Iraq:

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Posted by: SAM | September 11, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are outraged over President Bush's new series of national security speeches. There he goes again, politicizing the war.

The Democratic leadership obviously believes the president should muzzle himself so close to the November elections, because what is important for national security might also help Republicans and that must be avoided at all costs.

Democrats are furious over Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion this week, in which he compared today's appeasers to those of the World War II era and warned that we mustn't turn a blind eye to today's terrorists the way many did to yesterday's Nazis.

Such talk is off-limits because it offends the appeasers, who, by the way, deny they're appeasers, insisting they're "tough and smart" scavengers on the hunt for the only terrorist on the planet, Osama bin Laden. His capture or death, they imply, will shut down terrorism in its tracks like a redheaded stepchild and put an end to this reckless, recreational neoconservative global gallivanting.

So, let's cease further discussion of the most important issue of the day. Let's put our history books back on the shelves and consign ourselves to repeat the painful and costly mistake of ignoring the relentless march of evil in the world.

In fact, Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating, they might consider that it is the commander in chief's duty to rally popular support for the troops and their mission.

Of course, the president's task wouldn't be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn't been undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady stream of disinformation, focusing on the false charge that he lied us into war.

They explain their sudden affinity for the truth � in contrast to their cynically dismissive attitude toward it during the Clinton years � as a matter of the singular importance of the war. While lying per se isn't particularly wrong under their relativist standards � and lying about adulterous relations is even virtuous to protect one's family � lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of moral absolutism.

This distinction is interesting given their own pattern of deceit concerning all aspects of the war. Let's review, shall we?

They said Bush attacked Iraq "unilaterally," when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain, and tried hard to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they refused. A unilateralist wouldn't have bothered.
They deny that Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, such as Saddam's Iraq.
They claim that Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and 9/11, when he explicitly said otherwise. He said Saddam had close ties to terrorists, including al-Qaida and the Taliban, which is undeniably true and which Democrats also persist in falsely denying. Indeed, Iraq was on Clinton's watch list of terrorist nations.
They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat," when he called it a "great and gathering threat." The Bush Doctrine called for attacking threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, did call Iraq an "imminent threat."

They say Bush's sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact, David Horowitz notes there were 23 "whereas" clauses in the Iraq War resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions.
They say they were duped into voting for the resolution by administration hype on WMD. But the intelligence Congress received in the National Intelligence Estimate was much less alarmist and more nuanced than the intelligence the president received in the Presidential Daily Briefings. But hey, they had to give their anti-war base some excuse.
They say we had Osama surrounded in Tora Bora and let him go, outsourcing the job of capturing him to Afghan warlords so we could pursue our quixotic junket in Iraq. General Tommy Franks put the lie to all of this malicious nonsense.
On the hyped Wilson/Plame nonscandal � don't get me started.
Most unforgivably, they've lied in painting President Bush as a liar on Iraqi WMD.
There's much more � like their simultaneous condemnation of and advocacy for pre-emptive strikes � but no space left.
Next time you hear Democrats say they abhor lies "about war," remember a few of these gems.

The Carter Legacy
The Fifth Column Mark Silverberg
September 7, 2006
Thirty years after Jimmy Carter bounced onto the world stage as the leader of the Free World's most powerful democracy, it is increasingly apparent that he still doesn't know what went wrong. During his four years in the White House, the former President presided over the worst economic downturn since World War II establishing what has come to be known as "the misery index", allowed a bunch of Iranian thugs to seize our embassy and citizens without serious consequences and supported dictators and despots around the world all the while proclaiming himself as the "human rights" president. During his tenure, he presided over a dramatic Soviet military buildup, the stagnation of the American armed forces (especially our intelligence capabilities), and a dramatic expansion of Soviet influence in the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, southern Africa, and the Caribbean. In each of those countries and regions, his administration not only failed to prevent the undesired outcome, but was an active collaborator in the replacement of moderate autocrats friendly to American interests with autocrats considerably less so. Yet, bad as he was as a President, he continues to be far worse as an ex-president. A political neophyte when it came to conducting domestic and foreign affairs, Carter was and continues to be way out of his depth.

In Iran, Carter tried to appease the mullahs who held forty-four Americans hostages. In many ways, Iran represented the quintessential Carter Doctrine - accommodation and compromise in the face of adversity. Initially, the Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran by lifting a ban on the sale of arms and materiel and dusting off a 1954 presidential finding during the Eisenhower years reaffirming Washington's commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats, but when pleading for the release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds failed, his administration became paralyzed. What especially surprised Khomeini was that Carter and his aides, notably Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, rather than condemning the seizure and the treatment of the hostages as a barbaric act, appeared apologetic for unspecified mistakes supposedly committed by the United States and asked for forgiveness and magnanimity.

Amir Taheri recalls that this surprising show of weakness from Washington encouraged Khomeini and his Revolutionary Guards to come up with fresh demands almost each day. The episode soon led to a demand for the United States to capture and hand over the Shah for trial. When signals came that Washington might actually consider doing so, other demands were advanced. The United States was asked to apologize to Muslim peoples everywhere and, in effect, change its foreign policy to please the ayatollah.
As Americans were tying yellow ribbons around trees, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini disclosed that he had no fear of an American army marching on Tehran or bombing Iranian oil installations. "Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing," Khomeini told his followers three days after the embassy takeover. "America is far too impotent to interfere in a military way here. If they could have interfered, they would have saved the Shah." The ayatollah was right. Carter contented himself with imposing ineffectual diplomatic and economic sanctions that included an embargo on Iranian oil and a break in diplomatic relations.

"As Americans were tying yellow ribbons around trees, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini disclosed that he had no fear of an American army marching on Tehran or bombing Iranian oil installations. 'Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing,' Khomeini told his followers three days after the embassy takeover. 'America is far too impotent to interfere in a military way here. If they could have interfered, they would have saved the Shah.' The ayatollah was right."

Finally, after nearly five months of dithering, Carter attempted an ineffective rescue mission, but the pathetic Eagle Claw expedition had to be aborted on April 25, 1980 after two US aircraft collided in the Iranian desert. He rejected suggestions to invade Iran, or at the very least, to seek UN support, to stop the importation of Iranian oil, to freeze Iranian assets or bomb Iran�s major military assets or its main government buildings or even capture its oil facilities and other important targets. This, he feared, would lead to the hostages being killed - a distinct possibility but, over the long term, a decision that would have cost far fewer American lives in the coming decades.

Carter saw his decision as pragmatic and humane. Khomeini saw it as weakness (as have our enemies ever since). By dangling and then retracting the hope of releasing the hostages, Carter was perceived as weak and overmatched. In the end, Khomeini ordered the US flag to be painted at the entrance of airports, railway stations, ministries, factories, schools, hotels and bazaars so that the faithful could trample it under their feet every day - the ultimate insult. America had lost more than its prestige in the eyes of its enemies; it had lost its credibility. Over the next three decades, this perception of weakness and vulnerability would ultimately lead to the events of September 11, 2001.

And Carter's approach to the Soviet Union was no different. He lectured Americans on the foolishness of their "fear of communism" and the Soviets responded by invading Afghanistan. In his book, "Living Faith", Carter proudly recalls how he formulated his Soviet policy by sitting in the Oval Office studying "a big globe," endeavoring to see the world "through Soviet eyes". There, across the ocean, was the "beleaguered" Leonid Brezhnev, trapped "in a closed society, surrounded by frozen seas, powerfully armed enemies, and doubtful allies." In a scathing 2002 review of the book, Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary writes that a primary Carter consideration when negotiating with the Soviet dictator was trying (as Carter put it) "to alleviate (Brezhnev's) concerns." The tyrants of the 20th century would have been thrilled had earlier US Presidents shown such "understanding".

In one session, where Carter questioned the Soviets' record on human rights, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko turned the tables and delivered a lecture on the Soviet Union's free medical care, zero unemployment and absence of homelessness. "I couldn't argue," Mr. Carter admits. "We each had a definition of human rights and differences like this must be recognized and understood." He obviously never read The Gulag Archipelago?

Carter was fully aware that human-rights abuses were more prevalent in the Soviet bloc than in authoritarian third-world countries, yet he avoided criticism of Communist abuses because he was afraid of offending the Kremlin. In his personal diary, he wrote: "It's important that he [Brezhnev] understand the commitment I have is to human rights...and that it is not an antagonistic attitude of mine toward the Soviet Union." What Carter failed to "understand" - and probably still does not - is that dictators and despots are not motivated by altruistic attitudes. There is nothing for us to "understand" other than the need for American foreign policy to reflect antagonism towards dictatorships that abuse human rights to remain in power.

As the "human rights president," Carter recalled that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was "a man who believed in human rights" and saluted the dictator as "a great and courageous leader" who had led his people and protected their freedom." He reserved similar remarks for Romania's (now deposed Communist) dictator Nicholai Ceaucescu. In December 1977, Polish Communist boss Edward Giereck was ushered into the Oval Office. According to the White House transcript of the meeting, he told Gierek, "Our concept of human rights is preserved (read: safe) in Poland. Carter actually "expressed appreciation for Poland's support for the Helsinki Agreement and its commitment to human rights" despite the fact that, one month earlier, the Polish secret police had attacked thousands of workers protesting food price increases. Hundreds were arrested, imprisoned and savagely beaten.

Peter Schweizer, writing in the National Review, has been especially critical of Carter in his efforts to seek the aid of America's enemies to support his positions at home. Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin recounts in his memoirs how, in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched Armand Hammer to the Soviet embassy. Explaining to the Soviet Ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan, Hammer asked for help - Could the Kremlin expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls? "Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin. According to Georgii Kornienko, first deputy foreign minister at the time, something similar took place in 1976, when Carter sent Averell Harriman to Moscow. Harriman sought to assure the Soviets that Carter would be "easier to deal with" than Ford, clearly inviting Moscow to do what it could through public diplomacy to help his campaign. And in January 1984, Dobrynin recounts an incident when the former president dropped by his residence for a private meeting. Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and went on to explain that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power." Is it any wonder that this man's presidency ended in disaster?

Which brings us to Carter's life after his Presidency.

As Jay Nordlinger notes in the National Review Online (October, 2002), "Carter has long enjoyed a reputation as a Middle East sage, owing, of course, to his role in the Camp David accords. But what exactly was his role? Nordlinger points out that Sadat and Begin had worked out most of their deal prior to approaching Washington. Why did they contact the White House? Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Princeton University put it succinctly, �Well, obviously, they needed someone to pay the bill, and who but the United States could fulfill that function?� Truth is, no one quite realizes just how passionately anti-Israel Carter was (and probably still is - which explains his anti-Israel remarks on the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war). William Safire has reported and Cyrus Vance has acknowledged that, if Carter had had a second term, he would have "sold Israel down the river."

Unbelievably, Carter even volunteered to be Arafat's speechwriter and go-fer, crafting "palatable messages" for Arafat's Western audiences and convincing the Saudis to continue funding Arafat after the Palestinians sided with Iraq against the United States in the first Gulf War. In The Unfinished Presidency, Douglas Brinkley, Carter's biographer and analyst writes, �There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yassir Arafat.� The former president �felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition with unremitting sixteen-hour days, seven days a week, decade after decade.� �The brutality, the corruption, the deceit and the human rights abuses to which Arafat and his PLO subjected the Palestinian people were, at best peripheral, and at worst, the fault of the Israelis. At their first meeting - in 1990 - Carter boasted of his toughness toward Israel, assuring Arafat at one point, � should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis.� Arafat, for his part, railed against the Reagan administration. Rosalynn Carter, taking notes for her husband, interjected, �You don�t have to convince us!� Brinkley records that this �elicited gales of laughter all round.� Carter himself, according to Brinkley, �agreed that the Reagan administration was not renowned as promise keepers" - an interesting observation to be shared with an arch-terrorist.

Not since Teddy Roosevelt has an ex-President acted with such unorthodox lack of restraint and decorum for a sitting President. Jonah Goldberg, in his May, 2002 article in the National Review, notes that while the first President Bush was trying to orchestrate an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the UN Security Council - including Mitterrand�s France and Communist China - asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts. Nor was this event unique.

Recently, in an interview with the London Sunday Telegraph, Carter mocked Prime Minister Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W. Bush in dealing with Iraq and the worldwide threat of Islamic terrorism. At one point, he told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras, he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country," and conducted talks with men like Syria's Hafez al-Assad, and North Korea's Kim II Sung both of whom, he writes, "have at times been misunderstood, ridiculed, and totally condemned by the American public." Part of the reason is "their names are foreign, not Anglo-Saxon," he observes. In 1994, Carter brokered an Agreed Framework between the Clinton administration and North Korea that contained vague provisos and omitted any serious sanctions should North Korea develop nuclear weapons in violation of the Agreement (which it did). When the Clinton administration tried to impose sanctions, Carter argued that it was "likely" to provoke a war because, as Schoenfeld recalls, the North Korean people "could not accept the branding...of their revered, almost worshipped, president (then Kim Il Sung) as a criminal."

This knack for coddling dictators and blessing their elections showed itself in the famous 1990 election in Nicaragua, where he openly hungered for a Sandinista victory as a way of discrediting the Reagan-Bush support for the Contras. While consistently downplaying reports of Sandinista pre-election thuggery and voter intimidation, Carter returned to the US bitterly disappointed that his Sandinista friends had been rejected by the Nicaraguans.

In May 2002, his quest for greater understanding led the former President to Cuba for a well publicized meeting with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Joel Mowbray, referring to the Carter visit noted: �Carter lavishe(d) praise on Cuba�s �superb systems of health care and universal education," but the human rights president neglected to discuss the 3,000 political prisoners in Castro's jails.

Two years later, in August 2004, despite widespread reports of irregularities, evidence of fraud and murders committed by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's brown-shirted street gangs, Carter certified the widely condemned referendum which suggested that Chavez had won when, in fact, exit polls found that 59% of Venezuelans opposed Chavez.

Nor did his efforts to undermine US foreign policy stop there. A day after the terrorist group Hamas emerged victorious in the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006, Carter urged the international community to support the terrorist government and provide financial assistance to it in direct contravention to the policies of the current administration that require Hamas to renounce its stated intention to destroy Israel as a condition for the restoration of normal diplomatic and economic relations. �At least they aren't corrupt,� Carter said of the terrorist organization. Right. They�re just ordinary mass murderers waiting for their chance to finish what the Holocaust began.

And two months later, Carter announced he had made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba that he would fight to undermine US opposition to the new UN Human Rights Commission (that was opposed by the United States) because it would continue to allow nations known to abuse human rights to serve on it. (In May 2001, a group of nations led by despots and dictators voted the United States off the UN Human Rights Commission choosing instead the Sudan!)...and in a recent interview with Germany�s Der Spiegel, he expressed concern that Arab hatred of the United States will continue to grow given the Bush administration�s support for what he called Israel�s �unjustified attack� on Lebanese civilians. What he was really saying was that the United States should cut off support for Israel because Israel had the audacity to defend itself. Never mind that Hezbollah exists to destroy Israel, acts as an Iranian surrogate in America's larger war against Islamic fascism, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, indiscriminately bombed Israel's civilian population, has indoctrinated over 2,000 children barely ten years old to become suicide bombers, used Lebanese civilians as human shields, controls southern Lebanon and represents the prototype of post-modern warfare that Iran intends to use against US and Western interests across the Middle East. In the eyes of the Carter Doctrine, this is all the fault of Israel.

The tragedy is that, after thirty years of being on the world stage, our former President still doesn�t get it. Gabriel Schoenfeld, in his review, notes that the philosophy of the Carter Center (according to Carter himself) is to "encourage the use of dialogue to resolve disputes - which runs against the American grain...We tend to see conflicts in terms of friend-enemy, angel-devil, and this is one of the major impediments to world peace." No wonder Khomeini mocked the man. That is exactly how the Islamic fascists see the world - Dar al Islam vs. Dar al Harb - the world of Islam (peace through submission to Islam) vs. the world of the infidels (the abode of war for those who reject such submission). What Carter sees as moral righteousness, our enemies see as naivety. What Carter sees as understanding and compromise, our enemies see as weakness and an opportunity to advance their interests at Western expense.

So what conclusions are we to draw? There are times when it becomes necessary to confront an enemy, not with words, psychoanalysis and empathy, but through force, determination and conviction. We would be wiser and safer if we understood that some of our enemies do not necessarily share our values or our goals anymore than they share our history and our culture. "Building bridges of understanding" with the communist dictators of yesterday or the secular dictators and religious Islamo-fascists of today only makes a mockery of the American democratic system and threatens the civilized world. As Steven Hayward wrote in FrontPageMagazine recently, Carter �has never been content to let his four years of ruinous rule be his last public deed.� One thing is certain - the Nobel Peace Prize Committee disgraced itself in 2002 when it rewarded Jimmy Carter for his misplaced moral righteousness while its chairman denounced the President of the United States for taking a stand against tyranny.

Mark Silverberg is an attorney with Degrees in Political Science and International Relations. A former member of the Justice Department, Mr. Silverberg served as a consultant to the Secretary General of the Jewish Agency (Jerusalem, Israel) and is a listed author with the Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel. His works on Islamic terrorism, American foreign policy and Middle East affairs have been published in numerous scholarly journals, periodicals, newspapers and on the Internet. His book "The Quartermaster of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad" (Wyndham Hall Press, 2005).

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.

And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. [You can listen to the tape yourself -- Click Here

Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden.

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."

During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.
At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.

Then came the bombshell offer:

"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.

A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.

On Feb. 4, 1996, for instance - two days before Ambassador Carney's key meeting with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the president was focused not on Osama bin Laden, but instead on the 23-year-old White House intern.

Their rendezvous that day included a sexual encounter followed by a leisurely chat between Clinton and Lewinsky, as the two "sat and talked [afterward] for about 45 minutes," according to the Starr Report.

Later in the afternoon that same day, as Sudanese officials weighed their decision to offer bin Laden to the U.S., Clinton found time to call Lewinsky "[to say] he had enjoyed their time together." If there were any calls from Clinton to the State Department or Khartoum that day, the records have yet to surface in published reports.

The Feb. 4 encounter with Lewinsky followed a period of intense contact detailed in the Starr report in interviews with the former White House intern, including a sexual encounter on Jan. 6, 1996, several sessions of phone sex during the week of Jan. 14 - 21, and another sexual encounter on Jan. 21.

Sudan's offer to the U.S. for bin Laden's extradition remained on the table for at least a month, and was reiterated by Sudanese officials who traveled to Washington as late as March 10, 1996.

On March 3, Sudan's Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa met secretly with Ambassador Carney, another State Department official and the CIA's Africa bureau Director of Operations at an Arlington, Va., hotel, according to Miniter's book.

Erwa was handed a list of issues the U.S. wanted taken care of if relations were to improve. The list included a demand for information on bin Laden's terrorist network inside Sudan.

Erwa replied that he would have to consult with Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir about the list. When he returned for a March 10, 1996 meeting with the CIA's Africa bureau chief, "Erwa would be empowered to make an extraordinary offer," writes Miniter.

On instructions from its president, the government of Sudan agreed to arrest bin Laden and hand him over to U.S law enforcement at a time and place of the Clinton administration's choosing. "Where should we send him?" Erwa asked the CIA representative.

In his 2002 speech President Clinton has acknowledged being fully briefed on the Sudanese efforts to turn over the 9/11 mastermind, admitting that he made the final decision to turn the offer down.

As chronicled in the Starr report, however, Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky proved to be a growing distraction around this time.

Two weeks before the secret meeting between Erwa, Carney and the CIA bureau chief, the president summoned Lewinsky to the White House to inform her that he "no longer felt right" about their relationship and it would have to be suspended until after the election.

Lewinsky explained, however, that Clinton's decision to put their relationship on hold did little to change its basic character, telling Starr's investigators, "There'd continue to be this flirtation when we'd see each other."

The Starr report noted, "In late February or March [1996], the president telephoned her at home and said he was disappointed that, because she had already left the White House for the evening, they could not get together."

The call, Lewinsky said, "sort of implied to me that he was interested in starting up again."

On March 10, 1996, as Sudanese Defense Minister Erwa was making his extraordinary offer for bin Laden's arrest to the CIA's Africa bureau chief, Clinton met with Lewinsky in the White House.

The Starr report:

"On March 10, 1996, Ms. Lewinsky took a visiting friend, Natalie Ungvari, to the White House. They bumped into the president, who said when Ms. Lewinsky introduced them, 'You must be her friend from California.' Ms. Ungvari was 'shocked' that the president knew where she was from."

Though there was no physical contact that day, three weeks later, on March 31, 1996, Clinton resumed his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

It was around this time, the president later admitted, that he was involved in delicate negotiations to try to persuade Riyadh to take bin Laden, after refusing to accept his extradition to the U.S.

"I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton admitted in the 2002 speech. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

On April 7, 1996, Monica Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon. Around the same time, the administration's hunt for bin Laden finally seemed to begin in earnest. Just weeks after Clinton spurned Sudan's bin Laden offer, for instance, the CIA created a separate operational unit dedicated to tracking down bin Laden in Sudan.

But it happened too late to capture the 9/11 mastermind. On May 18, 1996, bin Laden boarded a chartered plane in Khartoum with his wives, children, some 150 al-Qaida jihadists and a cache of arms - and flew off to Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

TRANSCRIPT: Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY Feb. 15, 2002

To hear's exclusive audio recording of ex-President Clinton explaining why he turned the Sudanese offer down, Click Here.

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

SO a Hollywood consortium is planning on making left-wing films and advertisements?
What's new about that?

Posted by: JohnnyT | September 11, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Newly declassified documents shed light:

Drudge has three links to the news about Norman Hsu apparently a big time donor to Democratic candidates, and Hillary Clinton in particular. Hsu has donated over $600,000 to various candidates, but what is interesting is that his income appears to be a complete mystery. Further, there is an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest in a fraud case, and that Hsu has now been taken into custody and held on $2 million bond.

Hsu appeared in court accompanied by a lawyer and publicist, both of whom declined to say whether the New York apparel executive would immediately post bail. A warrant was issued for his arrest after he skipped the sentencing for a 1991 grand theft charge.

Publicist? This is sure looking like it will be interesting to watch. Needless to say all the candidates that Hsu has donated to, either directly, or through what appears to be proxies, have been scrambling to hand the money over to charities.

The Clinton campaign has said it will give to charity $23,000 that Mr. Hsu contributed, and yesterday representatives of Mr. Spitzer and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, who received $50,000 from Mr. Hsu, said they would do the same. A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who is a rival of Mrs. Clinton for the party's presidential nomination, said Mr. Obama intended to give away $7,000 that Mr. Hsu contributed to his committees.

Hsu appears to be a complete mystery both in where he lives and where his businesses are located.

People who met him said they knew only that he ran an apparel business. Efforts to learn more about his trade hit dead-ends yesterday. Visits to companies at addresses listed by Mr. Hsu on campaign finance records provided little information. There were no offices in buildings in New York's garment district whose addresses were given for businesses with names like Components Ltd., Cool Planets, Next Components, Coopgors Ltd., NBT and Because Men's clothing -- all listed by Mr. Hsu in federal filings at different times.

Let me think here. Skips town to avoid going to jail. Heads back to Hong Kong. Turns up back in the U.S. with buckets of money for the Democrats and nobody is thinking that the Chinese government might be behind it?

Clinton Administration Sold to China Systems Used by Iraq
Charles R. Smith
Friday, Feb. 23, 2001
The Clinton administration authorized the transfer of a fiber-optic air defense system to China - the same one the Pentagon claimed helped thwart U.S. air attacks against Iraq.
When U.S. warplanes struck new Iraqi air defense sites around Baghdad, Pentagon officials were mum in naming the country that sold the new air defense missile system to Saddam Hussein.

The Washington Post revealed that China was assisting Iraqi air defense, an allegation promptly denied by Iraq. According to the Post article, Chinese engineers were helping Iraq to install a network of fiber-optic communications and computers designed to track and destroy U.S. warplanes. (The export also violates U.N. weapons embargoes against Saddam.)

President Bush's national security adviser confirmed last Thursday that Chinese engineers were indeed helping Iraq.

The real story behind Iraq's high-tech buildup remains untold until now.

The Chinese fiber-optic air defense system in the Iraqi desert is in fact of U.S. origin. In 1994, Chinese spymaster Gen. Ding Henggao obtained the advanced fiber-optic system through his contacts inside the Clinton administration.

According to documents obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, in 1994 Ding was a close friend of Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry.

Perry and Ding's relationship spans three administrations. Perry reportedly met Ding in the late 1970s during the Carter administration.

By 1994, Ding had risen to command the Chinese Army military research bureau "COSTIND," or the Commission on Science Technology and Industry for National Defense.

COSTIND, according to the General Accounting Office, "oversees development of China's weapon systems and is responsible for identifying and acquiring telecommunications technology applicable for military use."

In 1994, the personal consultant to Perry teamed with Ding to buy an advanced AT&T fiber-optic communications system for "civilian" use inside China.

The communications system slipped past U.S. exports laws as a joint U.S.-Chinese commercial venture called "Hua Mei." The Chinese part of the venture was run by a newly formed firm named "Galaxy New Technology."

Stanford professor John Lewis, a close friend and the paid personal consultant for Perry, was the key board member of the project.

According to the Far Eastern Economic Review, Lewis had his friend Perry write a letter on his behalf to U.S. government officials, favoring the fiber-optic export to China.

Lewis located Adlai Stevenson III, the former Democratic senator from Illinois, to lead the American side of the joint venture. Gen. Ding's wife, Madam Nie Li, headed the joint project as the Chinese co-chairman. Lewis contracted AT&T to ship the secure communication system directly to a Chinese army unit using Galaxy New Technology as a front.

The documents show that Lewis not only worked for Stanford University and the Chinese army at the same time, but that he also worked for the U.S. Defense Department.

In August 1994, Lewis and Secretary of Defense Perry traveled to Beijing to meet with Ding. According to the official list of attendees, Lewis accompanied Perry as his paid "personal" consultant.

Chinese Firm Backed by Military

AT&T officials who sold most of the equipment and software were adamant that there was no need to check the Chinese firm because the "civilian" Madam Nie Lie led it.

Yet, the so-called civilian firm was actually packed with Chinese army officers and experts. Madam Nie Lie was not only the wife of Gen. Ding Henggao; Madam Nie was actually Lt. Gen. Nie Lie of the Chinese army.

Another member of New Galaxy Technology, according to a Defense Department document, was Director and President "Mr. Deng Changru." Deng is also known as Lt. Col. Deng Changru of the People's Liberation Army, head of the Chinese communications corps.

Still another Chinese army officer on the Galaxy New Technology staff was co-General Manager "Mr. Xie Zhichao," better known in military circles as Lt. Col. Xie Zhichao, director of the Chinese army's Electronics Design Bureau.

In 1997, Rep. Henry Hyde pressed unsuccessfully for the Department of Justice to investigate the Galaxy New Technology scandal in a letter outlining his concerns.

According to Hyde, "in 1994, sophisticated telecommunications technology was transferred to a U.S.-Chinese joint venture called HUA MEI, in which the Chinese partner is an entity controlled by the Chinese military. This particular transfer included fiber-optic communications equipment, which is used for high-speed, secure communications over long distances. Also included in the package was advanced encryption software."

In 1994, the Chinese spymaster Gen. Ding personally penetrated the U.S. Defense Department at the highest levels, using his contacts with Secretary Perry to obtain a secure fiber-optic network.

There was more than profit for Ding and his Chinese army company packed with electronics experts.

The Chinese army's Electronics Design Bureau modified the American fiber-optic communication system, changing it into a secure air-defense system. The Chinese army then exported the newly modified system to Iraq.

The Iraqi air defense network, NATO code-named "Tiger Song," is made of U.S. and French fiber-optic parts modified by the People's Liberation Army.

Iraqi missiles guided by Tiger Song regularly attack U.S. fighter jets. U.S. jets have recently retaliated, striking back with bombs and missiles.

Chinese military engineers from 2nd and 4th Signals Corps of the Chinese Army Headquarters are even now repairing the damaged Iraqi air defense system.

The cat-and-mouse game of missile and electronic combat with Saddam is expected to continue for years as the Chinese army engineers improve the deadly Tiger Song network.

In 1998, Gen. Ding retired from active service in the Chinese army.

However, he was decorated by President Jiang Zemin as a hero of the Chinese communist party for his successful operations against America.

Ding's attack on America ranks as one of the most successful espionage operations of the 20th century.

Tiger Song, the Chinese fiber-optic air defense system in the Iraqi desert, is a legacy of the Clinton years that will now need to be revisited regularly by U.S. bombers in the 21st century.

DNC Donor Tells Chinese Secrets - Clinton campaign donation case

Jennifer G. Hickey
The campaign-finance scandal figure has at last broken his silence in testimony detailing how he got large sums of money from Chinese intelligence to buy access to Clinton.

There is comic timing. There is dramatic timing. And then there is Johnny Chung timing. With the hardening of Red China's line after the bombing by NATO of Beijing's embassy in Belgrade and the blossoming scandal surrounding alleged Chinese theft of nuclear secrets from the U.S. national laboratories, Chung's testimony before the House Government Reform Committee on May 11 brought increased tension to the already taut rope that is U.S.-Sino relations.

The Chung testimony resurrected concern that contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign from China's intelligence services were to buy influence for the Beijing government. His detailed account of his role in the 1996 campaign-finance scandal was, scandal watchers are saying, a smoking gun.

After months of cooperation with the ongoing probe into the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, Chung finally broke his silence in an environment that included Rep. Henry Waxman of California and other determined Democratic Party partisans. Flanked by his lawyer, Brian Sun, and an interpreter, Chung outlined in a statement more than 30 pages long how he sought to make "business investments" by contributing $366,000 to the Democrats between 1994 and 1996. He detailed the access these donations bought him and revealed how he was used by both the Chinese and the Clintons.

Although repeatedly delayed, the testimony of the former busboy and Democratic Party fund-raiser who visited the Clinton White House on more than 50 occasions began on a political note when Chung lit into the reluctance of the congressional panel to approve campaign-finance reform. According to a Capitol Hill staffer, it was as if Al Capone had been brought to Washington to lecture congressmen on the need for better laws against bootlegging. Chung had pleaded guilty on March 16, 1998, to campaign-related charges, including acting as a "straw donor" and to tax evasion. He received five-years' probation and 3,000 hours of community service.

In an illustration of how the system has not changed, Chung said that despite having been convicted as a conduit for illegal money from the Red Chinese, "last month I received an invitation to a fund-raiser." According to the New York Times Magazine, the letter came from Al Gore 2000, a presidential campaign which has boasted about its "heightened scrutiny."

But it was Chung's role as a straw donor for Chinese intelligence, not his role as lobbyist for campaign-finance reform, that brought Chung before the committee. The focus now was upon a transfer of $300,000 on Aug. 14, 1996, from a woman named Liu Chao Ying, the head of China Aerospace International Holding Limited and a lieutenant colonel in the Peoples Liberation Army, or PLA, into Chung's Hong Kong bank account. Committee investigators say $35,000 of that sum found its way into Democratic campaign coffers.

During the next two years, Chung laid out $366,000 to Democratic Party causes, which gained him access to Clinton and administration officials. The cozy arrangement with the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, began with a meeting in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building, home to White House staff. On Aug. 2, 1994, accompanied by then-Commerce Department employee John Huang and Melinda Yee, the Democratic Party's outreach director for Asian-Americans, Chung met with administration staffer Reta Lewis ostensibly to discuss Taiwan-American issues. That evening, he attended the president's birthday-party fundraiser in Fort Washington, Md., where he was introduced to Commerce official Jude Kearney. When former commerce secretary Ron Brown led a trade trip to China in late August, Chung was on the trip and soon was in contact with Arkansas restaurateur and Clinton friend Charlie "Yah Lin" Trie. According to a committee source, Chung had been told by an official at Commerce to go out and get contributions for the DNC.

Chung become a frequent guest at fund-raisers and White House events with Chinese nationals. One such occasion was a March 11, 1995, visit to see Clinton tape his Saturday radio address. In attendance as his guests were assorted Chinese businessmen, including Zheng Hongye, the head of the PRC-run chamber of commerce. Such events provided occasions for Chung to showcase his connections, as when he took Liu with him to the July 18, 1996, DNC fund-raiser in Los Angeles. Shortly after her attendance at the event, Chung testified that Liu returned to Beijing instead of heading to Hong Kong, her original destination, so that she could tell her father [the important Communist Party official Liu Huanqing] about her trip.

When Chung went to China several weeks later with his daughter, he met again with Liu for "dinner with someone who she said was a very important man in Beijing" Introduced as Mr. Xu, the Chinese equivalent of Mr. Smith, the party official expressed to Chung his "hope [Clinton] will be reelected" and his intention to give Chung $300,000, which "You can give it to [or use it for] your president and Democrat Party." Following the conversation, Liu identified the man as Gen. Ji Shengde, chief of military intelligence for the PLA. It was Ji who had said the United States would do well to worry about a Chinese missile attack on California.

Chung's description of the conversation brought one of the few lighthearted and peculiar moments courtside. Chung would state Ji's comments in English, repeat the comments in Chinese and a translator then would convert the Chinese back into English. The surreal exercise went a little like this: Chung: "I will give you 300,000 U.S. dollars." (Repeats in Chinese.) Translator: "I'll give you 300,000 U.S. dollars."

In an Aug. 13,1996, meeting with Ji and Liu in Hong Kong, Ji said he would "wire $300,000 to your [Liu's] account and you wire it to him," according to Chung's testimony. Furthermore, Ji "said he needed a `receipt' or `report' to give `to the organization' "But was China's military intelligence chief referring to the Chinese government, and if he was, did the Democrats know? Throughout the day this was the semantic argument hashed out by the Democratic partisans.

Waxman would scoff at the idea of a "conspiracy" by the Chinese and would say Chung "got the money as part of a business transaction. He gave the donations, a small part of it in the donations, as he saw fit, and there's nothing illegal with that." In intelligence circles, as Waxman knows very well, such action is called a cutout.

While saying he did not believe the DNC was aware of the connection with Ji and his receipt of $300,000 from Liu in August 1996, Chung complained that it was grossly unfair for the DNC subsequently to encourage the judge to make a scapegoat of him when committee members knew very well that "I was doing a lot of business and cultivating friendships with people from the People's Republic of China."

And the DNC's need of Chung is eloquently evidenced in a Nov. 10, 1995, memo from the DNC's Ari Swiller, asking DNC chairman Don Fowler to call Chung concerning a donation he was to make. "Johnny committed to contribute $75,000 to the DNC at the reception in Los Angeles on September 21. He has still not sent his contribution. Tell him if he does not complete his commitment ASAP bad things will happen" said the memo. It looked like an offer Chung couldn't refuse.

Other Democrats on the panel, including Patsy Mink of Hawaii, the sole Asian-American on the committee, quibbled about Liu and Ji's intentions when they gave the money to Chung. But Indiana Republican Rep. Mark Souder, the final inquisitor, was able to shed some light on the confusion. In response to a question from Souder about whether some of that $300,000 might have been viewed "as a business investment" Chung finally tried to put the issue to rest. "As in my statement today, I always say that those people who gave me the money as an investment or a consulting fee, they all know that part of it is going to give it to the political donation for access," said Chung. That is, 10 percent or so of the "investment" would go to the Democrats.

Perhaps it was summarized best by U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of Los Angeles in his sentencing of Chung: "If Mr. [former DNC chairman Don] Fowler and Mr. [DNC finance chairman Richard] Sullivan didn't know what was going on, I think they are the dumbest politicians I've ever seen."

Sullivan even testified concerning this during the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearings in 1997. "I had a sense that [Chung] might be taking money from [Chinese businessmen] and then giving it to us" he disclosed under oath. In addition to other documentary evidence, Sullivan's name was listed as the DNC contact for two $40,000 checks received from Chung in conjunction with party fund-raisers on Dec. 3, 1994, and Dec. 19, 1994.

From the get-go, however, ranking member Waxman tried to make the issue Chung's character rather than corruption of the DNC and the Clinton-Gore campaign. Democrats on the committee were shocked, shocked, that bribery was afoot and took Chung to the woodshed for exaggerating any role he may have had in freeing human-rights activist Harry Wu from detention in China, for not recalling a meeting with committee staffers in which he was berated by California Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos and for maligning the sterling reputations of former energy secretary Hazel O'Leary, who was forced to resign amidst ethical questions, and of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former chief-of-staff Maggie Williams, whom Chung said had solicited a $50,000 donation from him inside the White House.

Williams, too, was shocked, shocked, and denied the accusation. She did acknowledge receiving the check from Chung.

At one point during Waxman's inquiry, he quoted from notes he and his staff took at a committee meeting in 1997. Chung's lawyer, Sun, quickly hammered the smarting Waxman for not allowing him to review the notes, which it turned out were taken at an "off-the-record" briefing.

But after the fireworks of 1998, it was now a "kinder, gentler" committee reminiscent more of Park Place than Melrose Place and seemingly wanting "just to move on." When he was not hissing at the abhorrent and affrontive actions of the Chinese, Lantos perused the daily newspaper as Chung outlined how the sums moved from the Chinese intelligence chief to the Democratic Party.

Including Majority Counsel Barbara Comstock, only nine Republicans and even fewer Democrats questioned Chung during the 4.5-hour hearing. The second day of hearings was canceled with no rescheduling in sight, according to the committee. However, the committee will continue to investigate the actions of a number of the Clinton Democrats who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment. Former White House aide Mark Middleton, for example, is one of 120 individuals who have invoked the Fifth or refused to testify in these alleged bribery scandals.

Chung's light sentence is said to be a result of his supposed cooperation with the Clinton Justice Department and its belief in his truthfulness, and the government in Beijing also is said to have taken his relative circumspection as a credible threat. In early 1996, before the presidential elections, a Chinese-American called Robert Luu telephoned Chung in the middle of the night. Indeed, Luu named Chung repeatedly before and after his plea agreement. But it was a call in "late April/early May of 1996" that struck a nerve. Chung says Luu relayed the message that a Cmdr. Lee "wanted to take care of" Chung. "The message was as follows: `If you keep your mouth shut, you and your family will be safe'" Chung testified. While the Chinese are "polite and indirect," Chung continued, he was being given the message that "if I did talk, I could not be certain what would happen."

Luu told Chung he was in contact with people in Beijing who "would give me money for my legal bills and said he thought it possible that Chinese political prisoners could be released if I didn't cooperate."

According to Chung, Luu introduced him to a well-connected former Watergate lawyer, identified during questioning by Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr as David Brockway. Chung said he was told this lawyer had connections "with the No. 3 at DO J," the Department of Justice, and knew Chung's presiding judge. Fearing for his life, the FBI placed Chung and his family in protective custody.

Chung also testified before the committee that former Little Rock restaurateur and Clinton friend Charlie "Yah Lin" Trie approached Beijing with a request for a $1 million payment to support Clinton. Trie, who gave $600,000 in questionable donations to the Presidential Legal Expense Trust Fund, goes to trial on May 17, charged with obstructing the Senate's investigation of campaign abuses.

A final footnote involves the case of James Parish, a 16-year veteran of the State Department who worked at the American Embassy in Beijing from 1994 to 1996. Parish met Chung when the latter brought a Mr. He, the head of Haomen Beer, to the embassy to assist in getting He's visa renewed. Chung swears Parish arranged visas for dozens of individuals for whom Chung was getting invitations to the United States and, in return, Chung got Parish into a VIP reception with Clinton, trained Parish's secretary in computer skills and spent $7,000 to $8,000 on seven students Parish knew who wanted to be educated in the United States. Chung says this relationship ended when He asked Chung to take a "shopping bag full of money and visas" to Parish.

Parish has retired, but State Department spokesman Maria Rudensky has confirmed an ongoing investigation. Insight has learned Burton is following the matter closely.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Democrats Don't Get Basic Economics
One of the most poignant moments in the presidential debates prior to the 2004 election occurred when Sen. John Kerry was pontificating about how he would halt the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

After outlining his approach which predominantly consisted of giving incentives to American businesses to refrain from such nefarious behavior�Kerry was stopped cold by moderator Charles Gibson. To his everlasting credit, Gibson asked how Kerry could reasonably expect this to be effective when any incentives that could be offered would still pale by comparison to the amount companies would save by paying so much less per worker abroad than American workers would have to receive.

To this, Kerry could only sheepishly reply that he never said he�d be able to stop all outsourcing.

This exchange largely served to puncture Kerry�s balloon on an issue the Democrats had pinned high hopes on in seeking to derail President Bush�s re-election.

This anecdote is highly relevant to numerous issues today in which even an elementary knowledge of economics is all that would be required to discern the folly of very dubious (albeit politically popular) proposals.

Foremost among these is the continual harping by the Democrats that an increase in the minimum wage is needed as a life-raft to any poor souls out there struggling to provide for a family on $5.15 an hour.

Though a recent attempt failed to ram a hike in the federal minimum wage past Congress on the back of a morally right (and economically defensible) reduction in the death tax, efforts to jack up the minimum wage at the state level continue unabated.

The major current battleground is Ohio, where a campaign is underway to initiate a referendum, and where the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have landed in attempts to burnish their credentials as crusaders for the disadvantaged.

One liberal columnist in the Buckeye State even went so far as to lament that with the high cost of gas these days, not to mention pesky things like rent, food, heating, car insurance, etc., the head of a household trying to make ends meet on minimum wage just doesn�t have a chance.

This embarrassing attempt at economic analysis then stated that �reasonable people� could agree on this.

Sure they could�if these �reasonable people� happened to be as economically clueless as a kindergartner trying to fathom Dostoyevsky.

Though it�s hard even knowing where to begin refuting such insipidity, the public interest requires making the attempt.

Of course, our compassion-filled ignoramus is quite right�a primary family breadwinner indeed doesn�t have a chance earning minimum wage. This would be terrible except for one very salient point�they don�t have to.

First of all, it�s common knowledge�to anyone wishing to know�that the majority of minimum wage earners are not family providers struggling to bring home the bacon. They�re young, predominantly single people just getting started in their working careers. Thus, they have no need for all of the items listed above for anyone but themselves.

They�re the ones who stand to be hurt most when an increase in the government-mandated wage rate does what it always has�make people with lesser job skills more expensive to employ than the value they give in return, and therefore expendable.

Of course, it should go without saying�especially to people of moderate intelligence�that this will also hold true for anyone who actually does live from paycheck to paycheck on minimum wage and trying to support a family. And as hard as that is to do on $5.15 an hour, �reasonable people� can certainly agree that it�s infinitely harder to do without any job at all.

However, those who should find themselves in such a deplorable state should take heart�they won�t be thrown to the wolves. In Ohio, for example (as well as any other state), there exists government aid including a plethora of job and family services, exemptions from income tax�and even tax credits for people who pay no taxes.

Not only that, but such people often have family members or relatives they can stay with to help get through the rough patches. (How else do those �discouraged workers� who have left the job market manage to keep body and soul together? They can�t just opt out of living, after all).

Despite the self-evidence of all this�and the confirmation of nearly every economic experience in the memory of mankind�liberals persist in their frantic attempts to attach some semblance of rationality to their crusade.

To that end, they point to various recent �studies� that have come out, vacuously proclaiming that somehow all history has been wrong and that�lo and behold!�artificially increasing wage rates doesn�t tend to increase unemployment after all. But unfortunately for the proponents of this nonsense, the veracity of many such conclusions is undermined by the utilization of a myriad of clever but misleading techniques.

Thomas Sowell�s chapter on minimum wages in the very aptly-named book "Basic Economics" is an excellent source for more on this.

One of the neatest shell-games he cites is that of the alleged �scientific� data counting only the effects on firms still in existence after the forced wage-hike. This conveniently forgoes the unpleasant necessity of counting the jobs lost when other firms did suffer the misfortune of going under.

Oh well, we know the adage that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. This is why long-standing common sense must prevail in such cases.

The upshot of this�as Sowell and countless others point out irrefutably time and again�is that the law of supply and demand is immutable, and that no matter how much we�d like to improve the lot of people with no experience and no marketable job skills merely by issuing a decree from on high, it simply can�t be done.

Stubborn behavioral reactions, in the form of greater unemployment or higher prices (when increased costs are inevitably passed on to customers) see to that.

The result is that any increased buying power envisioned by the magic wage increase will be substantially watered down for those lucky enough to keep their jobs�or eliminated entirely for those who aren�t.

All of this goes a long way toward explaining the futility of any number of flawed proposals�though it never seems to register on certain people.

For example, trying to address illegal immigration by granting amnesty�or even cracking down on illegals�without dealing with the incentive employers would still have to hire them: namely, relief from the exorbitant cost of hiring legal workers.

Or, on the other side of the economic spectrum, attempting (by short-sighted means such as woefully insufficient incentives or counter-productive punitive measures) to keep white-collar jobs from being shipped to other countries where the cost of doing business is a fraction of that prevailing in the U.S.

In short, the folly of minimum wage increases can be summed up by a simple math problem that any public school student (we hope) could figure out: Will poor workers be better off with a job at a lower minimum wage, or without a job at a higher one?

Minimum Wage Increases: Although Not Designed to be Racist, They Simply Are
by Amy Ridenour

A New Visions Commentary paper published October 2001 by The National Center
for Public Policy Research * 501 Capitol Ct., N.E., Washington, DC 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202-543-5975, E-Mail, Web
Reprints permitted provided source is credited.

Is it better to have a raise or a job?

It's a no-brainer. A raise is worthless without a job.

Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, some have contended that a constantly increasing minimum wage will prevent the exploitation of workers. Politicians continually trot out the issue, confident that even if its economic effects aren't as advertised, the political benefits of appearing to care about the working poor are.

But yet another of our many dozens of upward wage adjustments will fail to create economic stability for those at the bottom end of the pay scale.

As Sharon Brooks Hodge of the African-American group Project 21 says: "Wages are a reflection of relative work skills. You can trust that no one is out there lobbying for a minimum skills floor to coincide with the demand for more money. Until that happens, this segment of the work force will remain unable to compete for higher wages on their own. What [those] clamoring for a higher minimum wage fail to acknowledge is that boosting pay for that reason alone does little more than continue the endless spiral of inflation."

And put more money in the coffers of labor unions, as well.

Other African-Americans endorse Hodge's view: "Forty years ago, when Jim Crow was alive and well but before substantial increases in the minimum wage, the unemployment rate for black youths was virtually identical to that of white youths. But with the rise in the minimum wage, there has been a rise in the unemployment rates of black youth," says Peter Kirsanow, Chairman of the Center for New Black Leadership and a labor attorney.

Black youths, through no fault of their own, disproportionately attend failing inner-city schools. The government thus hits them with a double-whammy: It gives them substandard training in public schools, and then it raises the minimum wage, which reduces the number of jobs for untrained people.

Minimum wage increases, while not designed to be racist, simply are.

According to the Employment Policies Institute, an increase in the minimum wage has perverse effect of increasing both the school dropout rate and teenage unemployment. This is because higher mandatory wages entice some students into sacrificing school for work while simultaneously compelling employers to forgo hiring low-skill teenagers in favor of older employees whose experience makes them worth higher wages.

These facts are no secret: A University of New Hampshire poll of economists has shown that nearly 80 percent acknowledge that minimum wage hikes cause job losses.

Nevertheless, the crusade for a minimum wage increase continues. Advocates of increases gloss over the job loss issue. Rarely do they answer the question: If it is good to raise wages a dollar an hour, why not raise them $50 an hour? Wouldn't that be fifty times better?

The answer is that it is much harder to pretend that raising wages by $50 per hour will not kill jobs. The pretense that raising wages by legislative fiat is a benevolent act must be maintained.

If we are going to again raise the minimum wage because politicians love nice headlines and labor unions love cash, we could at least do so honestly, and admit that doing so kills jobs. And that the people who will lose those jobs will be our most vulnerable.


(Amy Ridenour is the president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. Comments can be sent to her at

Kerry Led Outsourcing Trade Mission to China.
Ties to Boston Company Boasting Over 70 Outsourcing Projects
by Russell Betts - (August 15, 2004)
John Kerry, who has made opposition to corporate outsourcing of U.S. jobs to places like China a major part of his presidential campaign, appears to have had major involvement with a Boston, Massachusetts company specializing in outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing and jobs.
During the late 1990's, Kerry led at least one of the company's outsourcing trade missions to China, appearing for photos at a banquet in Beijing with representatives of Boston Capital & Technology and unidentified Chinese trade representatives. The exact date of the trip is not given on the company website but appears to have taken place between 1996 and 1998.
Some of the projects undertaken by Boston Capital & Technology include setting up tool & die manufacturing in China, high technology transfers to Chinese telecommunication companies and transfer of highly specialized commercial software utilized in computer aided manufacturing. The company also set up manufacturing in China for an infant gifts company with 12,000 U.S. retail outlets and manufacturing for a company supplying the US home healthcare market.

John Kerry attending BCT banquet in Beijing, China.
Click image to enlarge.

It is not clear how many jobs previously held by U.S. citizens have been transferred to China through Boston Capital & Technology outsourcing projects or how many, if any Kerry's lead involvement at the Beijing meeting has had. In one event that could have long ranging effects in the battle with China over U.S. jobs, Boston Capital & Technology did hold a US/China Symposium at Tsinghua University, a university referred to as "The "M.I.T. of China".
President of Boston Capital & Technologies, Paul Marcus, declined to be interviewed. Marcus said "I am not doing an interview with you, and please don't call me again," when contacted by Insight On The News, an on line news source that first broke the the Kerry Outsourcing story.

Information obtained from the Boston Capital & Technology website, however, indicates that the company provides investment and advisory services to US companies wishing to establish or expand manufacturing operations in Mainland China.

The company has participated in what it calls significant U.S.-China investment, partnership, and technology transfer opportunities using both American and Chinese staff. The company has offices in Beijing and Shenzhen, China, in addition to its headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. It provides local access in China and teaches Chinese companies in Western business practices. The company claims to have completed over 70 projects in China involving investment, manufacturing, set up of U.S. wholly owned enterprises in China, set up of U.S. and Chinese joint ventures and technology transfers to China.

Boston Capital & Technology President Paul Marcus lives with his Chinese-born wife in the Beacon Hill district of Boston, the same district where one of Kerry's mansions is located. The Kerry campaign refused to answer questions about Kerry's relationship to Marcus or the details on Kerry's trade mission to Beijing, China.
John Kerry attending BCT banquet in Beijing, China.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of Useful Idiots, that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism�another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are na�ve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.

Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the �Politically Correct.� He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.

The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining�liberal practices of the Useful Idiot�require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and �Monday Morning Quarterback.�

The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society�the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

Even the �normal� spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don�t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove.

The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as �Political Islam,� or �Radical Islam,� for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter�the Quran�is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the �real Islam� constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.

But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same�the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical to the extreme. Even the �moderate� Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated to the utmost.

No radical barbaric act of depravity is out of bounds for Muslims in dealing with others. They destroy precious statues of Buddha, level sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldoze the cemeteries of non-Muslims�a few examples of their utter extreme contempt toward others.

Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream �moderate� Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Shariah.

The �moderate� Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the prophet himself. The prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men�s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioner of slavery. Slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheikhs purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.

It is a well-established fact that a Jew�s word is his bond. The exact opposite is the case with Muslims. Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself�something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse of a true Muslim. As soon as he gathered the reign of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.

Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pal over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad�s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.

The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Mark writes
"That was either of no interest to anyone else, or everyone agrees there is no such thing, or everyone thinks I am too post-ideological to understand. I am guessing the first."

I think your initial post is on-point. I don't have a response.

As I've posted before, I think both parties are ideologically wandering the desert, sure only of their distaste for the other party.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Profiles in Left-Wing Hypocrisy
By Anne Henderson | September 19, 2006

The activists who preach loudest against the so-called evils of modern democracies should be exposed.

In these secular times, celebrity-styled and self-appointed moral guardians have long replaced church leaders as the average person's guide to the higher moral ground. Al Gore and his message on climate change is but the latest.

In Australia to promote his film An Inconvenient Truth, Gore was given extremely soft interviews by Kerry O'Brien on The 7.30 Report, Andrew Denton on Enough Rope and Fran Kelly on Radio National.

All ABC interviewers accepted Gore's preaching without substantial query.

The problem for moral guardians is that often they take the high moral ground while simultaneously dealing in much of what they condemn. It's called double standards. And right now the world of commentary is full of them.

In his film, to be released in Australia tomorrow, the former US vice-president lectures at length on the need for all of us to change our lifestyles to save the planet.

We are sitting on a time bomb, he tells us, a planet heating to such an extent we have just 10 years before the apocalypse. We have a choice he says - "to bring our carbon emissions to zero". We must use renewable energy and clothes lines, drive hybrid cars and cut back on consumption.

But a zero carbon emission is not a choice Gore has personally made. He owns three homes, one of which is a 930 sq m, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville and another a 370 sq m house in Arlington, Virginia.

In spite of readily available green energy, in both Nashville and the Washington DC area, writer Peter Schweizer (USA Today, August 8) has revealed "there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy".

Gore usually travels to promote his film in a private jet.

Governments and citizens around the world must heed the message that carbon emissions need to be reduced and that the earth is warming to levels that cause concern. No doubt in that. But the hype of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and his own performances in its support have given him guru status. Surely the least a guru can do is lead by example.

The hypocrisy industry is alive and well in secular democracies. Decades of campaigns from animal rights protests to anti-war marches have offered some notable Americans not only celebrity status but even comfortable incomes. This is the lucrative humbug Schweizer exposes in Do As I Say (Not As I Do) - Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

Take Michael Moore, documentary film-maker and guru of anti-Americanism and fashionable leftist causes. His hallmark characteristic is hero of the little man against the big corporations. He talks often of growing up in the working-class, wrong-side-of-the-tracks rust belt of Flint, Michigan. Flint has become a trademark for Moore - on his email address and website. In fact, Moore grew up in nearby Davison, the son of a middle-class General Motors worker who owned the family home, drove two cars and played golf after work in the afternoons.

Moore has a penthouse in New York and an extensive property on Torch Lake, Michigan, made of 70-year-old Michigan red pine trees. In spite of his so-called green credentials, he was recently cited by local authorities for despoiling a wetland in an attempt to extend his private beach.

Moore's image exudes the ordinary guy, the man who can hack it rough with no interest in consuming goods. He derides the elite for their excess and need for luxury. This is the same man who couldn't drink Poland Spring when backstage and had to have a ready supply of Evian. The same man who demanded he travel the country in a private jet and a fleet of four-wheel drives for his most recent book tour.

The hypocrisy industry has caught a number off guard in the fashionable global warming pronouncements.

Barbra Streisand took neighbour and photographer Wendell Wall to court after he took shots of her at a car dealership looking at four-wheel drives, a clear contradiction of her plea a few months before for Americans to get serious about reducing fuel emissions.

She had him arrested, pressed charges that led to bail being upped to $1 million so that he was held for three days. When the matter came to court, Wall was recognised to have been doing nothing offensive and he sued the sheriff's department for violation of his civil liberties, which was settled out of court.

Schweizer's study of the rich and hypocritical is full of such stories - of how those who preach loudest against the so-called evils of modern democracies have the biggest skeletons in their closets.

Legislators such as Democrat congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, one of the wealthiest on Capitol Hill, an anti-nuclear and environmental campaigner who owns and invests in property where environmental regulations are ignored.

Teddy Kennedy, whom Schweizer calls the king of liberal hypocrites, is fulsome in his appeals for greener choices. Yet the Kennedys, led by Ted, continue to oppose a wind project off Hyannis where they sail, even though the project is way out to sea.

And as Ted preaches against oil companies, the Kennedys have invested in oil in Texas for decades, and even own the drilling rights on land that is not theirs.

Let's save the planet by all means - but let's not be fooled by those who preach loudest but do not practise what they preach.
Signs that you might be a Liberal

You are against the War on Terror, but are only too happy to make millions of dollars by making movies about it.

You preach about the evils of Capitalism from the comfort of your Beverly Hills estate

You cry about the evils of "profiteering corporations", but still demand your weekly paycheck.

You think "rich people" are evil, but are willing to over-look the fact that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Michael Moore, and Al Franken are "rich", as well.

You scream and shout when innocent civilians are accidentally caught in the cross-fire, but remain silent when terrorists kill them on purpose

You think OJ Simpson is really looking for the "real killers"

You claim a higher moral ground in opposing the death penalty, but celebrate killing of innocent un-born babies

You think America deserved 9/11

You think the troops are "war criminals", but a thug who killed somebody in cold blood is just a "victim of society"

You think you can give a dollar to somebody, without first having to take it from somebody else

You want to ban and outlaw legal gun ownership, yet the same time, you want to be allowed to have armed guards at your beck-and-call

You think Ted Kennedy knows how to manage your money, better than you do.

You think Saddam, Kim Jong Il, and Castro were fairly elected, but President Bush was not

You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon

You think "tolerance" is reserved for those who share your opinions, views, and ideals

You think the name of God/Jesus should be banned and censored, except when spoken in profanity

You think it was wrong for Bush to use images of 9/11 in political ads, but saw nothing wrong with Kerry using flag-draped caskets in his ads.

You refuse to allow a child to carry a Bible to school, but demand that schools make special provisions to accommodate a non-Christian's religious beliefs.

You whine about religious leaders involvement in politics, but only when the Reverend's name is Robertson...not Jackson or Sharpton

You support radical Judges who interpret what they "think" the Constitution means, instead of what it actually says.

You think the meaning and definition of the Constitution should change, based on your own feelings or opinions.

You constantly cry about defense spending, but scream when bases in your areas are closed.

You think Greenpeace and the Earth Liberation Front burning down SUV dealerships or torching chemical plants "help" the environment.

You support low-income housing, until they start to build in your neighborhood.

You think the term "illegal alien" is a bad word

You think Michael Moore's films are "historically accurate"

You believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding

You believe that there was no art before Federal funding

You think the only thing wrong with the forged Rather Memo, was people refused to believe it.

You think girls should be allowed to go to an all-boy school, but not the other way around

You support welfare for illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes, anyway

You think Fox News distorts the truth, but Dan Rather reports "honest journalism".

You complain that we never give peace a chance

When asked about your favorite Marx Brother, the first one to come to mind is Karl.

You think NPR is the only really fair and balanced news source

You think race riots are acceptable

You think racial hatred is wrong, but "class hatred" is acceptable

You think that every misbehaving child has ADD and needs to be doped-up on Ritalin.

You think lawsuits that deny any personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff is justified.

You think the best way to deal with terrorist regimes is to please and appease them.

You are opposed to a military presence in Europe, unless it's to bail out France

You would rather defend Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Saddam and Castro before you defend the US

You think violent gun-crime would automatically disappear if honest citizens could not bear arms.

You constantly equate Conservatives to the likes of Hitler as your only defense

You believe 1 + 1 = 2, or 3, or 4...or whatever it takes to protect the child's self-esteem

You think that porn should be federally protected per Freedom of Speech, but public profession of Faith should be outlawed.

You applaud Jimmy Carter for talking about Human Rights, but screamed and shouted when President Bush actually did something about it.

You think we should have given Saddam 12 more years, and then 12 more on top of that, if he didn't comply by then

You think the UN should be the final authority, even in the U.S.

You think if a person makes more than $50,000/year, then he/she is cheating people and ripping them off.

You think being able to play the President on a popular TV drama automatically equates to "political wisdom" in real life.

You scream and shout about Christians ramming their beliefs upon you, but you say nothing when Atheists and Muslims do the same

You think it was "un-ethical" for Bush to accept campaign donations from the NRA, but not when Clinton accepted campaign donations on behalf of the Communist Chinese government.

You think if somebody disagrees w/what is being said, they are challenging or denying your rights to Free Speech

You think that poverty is caused by the wealthy

You think the ACLU really gives a damn about individual rights

You think the Dixie Chicks and Tim Robbins should say what they want, but O'reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh should be censored

You protested American intervention in the Middle-East, because we did not have UN approval, but supported American intervention in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia, even though we did not have UN approval.

You screamed and shouted when Ah-Nold allegedly groped women, but cheered when Bill Clinton did the same.

You are against sexual harassment except when committed by a Kennedy or a Clinton

You object to little old ladies wearing fur, but not bikers wearing leather

You believe President Bush is too dumb to be President and Arnold Schwarzenegger is too dumb to be Governor of California, but the Dixie Chicks, Martin

Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Eddie Vedder and Jeanine Garofalo are qualified to discourse at length on foreign policy

You think Saddam had WMDs when Clinton was in office, but all of the sudden, didn't have them when Bush was in office.

You think the Middle East crisis can only be solved once Israel is wiped off the map.

You believe the Bible is racist, sexist, and homophobic, but think the Koran should be required reading

You consider the Catholic bishops noble and idealistic when they oppose capital punishment and welfare cuts but dangerous fanatics when trying to promote pro-life

You think a lawyer taking 33% from a settlement for his services is fair, but the Government taking 33% of your paycheck for taxes is "too low"

You find Christianity and anything relating to it potentially harmful to you and your children, but you're completely open-minded to Witchcraft, occult-ism, mysticism, ect

You think having an open-mind means being "pro-Gay", "pro-Abortion", "anti-Christian", "anti-Business", and "anti-Conservative"

You think only white people can be racist

You think that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking 30% from their paychecks is compassionate

You believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt the children, but promoting homosexuality and paganism "helps" the children

You think the answer to ANY crime no matter how heinous or serious, is counseling.

You only watch "All in The Family", because Meathead made so much sense

You think Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean spirited racists and promote hate crime but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis Farakahn aren't and don't

You think that Doctors should be made into government bureaucrats, but that lawyers should not

You think O.J. is actually innocent, but that Bernard Goetz is not

You would have supported the war in Iraq, if Clinton or Gore was President

You are against censorship unless it's censoring race, Christianity, Conservatism, Western culture, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter

You make snide remarks about guys who look at women, but champion Clinton's right to do whatever he wants with his interns

You think that the four cops who beat Rodney King should have been thrown in jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny should get just a slap on the wrist

You get mad when rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over the news media, but demand Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public"

You hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the terrible act. BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who is forced to commit such acts to survive

You think that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a sure-fire way to get your message across, but if anyone protests against abortion, they're the extremists.

You think that the only way the tragedy at Columbine could have been avoided was to outlaw legal, private gun ownership

You think hunters don't care about the environment, but Seattle folks who have never stepped foot outside of their local Starbucks, do

You think it takes a village, instead of parents, to raise a child

You think tolerance of your opinions and acceptance of your opinions go hand-in-hand

You believe that doctors are over-paid, but ambulance-chasing lawyers are not

You think that Celebrities and other media icons have the right to Free Speech and those who agree with them have the right to Freedom of Speech, but those who dare to disagree with them do not.

You slam Ah-Nold for his father having alleged ties to the Nazi when you have a known and un-apologetic Klansman and public anti-Semite in your own company (Sen. Byrd)

You think Ah-Nold should not be in politics because he's "just a celebrity", but you would have endorsed Martin Sheen, Sean Penn and company based on that sole criteria

You scream and shout over alleged "violence" in Mel Gibson's "The Passion", yet you ran to see "Kill Bill", "Freddy VS. Jason" , "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and play "Unreal" and "Duke Nuke'em", "Grand Theft Auto", sect. and said nothing about the violence portrayed in those.

You think Hollywood can say or do no wrong and should be treated as such

You think a child who is quietly and privately saying Grace before a meal at school, constitute the said child ramming his/her beliefs upon others

You turn a blind eye to the suicide bombings at the hands of radical fanatics, but condemn Israel and the Western World for wanting to keep their people safe from Terrorism

You think if Sean Penn or Martin Sheen said so, it should be revered as holy scripture.

You cheered and applauded when Clinton stated he "smoked pot but never inhaled" and at the same time, screamed and shouted when Rush Limbaugh admitted to being addicted to LEGALLY OBTAINED MEDICATION

You think Freedom of Speech is reserved for those who think as you do, but not for anybody else

You ban the Bible in schools because of Church/State, then welcome Islamic and New-Age, and other religion teachings in the same school

You think every problem can be solved by simply throwing money at it

You think more taxes are an economic cure-all

When a violent crime is committed with a gun, you think it's the gun itself, and not the offender, who is responsible

You blame the NRA, and not the criminals, for violent crime with guns

You think Freedom of Speech and agreeing with what is being said go hand-in-hand

You think everything wrong in the world is automatically Bush's fault and everything right in the world is automatically because of Clinton

You feel people should "share the wealth" (as long as your money is not the one being "shared")

You think that being a Hollywood icon automatically means you are more "in tune" to world events than the leaders of the country

You complain about the SUVs and other less-economical cars, yet you parade around in a 5-mile-per-gallon limo

You think that you can understand politics from Hollywood and activist celebrities without doing any research yourself

You ban Tom Sawyer from schools for being "racist" but you approve of My Two Moms as wholesome and acceptable.

You think every solution to every problem can be solved with bigger Government

You think people should be rewarded for laziness, but hard-working people should be taxed dry

You frown upon self-thought and independent thought.

You think convicted criminals and democratic politicians who screw up are worth understanding and forgiving but conservative politicians and religious people who speak their opinion should be banned from public service.

You think that tolerance equals acceptance and anyone who doesn't accept a liberal cause is a racist or bigot.

You throw down the "race card" as your only argument.

You think terrorists and arsonists who burn down private property and harass businesses are noble but the troops who liberated Iraqis are war criminals.

You think that violent protests and domestic terrorism are how you affect change in our country instead of voting.

You believe people are owed restitution for injuries inflicted on their long-dead ancestors.

You find charisma to be an appropriate replacement for honesty.

You find flashy rhetoric to be a suitable substitute for sincerity.

You don't believe willful omissions of facts should be considered lying.

You have a problem with the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, but have no qualms about it being printed on your wonderful money.

You simultaneously piss on our country and its system while reaping its rewards.

You refuse to acknowledge any contributions to society that were not made by minorities.

You continue to trash America, claiming how horrible and evil it is, yet you refuse to leave

You think Yassar Arrafat was deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize

You think guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of a hate filled dictator.

You believe that people should not have to be expected to take responsibility for their actions

Mothers who are drug addicts should be allowed to have children and to raise them while they're addicted.

Capitalism oppresses people and Socialism liberates people.

You think the Government should provide "entitlement" programs, rather than expect us to earn what we have

You refuse to lift a finger to save an unborn baby but at the same time, rush to the aid and defense of violent serial-felons on death row

You think teachers should not use the class-room to promote politics, unless the teacher is promoting anti-Conservative agendas, then it becomes a matter of "Free Speech".

You try to make excuses on behalf of terrorism

You believe in choice except when it comes to retirement, schools, health care, and religious speech

You think Clinton was an "honest and virtuous man"

You believe that unwed teenage mothers should get a paycheck from the Government

You ignore more than 50 years of medical warnings about tobacco use, but when you get cancer, the tobacco company is to blame.

You think society "owes you a living"

You somehow believe that George Bush is more dangerous than Bin Laden, Saddam, Hitler, etc.

You believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

You believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You believe that heterosexuality is a learned behavior, but homosexuality is normal and natural..

You somehow think that a President who lied under oath, appeased fanatical dictators, and gave military technology to hostile regimes is somehow better for America than the present Administration.

You believe think Bush is a genius who masterminded 9/11, yet is as dumb as a stump, the rest of the time

You want to legalize drugs but outlaw tobacco.

You want what you feel "you deserve", instead of what you earn

You think it's OK to be dis-honest, if personal gain is at stake

You can exaggerate the facts and make up fiction to prove your point

You spew out your rhetoric, but have nothing to back it up.

You think that "truth" is irrelevant.

You think the Corporations are evil, but Communism and dictatorships are "noble"

You think the UN is an efficient governmental body

You like to say that you fight discrimination, then you turn around and give "perks" simply based on race.

You think the Kennedy Family was a "respectable family" but call George Bush a "Hitler"

You think traits like honesty and character are "out-dated"

You think that the minority should have the right to force their will upon the majority

You think 1 white and 20 non-whites is "diversity"

You somehow think taking guns away from honest citizens will reduce crime by violent offenders

You somehow think Saddam and Bin Laden are better for the world than President Bush

You believe people should do what you say, but not what you do

You preach "peace" and "love" and "non-violence" and "anti-gun laws" but appear in movies that glorify guns, explosives and twisting people's heads of with martial arts to win over the bad guys.

You deride Bush for landing on a plane to boost moral and show his gratitude to the troops but you praise Clinton for slashing the military in half.

You think the "all Men are created equal" comments in the Declaration Of Independence means that they are actually equal in ability (as opposed to being given equal opportunity) and no one should make a choice about them based on their actual abilities to perform.

You think a person's sexual preference, or race, and not their ability to perform, should be the deciding factor in who-gets-what job.

You think demanding respect is more important that actually doing something to earn it

You think the "right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" means breaking into military installations during wartime, stopping commerce, and breaking nudity laws are what the founding fathers meant.

You think Conservatives should be held to a different, and higher standard than you are willing to meet, yourself

You claim you are "offended" by Christianity, yet you still partake in the Christmas festivities and demand a paid holiday.

You think SUVs are supportive of terrorists, but houses with 10 car garages are A-OK

You think "choice" applies only to abortion

You scream about our dependence on foreign oil, but refuse to allow us to tap into our own reserves

You think the word "unilateral" is defined as "without France, Germany, and Russia"...

You call Conservative millionaires "greedy", while calling Liberal millionaires "hard working", "creative", or "clever"

One day you label President Bush as just a "stupid hick from the sticks" and the next day call him an "evil genius"

You believe that condoms and clean needles should be handed out at school, but Bibles must not be allowed

You believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't

You believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high

You refuse to wave or salute the American flag, because America has so many things wrong with it

You think since Clinton only "smoked and didn't inhale" pot, it's OK

You preach against racial/sexual bias, but turn around and endorse Affirmative Action

When you boycott a Conservative person and/or company you call it "Freedom of Choice"....but when Conservatives boycott, you call it "McCarthyism".

You think Church/State means that religion should be banned from all aspects of public and private life

You begin every sentence with "I (or we) demand".....

You have ever used the expressions "that poor guy," or "he couldn't help it" to describe a convicted murderer

You have an "I'm the victim" mentality and every day, milk it dry

You think Barbara Steisand really cares about the Iraqi children

You think Iraq was just a "War for Oil"

You think Bin Laden is not really all that bad, and is just "mis-understood"

You think evangelical is a dirty word

You think the New York Times is a "beacon of truth", but Fox News is just a book of lies

You think Maureen Dowd should get the Nobel Prize for Journalism

You complain that Fox News has a "slight Conservative edge", but say nothing about the far-to-the-Left Liberal bias of CNN, New York Times, BBC, ect

You think Sen. Joseph McCarthy was "evil" but the American Commies he tried to expose within the State Dept were "heroic"

You think Jimmy Carter handled Iran just fine and dandy.

You refer to President Bush a "Hitler" as your defense to any criticism on your stance/position

You think if a Conservative is under investigation, it should not matter whether or not the allegations are true/false, but should be totally based around the seriousness of the said allegations.

You think Jayson Blair is an honest and legitimate journalist

You think that rights of gays, lesbians, drag queens (or kings) should be forcibly recognized, but rights of Christians/Jews should be denied

You believe that we can "spend our way" out of the deficit

No trees should be cut down, even if they're dead

The government should tax every last bit of your paycheck.

You think that Saddam, Stalin, and Hitler were "noble" and in the same breath, you call President Bush "evil".

You think morals and integrity are not relevant and should not stand in the way of personal gain

You keep calling it "Clinton's Army" and "Bush's economy"

You poke fun at the "cookie cutter houses" in the suburbs, yet live in the city, in a giant brick building called an "apartment", no different from any other in the city.

You would rather have a President who spend his Administration caving in to terrorist demands in a frenzy to please and appease them, rather than a President who is fighting them to make the world a safer place for all..

And Finally......................................................

You think Ralph Nader cares about consumers, Unions care about their members, the ACLU cares about civil liberties, the National Education Association cares

about education, People for the American Way care about the American way, and Bill Clinton cares about anything other than Bill Clinton

Posted by: Sam | September 11, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

This effort is merely a way to channel money to Big Hollywood from donors who don't know any better. If this was effective, the 2004 campaign's "Media Fund" would have had success instead of disaster. It is thinking squarely in the box.

Posted by: Scotty | September 11, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Hollywood history repeats itself
Posted: March 26, 2007
11:18 p.m. Eastern

Sean Penn
Imagine, for a moment, it's 1939.

A prominent Jewish actor makes the following statement.

"Let me tell you something about Germany, because I've been there and you haven't. Germany is a great country. A great country. Does it have its haters? You bet. Just like the United States has its haters. Does it have a corrupt regime? You bet. Just like the United States has a corrupt regime."

What would you think of such a person? How would history judge him?

I don't know that anyone made exactly that statement in 1939. But I do know that Sean Penn made a very similar statement a few days ago. The only difference was the name of the country. Instead of Germany, substitute Iran.

Is there really any moral difference between the statements?

Iran is led today by a president who has repeatedly threatened to eradicate the state of Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is building weapons that can get the job done quicker and more efficiently than Adolf Hitler with his formidable war machine. He is every bit the Jew hater that Hitler was. And he hates America even more.

In 1939, Adolf Hitler had made clear his intentions for the Jews. He had made clear his intentions for all of Europe. He had made clear his intentions for Nazi Germany to dominate the world.

Nevertheless, there were some people in Hollywood who were making statements like that. There were people in Hollywood who were marching against war with Germany. There were people in Hollywood who, like Sean Penn, wanted to appease this evil on the horizon.

No, there was no active Nazi Party in Hollywood at that time. But there was a party under the active control of a foreign totalitarian dictator. It was the Communist Party USA and the foreign tyrant was Josef Stalin.

Why were communists in Hollywood - even Jews - saying nice things about Hitler in 1939 - and even as late as 1941? They were doing so because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - also known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

It was signed in 1939 and broken June 22, 1941, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.

From 1939 right up until June 22, 1941, the communists in Hollywood had nothing but praise for Hitler. They held rallies against aiding Britain in its life-and-death struggle with Nazism. They gave speeches saying Hitler was no threat. They wrote anti-war scripts.

All that changed June 22, 1941. One day the Hollywood communists were pro-Hitler. The next day they wanted to go to war. Why? Because they took their orders directly from masters in the Soviet Union.

Would it surprise you to learn that one of those prominent Hollywood communist Jews who sided with Germany until the breaking of that Hitler-Stalin Pact was none other than Leo Penn, the late father of Sean Penn.

Amazing? Yes, but true.

You don't believe history repeats itself?

Now it's Sean Penn's turn to relive and recommit the sins of his father, who never repented of his Communist Party activities - activities that included support for and appeasement of Hitler's Germany at the very time the concentration camps were incinerating his Jewish brothers and sisters in Europe.

Penn spoke at a town hall meeting in Oakland last weekend. What he said about his country was shameful. What he said about our country's enemies - and the enemies of freedom throughout the entire world - was even more despicable.

What can you say about a man who embraces and defends Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today? What can one say about a man who embraces dictators around the world while openly loathing the elected leaders of his own nation? What can one say about such a prominent self-hating Jew?

I think I've said enough.

It's just history repeating itself.

The Che portrayed by Ariel Dorfman on Time's list was a concoction whom the magazine helped to invent in the 1950s and '60s. In fact, almost nothing in Dorfman's 1999 wallowing in messianic hero worship in the century list article is true.

Basically, everything most people think they know about Che Guevara is wrong. Okay, maybe not everything, since Frontpage readers at least, who have seen Fontova's work, are likely to include "bloodthirsty, Communist thug" in their description. But most of the details are wrong, as the story perpetuated by The New York Times, CBS News and Time are drawn from propaganda put out by the Castro organization, much of it made up from whole cloth -- including everything Time said about him in its century-end profile.

In fact, Dorfman's gushy ode to his vicious hero serves as a perfect outline for the myths of Che and the dose of reality Fontova deals to each of them.

Time: "(T)he story of the obscure Argentine doctor who abandoned his profession and his native land to pursue the emancipation of the poor..."

Fontova: There is no proof that Guevara ever actually earned a medical degree, much less had a profession to abandon. As we will see later, Guevara's only effective military campaign was against poor campesinos in the Cuban countryside.

Time: "After a guerrilla campaign in which Guevara displayed such outrageous bravery and skill that he was named commandante, the insurgents entered Havana and launched what was to become the first and only victorious socialist revolution in the Americas."

Fontova: Che had a particular talent for being nowhere around when any skirmish broke out. In fact, many of the pitched battles trumpeted in The New York Times and other MSM outlets of the time never took place. In one battle that the NYT proclaimed deaths of over a thousand, Fontova writes convincingly that total casualties on both sides probably numbered around five. Talk about creative math.

Fontova shows that Che was responsible for more deaths of non-communist anti-Batista fighters than of soldiers fighting for the regime -- most of whom were bribed to flee. After the revolution, Che oversaw not only the executions of tens of thousands of innocents, but he also was in charge of forcibly collectivizing thousands of small farms. In fact, Che Guevara conducted the longest counter-revolutionary campaign in the Americas, with a brutal 6-year war against Cuban peasant farmers.

Time: "Che the moral guru proclaiming that a New Man, no ego and all ferocious love for the other, had to be forcibly created out of the ruins of the old one."

Fontova: When mothers or wives came to plead for the life of their loved one, he would show his "ferocious love for the other" by picking up the phone and ordering that man or boy's immediate execution in front of the sobbing woman.

As Fontova points out, the 14,000 executions by firing squad and other Cuban deaths attributed to the Castroites are dwarfed by the numbers killed by Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot, but, as a percentage of the population, the Cuban communists are right up there with the other moral gurus who were also trying to create a "New Man."

Time: "Che the romantic mysteriously leaving the revolution to continue..., the struggle against oppression and tyranny."

Fontova: Che was run out of Cuba by Castro who tired of the competing cult of personality, and was a spectacular failure in Africa and South America where he rallied no one to his cause and was ignored-- or mocked--by guerillas on the ground there.

Time: "His execution in Vallegrande at the age of 39 only enhanced Guevara's mythical stature. That Christ-like figure laid out on a bed of death with his uncanny eyes almost about to open; those fearless last words ('Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man') somebody invented or reported;"

Fontova: "Invented," indeed. The only place Che's defiant last words appear are in Cuban accounts. Every eyewitness tells a different tale -- of a Che Guevara trying to ingratiate himself to every guard, officer or CIA agent at the scene, spinning the notion constantly that he would be "worth more alive."

But radical Duke professor Dorfman is not the only purveyor of the Che Guevara myth that Fontova deconstructs. Herbert Matthews of the New York Times was among the useful idiots who most helped Castro come to power.

As Fontova puts it, this was not a battle in the Cuban countryside or the streets of Havana but a PR war won on the pages of the mainstream press in Washington and New York.

Fontova also spends a fair amount of time discrediting New Yorker writer Jon Lee Anderson's hagiography, Che: A Revolutionary Life, which was hailed for its "balance" in the mainstream media and widely considered the ultimate Che biography. Probably all you need to know about this 814 page book is that Anderson writes "I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent." Fontova points out that Anderson spends 200 pages on Che's largely fictional guerilla campaign to oust Batista, but deals with his 5-year slaughter of the farmers in one dismissive sentence.

Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him also takes on an ironic tone similar to Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say, when dealing with fawning American Che worshipers who help keep his glowering face on tee shirts and coffee mugs everywhere.

Guitar hero Carlos Santana provides comic relief with spaced out statements that "Che was all about peace and love, man," or his loopy comment that Che was the first person to allow women in Cuba's casinos. Of course, Che mainly closed the casinos, persecuted anyone who listened to rock and roll -- much less performed it --and his big contribution to feminism was granting women equal access to face firing squads.

There was never any excuse for the media to get it wrong. As Fontova points out in the book's opening, Che came to the UN and shouted his love of executions from the podium in a speech as subtle as Hugo Chavez's recent visit. That earned him a party at Bobo Rockefeller's place in an early example of what Tom Wolfe would later call Radical Chic.

Today's liberals outraged that there is a place in Cuba today where the US holds genocidal thugs, who are not read their Miranda rights. Meanwhile they continue to not only glorify a murderer from four decades ago, but the regime he co-founded where people are still tortured for decades for speaking their minds-- if not put up against a wall so covered in gore that its original color is no longer discernable.

Che a hero? No, he was a monster, a foul beast. To the ash heap of history he goes. Deservedly.

Why Have Media Ignored 1992 Gore Speech That Blasted Iraq As Terror Sponsor?

Most Americans are aware that former Vice President Al Gore has been an outspoken opponent of President George W. Bush's policies concerning Iraq.

Yet, as Gore has traveled the nation and the world speaking against this war, the media have chosen to ignore a major policy speech given by vice presidential candidate Gore at the Hyatt Regency Hotel/Capitol Hill to the Center on National Policy on September 29, 1992.

Many statements made by Gore that afternoon largely contradict positions espoused by the soon-to-be-doctor today, including his contention at the time that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, was seeking nuclear weapons, and sanctioned, sponsored, and supported terrorist activities.

Fortunately, this speech was aired on C-SPAN, and was posted at YouTube Friday (video available here, h/t Rush Limbaugh). The full transcript follows with relevant sections bolded:

SEN. GORE: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Madeleine Albright, thank you so much for your generous and eloquent introduction and for your leadership of the Center for National Priorities. This is a wonderful organization, and I'm most grateful to all who have a handle in steering it, and all of you for coming to be present on this occasion. I see a great many friends in the audience, and I will not try to acknowledge everyone who should be singled out. I hope I shall be forgiven if I single out only one person and acknowledge my friend Pamela Harriman (sp), who has been a close adviser and supporter and friend for many years. But I could as well acknowledge a dozen or more others in this audience, and I am grateful to every single one of you for being present.

One of the most important questions in this campaign involves the judgment of the candidates on foreign policy. The American people know that the world is full of unexpected surprises and dangers, and as a result they want to know whether or not a president can handle these uncertainties, recognize unanticipated dangers, and realize when national policy must be changed to reflect new realities. The American people also want to know whether or not they can count on their president to tell them the truth.

President Bush, in his handling of our policy toward Iraq, has failed all of these tests, and failed them badly. His poor judgment, moral blindness, and bungling policies led directly to a war that should never have taken place. And because of his naivete and lack of candor, US taxpayers are now stuck with paying the bill for $1.9 billion President Bush gave to Saddam Hussein even though top administration officials were repeatedly told Saddam was using our tax dollars to buy weapons technology.

President Bush, of course, believes that the war with Iraq was his finest hour as the organizer and leader of a vast coalition of armed forces united for the purpose of frustrating the designs of an evil dictator. But the war with Iraq had deep roots, and if George Bush's prosecution of the war is part of his record, so too is his involvement in the diplomacy which led to it, both in the Reagan-Bush era and far moreso during his own presidency, when he accelerated foreign aid and the sale of weapons technology to Iraq right up until the invasion of Kuwait in spite of repeated warnings that anyone with common sense would have had no difficulty whatsoever understanding.

The path leading to that war and the path which the President has followed after are deeply shadowed in profound error, in duplicity, and in amoral disregard for our most basic values as a nation. There is also substantial evidence that his administration intentionally falsified export records and reports to Congress and in the process apparently violated a number of laws intended to prevent such horrendous mistakes.

Nineteen months ago, President Bush called Saddam Hussein "a new Hitler who had to be stopped at all costs", yet today that same tyrant remains firmly in power, resisting by every means the will of the international community. No wonder so many Americans ask themselves whether our victory over Saddam will ultimately prove an illusion.

The conduct of the war will remain a proud memory for all Americans, but the full history must also include events before and after the war. That detailed record requires a little more time and effort to understand. better pay attention to that detailed record which provides a deeply And if we really want to judge President Bush's stewardship of policy, then we had disturbing look at a blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot, and what certainly appears to be an on-going effort to hide the facts from the American people whose tax dollars paid for this policy and whose sons and daughters risked and lost their lives in its pursuit.

George Bush wants the American people to see him as the hero who put out a raging fire, but new evidence now shows that he is the one who set the fire. He not only struck the match, he poured gasoline on the flames. So give him credit for calling in the fire department, but understand clearly who it was that started the blaze. Now, let me begin providing a basic historical frame of reference.

In September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. Iraq was the odds-on favorite to win the war in short order. However, by May of 1982, Iraq was clearly in trouble. It had lost a major battle with Iran, and our policymakers began to imagine Iran under a radical Islamic government emerging as the dominant regional power: clearly a nightmare.

I believe that is why in February 1982 President Reagan took Iraq off the list of states that sponsored terrorism. He did this not because Iraq had gone straight and given up terrorism, but because he wanted to help Iraq while there was time. By taking Iraq's name off the list, President Reagan opened the way for Iraq to receive US credits through subsidized agricultural loan guarantees and Export-Import Bank credits. Reagan's decision also removed certain kinds of export controls intended to block the transfer of US technology to countries on the official terrorism list. In other words, for strategic reasons the Reagan-Bush administration would overlook virtually any unpleasant reality in Iraq and apparently subvert US laws in order to prop up Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

Now, of course, George Bush claims he was an outsider in another momentous Reagan decision during these years: to sell arms to Iran in direct exchange for the release of American hostages. Of course, by now, most people find that very hard to believe, and the documentary record is closing in on him. Recently, we learned that former Secretary of State George Schultz and former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger were outraged when they heard that then-Vice President Bush was disclaiming any knowledge of the Iran arms deal and the fact that these two senior cabinet officers had vigorously opposed it. Notes taken at the time of their telephone conversation about this event have Mr. Weinberger saying that Bush's comments were terrible and that far from being ignorant of developments, Bush had been on the other side of the struggle over policy.

Just last week, more evidence surfaced showing that Bush is recorded as having attended numerous meetings over a span of three years White House senior officials debated the plan to swap arms to Iran, and then were briefed on the status of the program. He was also present at the meetings in which the trade for arms in return for American hostages was explicitly discussed. And now, two of the briefers have directly challenged the veracity of President Bush's claim that he didn't know arms were being swapped for hostages. Far from being out of the loop, Bush seems to have been one of the most vigorous and vociferous advocates of the illegal side of the argument. Indeed, his claims to the contrary are simply no longer credible. His national security adviser was clearly uncomfortable, even going so far as to say that Bush's version was "possibly true".

Well, now new evidence about his policy toward Iraq directly contradicts President Bush's repeated statements to the American people that he did nothing that helped Saddam's effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction during the months and years preceding Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. To begin with, George Bush cannot even try to claim ignorance where policy toward Iraq was concerned. Not only was he directly in the loop, he was a principle architect of the policy from its earliest days.

For example, in April of 1984, Bush personally lobbied the Exim Bank's chairman, a friend from college days, to disregard the views of his own economists and extend credits to Iraq. Doubts about Iraq's creditworthiness were very well-founded, but the overriding issue was whether Iraq could continue to hold on in the war with Iran. That's all that seemed to matter. In pursuit of that objective, the Reagan-Bush administration would overlook the fact that it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, which occurred in June of 1982.

This event, of course, triggered Israel's invasion of Lebanon, not exactly a minor consequence for US policy. The Reagan-Bush administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille- Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs. Iraq not only stayed off the terrorist list no matter what, but in November 1984, full diplomatic relations were established with the country. The US government continued to exert every effort to channel assistance to Saddam Hussein, even with evidence that he was not only promoting terrorism, but was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program.As early as May of 1985, Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perl warned about the suspected diversion of US exports of dual-use technology to the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. But Bush ensured that the flow of technology continued. In March 1987, Bush again took a prominent role.

When Iraq's ambassador complained that our defense department was taking too long and being too cautious about export licenses for high-tech items, Bush apparently agreed with him that the defense department was being capricious and had to get with the program. There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors, but the administration smoothed it over very fast. This was the spring when the Exim Bank's staff was resisting another $200 million loan to Iraq, but again the loan was granted after Bush, again, personally intervened to stress its political importance. The loan went through in May, barely 48 hours before the attack on the Stark.

Now let me make a point about foreign policy and the real world. The actual conduct of foreign policy often bears as much resemblance to academic theory as the conduct of domestic politics bears to a civics course. If we have to deal with someone bad in order to handle someone even worse, then for heaven's sake, we should at least be ready to reevaluate the relationship the moment it has outlived its value to the United States. In other words, whatever the arguments for temporarily supporting Saddam Hussein as a barrier separating Saudi Arabia's oil from Iran's militant fundamentalists, Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly.

Throughout this period, Saddam's atrocities continued. In March of 1988, Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja (ph), brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children, and none of us can ever forget the pictures of their bodies, of parents trying to shield their infants, even in death, that were in our news media and around the world. The Iran-Iraq War then ended in August of 1988, and Iraq had not prevailed, but neither had it been defeated. As a result, you would think that the administration would give our policies a second look to see if they should be altered, but the Reagan-Bush administration never hesitated, even when the news became much, much worse.

Within days of the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein, seeing that he had gotten away with using poison gas against the Kurds previously, launched additional major gas attacks on them. The war was over, and he was determined to settle accounts. Saddam's attacks created, in addition to the wave of deaths, a flight of about half a million Kurdish refugees. The effect of these events on the public and on Congress was electrifying. The outrage and disgust sparked action and ignited an intensification of efforts in the Congress to pull the plug on US support for Saddam Hussein. I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action, but these efforts were resisted to the bitter end by the Reagan-Bush and Bush-Quayle administrations.

For example, they pulled out all the stops to defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act after the US Senate had passed it unanimously in September of 1988. Meanwhile, the US Customs Service was reporting that in 1988, it had marked a notable increase in the activity of Iraq's network of procuring agents and front corporations. A concerted effort was underway to obtain missile technology, chemical weapons technology, and biological weapons technology.In January 1989, President George Bush was sworn in. Based on plentiful evidence, he had reason to know that his ongoing policy regarding Iraq was already malfunctioning badly. Just last week, we learned of a memorandum written in March of that year, just two months after his inauguration, to Secretary of State James Baker as Baker prepared to meet with a senior Iraqi official, in which the author of the memorandum noted that Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles. These are exact quotes from the memorandum to the administration.
And what is especially interesting about this memo is that it notes that in the months preceding this meeting, Iraqi oil exports to the US had increased dramatically and on favorable terms. That point raised the question of a quid pro quo sought by the Iraqi officials: cheap oil in return for, quote, "freer export licensing procedures for high tech." End quote. The memo's drafter notes, somewhat impatiently and critically, that export applications for high tech were being held up by the Commerce Department and by the Defense Department out of concern that proposed exports could enhance Iraq's military capabilities. These concerns were, of course, well-founded.

In April 1989, a nuclear proliferation expert from the Department of Energy reported intelligence indicators that Iraq had begun a crash program to build an atomic bomb. In June of the same year, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Iraq was running a major European network to procure military goods that were not supposed to be sold to Iraq. In August, the FBI rated the Atlanta branch of the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, or BNL, and seized evidence of over $4 billion in illegal loans to Iraq, as well as the use of about $2 billion of those funds to buy nuclear and other military technologies.

And on September 22nd, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly wrote a memorandum acknowledging that money coming to Iraq through the Atlanta branch of the BNL did, quote, "appear to have been used," end quote, to finance acquisition of sensitive military technology. Also in that same month, September, the USDA reported kickbacks and possible diversions of US-supplied agricultural funds for military purposes. And most significant of all, in the same month, September of 1989, the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies.

Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological?Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information from the CIA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, other agencies throughout the government, on October 2nd, 1989, President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration. This document is the benchmark for judging George Bush's record for the direction of American policy toward Iraq in the period that would ultimately lead us to war. We have only a partial idea of what is in that document, since the version that was finally released to Congress has been heavily censored, but the core statement of purpose and the fundamental assumptions behind it are crystal clear. And so, as a result, is the incredibly poor judgment of George Bush on foreign policy.

NSD 26 mandated the pursuit of improved economic and political ties with Iraq on the assumption that Iraqi behavior could be modified by means of new favors to be granted. Well, perhaps so, if this were a state not under the complete control of a single man whose ruthlessness had already been totally apparent. And the text of NSD 26 blindly ignores the evidence already at the administration's disposal of Iraqi behavior in the past regarding human rights, terrorism, use of chemical weapons, the pursuit of advanced weapons of mass destruction. Instead, it makes an heroic assumption of good behavior in the future on the basis of an interesting theory, namely that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions.

Well, it leaps from the page that George Bush, both as vice president and president, had done his utmost to make sure that no such sanctions would ever apply to Saddam Hussein. Bush was the very man who had personally intervened to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in additional loans, and what was the result on the second occasion he did that? Forty-eight hours later, Saddam ordered the attack on the USS Stark, 48 hours later.

The question is unavoidable. Why should Saddam Hussein be at all concerned about a threat of action in the future from George Bush, the same man who had resolutely blocked any such action in the past? To the contrary, Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.

Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.

In October of 1989, representatives of the Departments of State and Agriculture met to discuss Iraq's diversion of US agricultural credits into the acquisition of US technology for its nuclear weapons program. Later that same month, however, on October 26th, Assistant Secretary of State Kelly sent Secretary Baker a memo jointly written with the State Department's legal counsel, Abe Sofaer, urging that Baker push yet another $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees for Iraq, notwithstanding the mushrooming scandal surrounding the diversion of BNL loans by Iraq for nuclear purposes. They knew it.

Now, I will leave to others to debate whether Sofaer's efforts or those of White House counsel Boyden Gray's staff to sound out the intentions of the Atlanta prosecutor constituted a crude form of intervention. My point is that before and after consecrating a policy that tied us hip and thigh to Saddam Hussein, George Bush had all the information that he needed to know that he was in deep, deep water.

But he persisted, although in November the CIA again reported that Baghdad was shopping everywhere for chemical, biological, nuclear technologies, and for ballistic missile technology. Did that set off an alarm bell in the Bush White House? And even though the CIA again reported a link between BNL funding and the Iraq nuclear and missile programs, in November, the administration agreed to go ahead with another billion dollars in US taxpayer-subsidized loan guarantees to Iraq, loans that the US taxpayers now, courtesy of George Bush, have to pay off.

In January of 1990, President Bush issued a determination that exempted Iraq from Section 512 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of November '89 prohibiting further loans to Iraq. The Congress had seen this evidence, and as representatives of the American people, they were attempting to protect the taxpayers against the loss of funds and to protect us and the rest of the world against the use of taxpayer dollars to finance terrorism and to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But on grounds of national security, the President declared that the act's prohibitions would not apply. And yet this was the same season when the Rand Corporation reported that an estimated 1,400 terrorists were operating openly out of Iraq.In February 1990, Saddam Hussein called for the removal of US forces from the Persian Gulf, and yet the same month the administration actually apologized to Saddam for the offending content of a Voice of American broadcast which had had the temerity to criticize Iraq's human rights record. Coddling tyrants is a hallmark of the Bush foreign policy.

March 1990 brought no improvement when US and British agents arrested several Iraqis in the act of trying to smuggle nuclear triggering devices into Iraq. In April, Saddam Hussein issued his infamous threat to burn up half of Israel with chemical weapons, and he noted "advanced binary chemical weapons". Still, Bush toadied up to Saddam.

Nothing seemed to set off the alarm in the Bush White House. It seemed that Saddam could do anything, say anything, threaten anything, and still the US taxpayer loans continued to finance his acquisition of the very weapons that he was threatening openly to use.

Also in April, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that BNL money was diverted to purchase nuclear triggers in the United States which had later been seized by British Customs. That same month, British Customs also seized pipe sections headed for Iraq which were quickly determined to have been parts of a supergun. Similar shipments were seized in Greece, Turkey, Italy, West Germany, and Switzerland. And yet, on April 12th, at the personal request of George Bush, Senators Bob Dole and Alan Simpson, the number one and number two Republican leaders in the Senate respectively, travelled to Baghdad and told Saddam Hussein that President Bush was still ready to veto any sanctions against Iraq that Congress might pass. They added as a footnote, again at Bush's person request, they said, "the comforting news that the author of that offending Voice of America criticism had been fired that same day" in an effort to please Saddam.

In April and May, Commerce Undersecretary Dennis Kloske attended two meetings at the White House where he recommended that the US tighten restrictions on exports of high technology. But again, he was overruled, and the flow of technology from the US continued. As a sidenote, when Kloske testified about this before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade about a year later, he was fired within 48 hours.

Well, May arrives, and a terrorist attack on the public beaches of Tel Aviv was launched and thwarted. It was planned by a Palestinian group operating openly in Baghdad with the full knowledge and support of Saddam Hussein. On May 21st, the USDA sent up another warning about diversions of funds from US-guaranteed loans. But on June 15th, 1990, Assistant Secretary of State Kelly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the administration still opposed any congressional sanctions against Iraq, and in July, as Iraqi tanks and soldiers massed on the Kuwaiti border, the Senate tried to pass another sanctions bill against Iraq, and the administration fiercely opposed it all out. Not only that, but on the eve of the invasion, the Bush-Quayle administration kept selling Saddam Hussein dual-use technology such as sophisticated computers, flight simulators, and equipment to manufacture gun barrels. At that very moment, however, high-level officials in the administration, including Secretary Baker, were finally forced to confront what they should have known from the outset of Bush's administration -- that Iraq had grossly abused the benefits extended to it by Bush.

In July, a memo jointly drafted by four senior officers of the State Department was sent to Secretary Baker and approved by him. According to this memorandum, the existence of which just came to light a few days ago, the administration acknowledged, and I quote, "Iraq is actively engaged in developing chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missile systems, and may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons as well. Iraq has been attempting to obtain items to support these proliferation activities from US exporters; in some cases, successfully." End quote. The memorandum concludes that the time had come for the administration to, quote, "move now on Iraq because of its very active proliferation-related procurement efforts, and because there is a danger that US exporters could become implicated in these efforts." End quote.

Well, now bear in mind that at this point Saddam Hussein was only one week away from an act of open aggression that would bring us to war. It had taken this long for an awareness of what was going on for years to be acknowledged within the administration. Much has been said about the record of our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie's famous interview of July 25th with Saddam Hussein. But the ambassador's servile message was a clear expression of Bush's personal views. Her message was totally in line with US policy laid down by President Bush personally in October of 1989 and clung to until August 2nd, 1990 when Iraq invaded, conquered, and annexed Kuwait.

Within a month, our sons and daughters were to be sent to risk their lives, facing a threat that had been built up through US technology and US tax dollars by our own President, who now summoned them to battle. In answer to this charge, President Bush has explicitly denied that his policies enhanced Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities. He denied this, not only in an official report to Congress in the Fall of 1991, but as recently as June 13th and July 1st of this year, when Bush said, and I quote, "We did not enhance Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons capability." That statement has no credibility. As I have just mentioned, his own secretary of state knew differently and wrote differently, at least as of July 1990, and the actual record of our exports shows the facts rather differently than the President wants to remember them.

Here are the facts. Almost 30 percent of our non-agricultural exports to Iraq between 1985 and 1990 went directly to the Iraqi military industrial complex. Of these exports, there were 162 items that were licensed for sale despite their potential nuclear applications. The administration permitted the sale of powerful computers, comparable to those used in our own missile test ranges, despite objections from the Department of Defense. It allowed shipment of high tech equipment needed for Iraq's Condor 2 missile, which was to have been able to deliver a nuclear warhead at a range of more than 600 miles. It allowed for the export of materials needed for the infamous supergun project, intended to have the ability to launch nuclear weapons like artillery shells over hundreds of miles. Machine tools, lasers and other equipment for the manufacture of rocket casings needed in Scud missiles were sold. When UN inspectors got into Iraq, they found that Saddam Hussein's main nuclear weapons complex, a carbide-tipped machine tool factory, had been built with technology and equipment licensed for export by the Bush administration.

The administration licensed technology and equipment for fabricating shapes out of glass fiber, over the objections of the Department of Defense, which noted that the purchaser was part of the Iraqi military- industrial complex and that this equipment was needed for a nuclear weapons program. They did it anyway. The administration preferred to blindly accept the importer's ludicrous claim that the Iraqi military-industrial complex would use this equipment to make shower stalls. Equipment for a so-called detergent factory was licensed, yet this same factory was used to make chemical weapons, used by a nation that had already broken the taboo since World War I and massively used chemical weapons on its own people. What were they thinking?

Seventeen licenses for the export of bacterial and fungus cultures to Iraq were granted, even though the CIA specifically linked the Iraqi government agencies involved to, quote, "biological warfare support and numerous other military activities." End quote. The UN Special Commission, once it finally got inside Iraq, is reported to have found equipment from 11 American companies in Iraqi missile and chemical weapons plants.

It is truly astounding to look at the list of Iraqi customers who were identified and then approved to receive this material by the Bush administration -- the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, known as MIMI, which was headed by a brigadier general who was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, and which the CIA identified as, quote, "controlling Iraq's nuclear network." That didn't set off an alarm bell? It's okay to send this equipment to the man our CIA says is in control of the nuclear network in Iraq?Another customer approved: The Saddam State Establishment and Salah al Din (sp), called in an intelligence report typical of Iraq's armed production facilities. Saad 16 (sp), identified back in 1986 as a key missile production site, where as much as 40 percent of the equipment was reported to be US made. The administration even sold Saddam Hussein helicopters for his personal use equipped with special infrared guidance and defensive systems so that he would be more at ease.

Incredibly, the Bush administration knew all along that the chief purchasing agent for much of this material was the head of an Iraqi weapons complex. The tentacle of the octopus, as one law enforcement official put it, was a US company called Matrix Churchill. It was a key player in Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear and other weapons technologies. The chairman of this so-called American corporation was one Safa Al-Habobi, who was simultaneously the director general of the Iraqi Nassir (sp) State Enterprise for Mechanical Industries, well-known by our intelligence agencies as a major Iraqi military-industrial complex where missiles and nuclear weapons equipment were manufactured. He was the principal purchasing agent.

There was report after report linking Habobi's firm, Matrix Churchill, to Iraq's global network of front companies and even back to the Iraqi Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, and Saddam's son-in- law, Hussein Kamal (sp).

But the Bush administration kept issuing licenses for high-tech exports no matter what. Cozy up to Saddam. Make him our friend. This was the Bush theory in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. And as for how Iraq paid for all of this? When it was already far over its head in debt as a result of the war with Iran and Saddam Hussein's disastrous economic policies? Well, a large part of the answer is: on credit in the form of loans guaranteed by the US taxpayers at the insistence of the Bush-Quayle administration over the objections of those who were in charge of evaluating creditworthiness and evaluating the use to which the money was to be put.

In the fall of '89, Bush pushed hard to make sure that that $1 billion in new loan guarantees were provided to Saddam, and it didn't matter that federal agencies were reporting severe abuses of prior loan guarantees. In the end, the US taxpayer, of course, has been left holding the bag for almost $2 billion of loans which Iraq will never repay. After bailing out the savings and loans, American taxpayers are now being forced by Bush's poor judgment to bail out Saddam Hussein.

When it came time to confront the consequences of these years of serious mistakes, when it came time to confront Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait with an international coalition united in its resolve and purpose, George Bush all the way up to the moment the combat ended displayed fortitude, skill, and leadership. But the chestnuts he pulled from that fire were his own. His policies nurtured Saddam Hussein. He was deaf to information that to any other ear was a firebell in the night, ringing clearly that our policies were disastrously wrong, leading toward tragedy.

And, of course, incredibly, immediately following the war, Bush reverted to form. At Bush's encouragement, an armed resistance to Saddam Hussein had sprung up in Iraq, but at the critical moment, it was George Bush's decision to betray that resistance by tolerating Saddam Hussein's use of attack helicopters to put down the rebellions and to slaughter the dissenters. That was a clear violation of the terms of the cease-fire, and it was a violation we had more than enough power to suppress rather easily. Had we insisted on the terms of the cease-fire, there would have been a much better chance that today we would not be facing Saddam Hussein still in power.

Well, should a man who mistook Saddam Hussein for a docile and friendly ally and who then pursued that error to the point where lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans had to be put on the line have a second term as president of the United States? Has George Bush told the truth, the whole truth, about a policy that left our nation facing a brutal, murderous dictator? If he will take the credit for the victory, will he also take responsibility for the policy that made that war inevitable? The answer to these questions is, of course, no. He's not fond of accepting responsibility.

George Bush sent loan guarantees to an oil-rich dictator. George Bush sold dangerous technology to a criminal who was intent on developing and using lethal weapons. George Bush sent secret intelligence reports to a man who, by any stretch of the imagination, could not be trusted. George Bush refused to face the truth or to hear the urgent warnings coming from his own administration. And then, George Bush put American lives on the line in a war that never should have happened, except for his mistakes.

In so many ways, George Bush simply does not fit the requirements of the new world order his own speechwriters once summoned up. We require a fresh approach from a new leader of vigor and high intelligence, of courage and vision, who believes to the core that the enemies of freedom cannot be anything but the enemies of our country. I think that the people of the United States have and will take the opportunity to select such a leader. Bill Clinton is that man. Thank you. (Applause.)

MS. ALBRIGHT: Senator Gore has time for a few questions, if you would pass your questions up, please.

As you yourself said, President Bush has claimed that they have a legitimate policy for drawing Iraq into the family of nations. Isn't this just the way foreign policy is done? Shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt?

SEN. GORE: I believe there is a clear line of demarcation between the standard which ought to be used in judging the persistent support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and the standard which ought to be used in the aftermath of that war.

I question the decisions that were made during the war, but the decisions made after the end of that war, when the justification for coddling Saddam so thoroughly was dissipated, those decisions reflected truly atrocious judgment. I really do not understand how anyone could receive this flood of information about the terrorism, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, the unremitting hostility to the United States and to all of our objectives and interests, save the -- except for the continued flow of cheap oil, I don't understand how anyone with sound judgment could have persisted in supporting Saddam as much as Bush did and forcing the US taxpayers to subsidize his acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

Now, during the period prior to the end of the Iran-Iraq war, as I stated, I think a different standard ought to be used. I still question the decisions that were made then. I think we went too far. But the central point in response to this question is, when one makes a judgment of that sort, based on the calculation of the national interest in balancing the real politik motives of countries like Iran and Iraq -- when one is force to make an unpleasant decision of that kind, when circumstances change, we have to adjust, and we have to recognize that they have changed and untie ourselves from such an unsavory, brutal, aggressive, and dangerous dictator. Instead, when the circumstances changed, allowing us to bring our policy more into line with American values, Bush accelerated the former policy and stepped up the taxpayer loans and the sales of high tech equipment. It is an astonishing record, truly, and led directly to the war.

MS. ALBRIGHT: Israeli governments have obviously been concerned about Iraqi nuclear and chemical weapons programs. Is there any evidence that the Bush administration had been warned by the Israelis of Iraqi actions prior to the invasion of Kuwait?

SEN. GORE: Well, of course, going back to 1981, Israel took direct action of its own to halt or at least slow down at that point that Iraqi effort to develop nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge warnings from any source. Whatever the evidence, they have ignored it. Many of our allies have provided us with evidence of Iraq's persistent effort to acquire these weapons of mass destruction. Many people within the Bush administration raised warning flags. But Bush, once he sets out on a course to coddle someone, he goes the distance. (Laughter and applause.)

MS. ALBRIGHT: This is kind of a combination of questions, and it tags onto what you've just been saying, but how is it that someone like Bush, with all his supposed foreign policy experience, was so blind to this set of facts that you've laid out?

SEN. GORE: I think it is -- I think the errors are rooted not in his intelligence, but in his judgment. I believe that he was intent on currying favor with this powerful leader on the assumption that ultimately they would be friends, and that Saddam would so appreciate what Bush had done for him, that at critical moments, this relationship could be used to modify Iraq's behavior in ways that would serve our interests. Now bear in mind that this assumption was being used by a man, George Bush, who had already done a lot of personal favors for Iraq, and had those favors followed by increasingly aggressive and outrageous responses. The second time that we know about, at least -- the second time he personally intervened to secure US taxpayer loans for Saddam, less than two days after the loan went through, Saddam ordered the attack on the USS Stark. Now it would seem to me that George Bush might begin to wonder whether his efforts were being appreciated or not, but it seemed never to occur to him. Indeed, in that infamous meeting between April Glaspie and Saddam, he even instructed Glaspie to say that we have no particular national interest in protecting the territory of Kuwait, we have no treaties with them, we aren't especially concerned about border disputes between you and Kuwait -- at a time when the tanks were massing on the border. In fact, even after the invasion, it took Margaret Thatcher to provide him some backbone.

A quote from Clementine Paddleford (sp), who wrote in the 1950s is applicable here. She said, "Don't put a wishbone where a backbone should be." (Laughter.) That's what Bush attempted to do, and it doesn't work in foreign policy. (Applause.)

MS. ALBRIGHT: Don't you think that the President has already addressed many of these issues? What does he have to do now to respond to the train of thought that you've laid out here?

SEN. GORE: Well, I think he has to come clean with the American people, and in fact, he has not answered these questions. Let me compare his responses on the swap of arms for hostages with his responses on the way his policies built up Iraq's military power. On the swap of arms for hostages, he has repeatedly said he was out of the loop, didn't know that the secretaries of defense and state were objecting. If he had, he might have raised concerns of his own, but he was excluded from key meetings and just didn't know what was going on.

Well, of course, now that's simply not credible because the evidence is piling up, and has he responded to questions about that evidence? No. He has just brushed it off by saying, "There has already been an investigation and I was exonerated." Well, in fact, there has not been an effort to require him to answer specific questions about that matter, and his statements that he was out of the loop and didn't know what was going on, again, are simply not credible.

Similarly, to this day, George Bush is telling the American people that his decisions did not result in assistance to Saddam Hussein in building up his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology. That is simply not true. His own Secretary of State had said exactly the contrary in an official memorandum written one week before the invasion of Kuwait. Repeated statements from Cabinet departments and the CIA have stated exactly the contrary. But President Bush continues to assert to the American people that there was no problem with this.

Now, let me tell you the link between these two. He was willing to swap arms for hostages even though that would involve dealing directly with terrorists in a manner which risked convincing those terrorists that they could continue their horrendous activities and even be rewarded for it. If he had been held accountable for the poor judgment he exhibited during the arms for hostages swap, he might have been a little more reluctant to make the same moral mistake in the Iraqgate controversy, because the key misjudgment was a willingness to deal with a nation that was guilty of terrorism on a continuing basis and reward them on the hope and expectation that they would change their ways, when, in fact, rewarding them for their behavior could well have been expected to encourage more such behavior. It's the same basic miscalculation and poor judgment.

MS. ALBRIGHT: We conclude with a final question. Beginning January 21st, 1993, what will the policy of the Clinton-Gore administration be towards Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

SEN. GORE: Since this is the last question, before I answer it, let me invite the attention of those present to materials that I have asked my staff to prepare, which lays out all of the evidence that I have presented here with extensive footnotes referring in each case to the specific documents and to the specific evidence that I am relying on and quoting from in the speech. I have also asked them to prepare, and they have done so, listings of the technology that was specifically exported and a rather extensive month-by-month calendar of exactly when the warnings came, when they were ignored, and when the decisions were made to support Saddam in spite of those warnings. So, I invite your attention to the more detailed version of this presentation.

Now, Governor Clinton and I have spelled out what we believe is an appropriate policy toward Iraq. We believe that the elements of democratic resistance within Iraq deserve support and encouragement from the United States of America. We believe that Saddam must be required to comply with the UN resolutions, all of the UN resolutions, including the one, 688, which prevents him from persecuting his own people, the Kurds in the south, the Muslim resistance elements -- the Kurds in the north, the Muslim resistance elements in the south, and those Sunni resistance fighters in the middle part of the country who have formed a common bond with the Shi'a in the south and the Kurds in the north and are even now attempting to organize a more effective front against Saddam Hussein.

We believe that this kind of behavior simply cannot be tolerated. And we believe that American foreign policy ought to be based on a clear understanding of what American interests are in this new world of the '90s and the 21st century and based on American values, support for freedom, political freedom and economic freedom, and not the coddling of tyrants, which has been the hallmark of the Bush foreign policy.

Thank you all very much for being here. (Applause.) Thank you, Madeleine.

As one can plainly see, candidate Gore believed in 1992 that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, was trying to develop and acquire a nuclear arsenal, and was financing and supporting terrorism around the world.

With this in mind, why haven't the media reported on this major policy speech whenever Gore states otherwise?

Yes, that is indeed a rhetorical question.

In the 1992 speech Gore condemns President Bush for "blatant disregard for brutal terrorism, a dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot."

Naming names: The Saddam-al Qaida connection
Captured Baathists reveal alliance with Islamo-terrorists
Posted: June 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

WASHINGTON - It has been denied, downplayed, overlooked, forgotten, disregarded and omitted from the public record.

But a thorough review of open-source material demonstrates conclusive and widespread cooperation between former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime and terrorists from the Iraqi al-Qaida network.

Dozens of former Saddam Hussein loyalists captured by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq were found to be working with al-Qaida or linked to their operations.

Here are some notable players in that alliance:

Muhammed Hila Hammad Ubaydi

Muhammed Hila Hammad Ubaydi, aka Abu Ayman, was the former aide to the chief of staff of intelligence during the Saddam regime for 30 years. Ubaydi later led the Secret Islamic Army in the Northern Babil Province and was said to have had strong ties to the former terror leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. He was captured April 6, 2006, in southern Baghdad.

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is "the former vice chairman of Saddam's Baathist Revolutionary Command Council who swore fealty to Zarqawi and provided funding for al-Qaida and significant element of the Baathist/al-Qaida converts and collaborators.

Abdel Faith Isa is a former Iraqi army officer who was later identified as an al-Qaida emir. He was captured May 6, 2004.

Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi is "believed to be a former officer in Saddam's army, or its elite Republican Guard, who (has) worked closely with al-Zarqawi since the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator in April 2003." Al-Baghdadi was among the candidates nominated as potential Abu Musab al Zarqawi's leadership position in al-Qaida in Iraq.

Ahmad Hasan Kaka al-'Ubaydi was a former Iraqi Intelligence Service officer, and believed to have later become associated with al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Islam.

Abu Aseel is a "former high ranking Saddam official" who was working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after 2002.

Abu Asim was a Special Republican Guard officer under Saddam Hussein and is said to have been active within the insurgency after the fall of the former regime, including association with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Abu Maysira al-Iraqi was reportedly a "minister of information" for al-Qaida in Iraq and formerly an expert in information technology for Saddam's army. "He was an expert in information technology in Saddam's army and was entrusted with the additional task of waging the jihad through the Internet" for Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq."

Abdul-Hadi al-Iraqi is being held in Guantanamo Bay and was called "a top leader with al-Qaida in Iraq and the Mujahedeen Shura Council and originally comes from Nineveh province. He was a major in Saddam's army but left to travel to Iraq to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1990s" and was later identified as a "liaison between bin Laden and al-Qaida's leadership in Afghanistan, and the al-Qaida network formerly headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq." Al-Iraqi has also been cited as one of bin Laden's top al-Qaida commanders.

Unnamed former air force officer - a man who was killed in a coalition raid in Iraq "was later identified as a retired officer in the Iraqi air force serving under the Saddam regime. The male who initiated the gunfire is a suspected al-Qaida terrorist for whom the troops were searching, as well as the retired officer's son. The former officer was killed April 14, 2006.

Abed Dawood Suleiman and son Raed Abed Dawood - Suleiman was a former Iraqi general believed to have become Zarqawi's "military adviser." Raed was a former army captain in the Iraqi army and was caught April 15, 2005.

Mohammed Khalaf Shkarah al-Hamadani, aka Abu Talha, was a key facilitator and financier for al-Qaida in Iraq. He reportedly was the head of a Zarqawi's terror cell. Al-Hamadani previously was a member of the Baath Party and a warrant officer in the former Iraqi army. He was captured June 5, 2005.

"Al-Hajji" Thamer Mubarak was an Iraqi military officer who became a key aide to Zarqawi. Mubarak reportedly was involved in the August 2003 al-Qaida attack on U.N. headquarters in Iraq.

Hasayn Ali Muzabir, a former Iraqi Intelligence (Mukhabarat) officer for Saddam's regime, was later identified as al-Qaida's emir of Samarra. Muzabir was killed in Balad, Iraq, on June 2, 2006.

Muhammad Hamza Zubaydi was a "Baath Party official in charge of security in central Iraq and had helped put down an uprising by Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq in 1991." Zubaydi was later found to be an associate of Zarqawi's al-Qaida branch in Iraq.

Abdul Hamid Mustafa al-Douri was a relative of Saddam's former aide Izzat al-Douri. As an aide to Zarqawi, and head of the Salaheddin province al Qaida branch and car-bombing network, he was captured in a joint Iraqi police and army operation in a village in northern Tikrit.

Haitham al-Badri - "Before joining al-Qaida in Iraq, Badri was a warrant officer in the Special Republican Guard under Saddam. After the invasion, he joined the insurgent group Ansar al-Sunna, where he trained recruits and carried out attacks."

Salas Khabbas is "a former member of the Baath party and (was) closely linked with al-Qaida." Khabbas "specialized in attacking convoys and kidnapping." He was captured July 12, 2006, by Polish intelligence agents.

Abu Zubair was trained in Iraq and was reportedly sent by Saddam's government to lead "supporters of Islam" into northern Iraq to assassinate leading Kurds and to assist in building chemical warfare facilities.

Rafid Fatah "also known as Abu Omer al-Kurdi, was also trained by Saddam and worked with (Abu) Zubair against the Kurds. It is not known when he left Iraq, but he too became a leading member of al-Qaida . His whereabouts are not known."

Mohammed Hanoun Hamoud al-Mozani is a former Iraqi intelligence officer who was captured by police after bombings in Baghdad and Karbala. It was later revealed he was paid by al-Qaida to carry out attacks on civilians.

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi is a former member of Saddam Hussein's intelligence services who rose to No. 2 in al-Qaida's Iraq wing. Al-Saeedi reportedly "told interrogators that al-Qaida in Iraq exchanges logistical support and information with supporters of Saddam Hussein."

Muharib Abdullah Latif al-Juburi was a military intelligence officer in Saddam's army and later rose to a leading position for al-Qaida in Iraq. Al-Juburi also served as the "Information Minister" for the Islamic state of Iraq.

Abu Mustafa was a Saddam-era military officer who told Time magazine he spent his time in jail (post-invasion) "studying Salafi Islam and receiving lessons in jihad from bearded Iraqis and detainees who came from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia" before joining the jihadist fighters in Iraq.

Abu Ali was "among those who have thrown their support behind the jihad. ... A ballistic-missile specialist in Saddam's Fedayeen militia, he fought U.S. troops during the invasion and has served as a resistance commander ever since, organizing rocket attacks on the Green Zone, the headquarters of the U.S. administration in Baghdad. When interviewed by Time last fall, he spoke of a vain hope that Saddam would return and re-establish a Baathist regime."

Omar Hadid, according to Middle East news outlets cited by, was a former personal body guard of Saddam and had trained with al-Qaida in Afghanistan before fighting against coalition forces in Fallujah and elsewhere. Hadid, according to an al-Qaida biography after his death, also had a relative who was an official for Iraq's intelligence services and worked with Hadid on postwar operations.

A former Saddam Hussein officer was appointed as an al-Qaida leader to set up attacks on Iraqi oil sites in early 2007.

An unnamed former Saddam Fedayeen leader as an insurgent leader responsible for al- Qaida/foreign fighter camps in Syria.

Abu Raja hails from a family who was "well-connected" during Saddam Hussein's rule and later joined forces with a

Posted by: Sam | September 11, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Nobody took me up on it [1:57P].

I think when Chris wrote the phrase "progressive movement" he described something that simply does not exist.

That was either of no interest to anyone else, or everyone agrees there is no such thing, or everyone thinks I am too post-ideological to understand. I am guessing the first.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The Nazis used the term "defeatist" alot to brand Germans who were beginning to seriously doubt Hitler's direction during WW2. Fox news Bill O'reilly seems to be using this same word alot lately to brand Americans who are expressing their doubts on the occupation in Irak. So it is save to assume that the media today is using the same tactics Hitler used in his propaganda campaigns and the same lexicon if not more sophisticated.

Posted by: mh | September 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The whole idea with the Hollywood set is that they want to minipulate the public out of a reality and into their make beleive world of illusions and utopian dreamstates. UNFORTUNATELY, for them, the free thinking mind and the democratic beleifs of the men and women who Love this nation choose to seperate fact from fiction. And live as Free people and free thinkers

In the rest of the world you have tyrannical governments who want to make all of the decisions for the people,In America we have the hollywood-ites who want to control and minipulate everyones minds. Especially the weak minded and commune-ist who feel they can think for everyone.


Posted by: TODAYS TOM SAWYER | September 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Is rufus inner city? sounds like it. I think I see ebonics here. Probably passed on thru by some liberal.

As far as the war goes, muslims are dying. That's all that counts.

Posted by: CAMELJOCKEY | September 11, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

They will do great until they send their first $500,000 invoice to a political campaign for producing a 30 second spot. They spend more on catering for a shoot in LA then a campaign would spend on an entire production budget for it's life.

Posted by: James O'Brien | September 11, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

How novel -- another Democratic media company. Ugh. WHat a f-ckin waste of time and money. I'm happy I switched from Dem to Independent when I left politics.

Posted by: Thin Man | September 11, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse


The democrats suck ALOT more. Trust me.

Every time you click an ad, you save a kitten's life.

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't this read that they're forming a "leftist political company?" Every so called political movie and tv show out there is anti-American and anti-military (unless they're victims of our evil government).

The entire lot are nothing but a bunch of self- hating useful idiots for our enemies. I spit on them all.

Posted by: Jake | September 11, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, you make no sense. A perfect example of "Leftist Crazies" making no sense is your radical jump to the conclusion that he was inciting violence. He was merely encouraging Americans to stand up to the nonsensical blubberings of liberal tools. It seems more and more each day the far left are demonstrating how much logic they lack. The reason the conservatives have such a media following (especially as evinced by the commercial success of talk radio) is because they actually disseminate sound, logical material that people of substance are interested in hearing and discussing. If you want to talk about power brokers behind the scenes in politics, look at George Soros and his evil empire of liberal activism.

Posted by: Mackers | September 11, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Seems redundant.

Posted by: Randy P | September 11, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Yawn, Bush sucks, yawn, 9/11 conspiracy, yawn, let Mexico move in (or not) yawn, Hollywood unites to form a propaganda company to brainwash American youth, but apparently the Republicans have been doing that for thirty years, yawn. What everyone posting here fails to realize is to realize is that there won't be any magic after the next election, we'll all continue to be robbed by the politicians, hated by the middle east and continue to crumble as a free society. So keep bickering about which party sucks more, goes to show how little anyone knows

Posted by: Ed | September 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Hollywood has been in control of the communists for awhile. This project doesn't suprise me. Liberalism and communism appeals to losers.

Posted by: The Unsilent Majority | September 11, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Boy, coward. you must be overwhelmed by all the different voices zouk has today. how will you pollute the blog with so many non-cowards showing up and stating what sane Americans really think.

Yep, they are all me. except the really stupid ones that are unsigned. those are some totally Liberal moronic fool.

the same goes for the rest of you ninkompoops - LOUD and dumb, cassandra, Jane, drindl, JEP, rufas. I am calling you out for the losers and liars that you are. Go back to Kos and feed off your hate there. we are taking our country back and throwing you meatheads away.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

NAMBLA is conservative? I didn't know.

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Straw man sandra. The gop loves to give you an enemy. It me it's rosie its hollywood it's the communists its the judges is the main stream media. You gop'ers never run out of peopel to blame, or hate. I'll take it as a compliment that the people destroying this great country I served see me as a problem for trying to save them. Thank you

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

anon suggests
"bsimon, play cspan or npr or cnn THROUGH YOUR COMPUTER."

sysadmins 'round these parts frown on high-bandwidth activity that's not work related.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

2:54PM: Conservative kiddieporn?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

America hates you hollywood fukheads

Posted by: Mark West | September 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey attention, democrats!

Hollywood and TV have been liberal / democrat establishments since their inception. Sorry you haven't noticed.

The fact that they are RALLYING like this is just more evidence that the old media is losing its political clout with the more informed, and more conservative, internet generation.

Bye Bye Hippies!!

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

It's ironic that for years Hollywood types have dismissed the impact of media on viewers, suggesting that violence, sexual innuendo, and propaganda has little or no impact on the public at large. If this assumption is true, why even form a production company which intends "to create content...designed to move a political or policy message."? I thought the media didn't have that power. In reality they do, and are unwilling to admit that they have as much of a negative impact as they think they will have a positive on society.

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The day I let the losers in hollywood and those like rufus impact my view of the world will be the day i check out - hollywood is too full of themselves - constantly trading their partners in for newer models every year - in and out of drug and alcohol rehab - don't know the meaning of the word underpants - proud to say that because of hollywood espousing their political viewpoints i have save a bunch of money by not watching their crap - and i certainly feel privileged to be able to spread my information to many others who also have saved money - but rufus, you and the rest of the hollywood boot lickers can follow them -

Posted by: Sandra | September 11, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

This is so delusional. Democrats still think their salvation lies in sugar-coating their message. Truth is, America rejects their POLICIES--high taxes, open borders, endless regulation, pervasive welfare, limp foreign policy. They squeaked through in the '06 midterms by electing conservative, Reagan Dems like Webb in VA and Tester in MT....and then tried to sell it as America turning left. Not so. As '08 will prove.

Posted by: Don Churchill | September 11, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, play cspan or npr or cnn THROUGH YOUR COMPUTER.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I've been reading these posts and thought where the $%#@ am I then I realized I'm reading the post. Click gone.

Posted by: Nepenthe | September 11, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

' I have no fear or distrust of the military, having worked with them for many years and believe them to be honest and fair. '

yeah right, zouk--we beleive that. like you have any credibillty with anyone on this site. How can you work when you post here every 2 minutes for 10 hours a day?

Posted by: Cassandra | September 11, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin
"Biden and Lugar and Hagel and Obama have been much harder on the witnesses than the Congressmen were yesterday."

I really have to remember to bring a radio in...

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I must work now. When I look in later, I hope that someone will have addressed my questions from 1:57P.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"their company is not simply an election vehicle but a longer term politics and policy venture aimed at re-branding the look and feel of online and television communications of the Democratic Party and the overall progressive movement"

Well it's about time!

Hopefully as a sanity check they will routinely call in the South Park guys on consulting to evaluate their product. Like Lincoln and his Cabinet.

Posted by: Golgi | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Entertainers are only entertainers when they entertain. Those who exploit their fame, resources and celebrity for political ends, especially in such vast and organized manners, are definitively totalitarian propogandists and lose their passive title as entertainers. They should be held accountable as such!

Libs have lost their minds. Hollywood couldn't be more of a political machine for the Democrats then they have been for many years now. Any new "production" studio when 90% of media and hollywood movies are already liberal, is redundant.
Fanatic nut job lunatics have hijacked the Democrats over the past decade and are stunningly effective at destroying America, our Constitution, our culture and anything truly American. I blame the passivity of the opposition for their success.
Do you not think that if Dems and Libs like these freaks had it their way they wouldn't burn the Constitution, dance on it's ashes, and rewrite it to read "one rule, Liberal or die". They are trying desperately to do this already through judicial activism. Legitimate political thoughts and opinions of conservativism are literally being criminalized before our very eyes. Who are the real fascists?
This IS a political coup! Ignorance and apathy will allow these tyrannical anarchists to succeed. How many liberal sheep actually realize the consequences of their actions I wonder? Probably only the loonies at the top who prey on ignorant emotional fears of unwitting, although admittedly well-intentioned, Americans.
Wake up America! Educate yourself on real politics, government, federalism, tyranny, totalitarianism, real history of America and end your twisted mind control. I now understand how Hitler convinced a nation to commit the atrocities it did. And the libs are history repeating! Machiavelli could learn a thing or two from these guys.
Fools. I fear our nation (defined: A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality) is truly LOST and must be re-established. This will take action by those who understand the vision of our founding fathers, who understand how unique and benevolent the fundamental values of our Constitution truly are.
Ignorance is the root of liberal fear and hatred of our "nation". Emotional rhetoric fuels it.

PS even you pseudo-intellectual elites should do a gut check, really sit and consider, philosophically, why you rage against the American machine so vehemently. And, re-defining "American" doesn't make it "American". This common manipulation and circular reasoning is the unfortunate consequence that occurs in a free society.
I know I've discussed more than the main topic, but, they are most definitely interlaced and the true "greatest threat" our nation faces. Sadly, the terrorists come in a close second.
As Colin Powell said recently, "the terrorists can't destroy our nation, only we can!"

Posted by: Rick | September 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Is "licention" a word? If it is, what does it mean? It does sound like fun.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

zouk/hank florin/david/'screw lefties' -and all your other sock puppet names -- do you really think you are fooling anyone? everyone knows you're own here with your drivel and crap all day long.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It's so obvious the Left has become a pantheistic religion of secular deities, whose gods are Environmentalism, Relativism, Licention, and the like. But, because their religion is secular and Politics is their pulpit, they get a pass on their tax exempt status when they preach their "good news" from that pulpit. They keep thinking it's that they can't get the message out, but they don't realize that its their gospel that people can't stand.

Posted by: Neil | September 11, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Jon, unwrap yourself from that flag. My flag. I want to see what you look like.

Posted by: Last Refuge | September 11, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

What real Americans have to understand about liberals is that htey hate the military and anyone who has served in it. The military is everything they are, courageous, honorable, progressive, honest, hard working, etc. Liberals are the scourage of this country.

Posted by: Jon | September 11, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

How is this any different then what Hollywood has been spitting out for the last 35 years?

Not that I care for either the neo-con or the big-lib.

Posted by: mjb | September 11, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

So your first instinct is to call the GAO liars and trust the military numbers

No, I said I would question both numbers. the most reasonable thing to do mathematically in a void of other information is to draw a line down the middle.

but it is not a complete void of information. the news reports, which is all I have to go on, have declined . I have no fear or distrust of the military, having worked with them for many years and believe them to be honest and fair. I do have suspicians of the GAO since they have not gottena budget number right in their entire lifetime.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"why do all you wacked out Libs assume I post everything that is unattributed?"

It's the fingerprints Zouk. We dust, your prints usually show up.

Posted by: Sgt. Friday | September 11, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

and another thing boko:

Math major. then I got a real job. never had to spell or write until that darned dissertation. still can't most say. but I can build a sweet model in MATLAB.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Boko - that wasn't me. I actually like Papa quite a bit. but he was a drinker.

why do all you wacked out Libs assume I post everything that is unattributed? I proudly post my name to my stuff and am willing to debate what I say. I have no fear of you Libs, you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. with your positions, it is just too easy to beat you.

Can we talk about hillary now? I am trying to plan my pardons for drug pushers budget. I still need to convert quite a bit of chinese money for campaign donations and then I still have to bundle it up and find some dead people who will donate and then vote.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I repeat that I think the Hollywood players are of virtually no interest. However, the last phrase of Chris' blog post is.

I do not think that there is a progressive "movement". There was a Civil Rights movement and I was engaged in it. That was a long time ago.

Goldwater may have led a movement. There used to be a labor movement. There actually may be an environmental movement.

Does a progressive movement stand for personal freedoms beyond the Bill of Rights? Or, does it stand for limiting personal freedoms in favor of the perceived community good? Does it pick the First A but not the Second A? Does it favor a professional but volunteer military or does it want shared responsibility for defense?
Does it want a Marshall Plan for Mexico to stengthen its economy to where our borders are secure or does it want to abosrb Mexico, gradually, by legalizing the flood of undocs? Does it favor Israel, a democracy, or the Arabs, who have oil?
Does it want conservation through wind generators or is it concerned with birds flying into them?

If it is only defined by wanting to leave Iraq it is not a movement. And the self styled progressives of my acquaintance do not agree on the above, or much of anything. It does not make them not "progressive", but "they ain't no movement".

Biden and Lugar and Hagel and Obama have been much harder on the witnesses than the Congressmen were yesterday.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Good to see so many Democrats online here whose minds won't be changed by mere facts.

FACTS BE DAMNED!! We've stated the war in Iraq was illegitimate from the beginning in conscious disregard of the facts, and we won't be swayed now by some paltry observations by an expert in the military field of conflict avoidance, conflict success, and successful reunification of previously displaced and adverse individuals.

Hillary and Schumer should be proud to know such stalwarts, as are many here, are their indisputable base.

Posted by: Mel | September 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone mentioned Ann Coulter? I love Ann Coulter. I thought since all the bleeding-hearts were whining about Bill and Ms. Malkin that maybe we could talk about something different.

We should all take Ann Coulter's philosophy. She's the best.

GOP '08

Posted by: right-a-roney | September 11, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I am not a dolt but my guess is you are a liberal that believes everything that your wing nut groups shove down your throats like global warming.

Posted by: Jon | September 11, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, please keep this war going. The more muslims we kill the safer this country is.
In fact, lets kick out all muslims/arabs that are not citizens of this country and those that are citizens make them swear an oath to America and denounce all violence against this country and if they are unwilling to do so kick them out too.

Posted by: Jon | September 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Jon, you are a dolt. That about sums it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, please keep this war going. The more muslims we kill the safer this country is.

Posted by: Jon | September 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Thank God for Fox News and Bill O'Reilly. Without them America would never get the real news, only hte news that the radical left wing nuts want us to hear. I was a lifelong demicrat until I started to learn the truth. Liberalism is really just another word for communism, not like the liberals from 40 years ago. In fact JFK would be a Republican today, not a liberal. If liberals take over, our country is pretty much over. We will have terrorist attacks every week, if not every day and our economy will go into the crapper because the libs will raise our taxes tremendously and force a socialist health care system on us and punish those of us earning (what they consider) too much money. Can we banish the libs to another country or area like the middle east where they can try to talk to the nut case muslims into being peaceful

Posted by: Jon | September 11, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

P.T.Bull - You don't have to feel compelled to insult the French anymore. Even the Rep. who had the House cafeteria change French Fries to Freedom Fries has admitted that it was a mistake.

Posted by: Yesterday's Insults | September 11, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Just an observation... the many faces of Zouk have today felt able to slander "Earnest Hemmingway" as a "drunken, drug addict fool," yet he/they hold up O'Reilly as a model of journalistic excellence.

Three things I would say to the "king":

1. You say $h1t like this, yet wonder why those on the left regard themselves as more cultured than are the neocons. I don't imagine I would be the first to tell you that Hemingway is widely - around the world, among those who read - considered to be one of the greatest English writers of the 20th century. Yes, greater than Tom Clancy. He will be remembered and appreciated far longer than O'Reilly, Malkin et al, who with any luck will be dismissed and forgotten before long.
2. I know you will see this as petty, because your kind regards anything at which they are unskilled as unimportant. However, I have to believe that you have some interest in giving folks the idea that you are intelligent, and that your ideas are worth consideration. With that in mind, I would direct you to the "Spelling and Grammar" feature, located on the "Tools" menu of Microsoft Word. I have to tell you, those skills you ignored back in high school? when you were drawing boobs in your notebook? They're thought to be pretty important by most intelligent adults. "Intelligent." Think about it.
3. Papa Hemingway hunted lions and crocodiles in Africa. Bill O'Reilly harassed co-workers with a loofah. Hopefully you see the difference.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 11, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

From the comments here it sounds like we need another civil war.

Posted by: Ed | September 11, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"My first instinct would not be to call the general a liar...I would trust the military numbers over all others with no other information to go on since I know they typically don't alter data and the GAO often does."

So your first instinct is to call the GAO liars and trust the military numbers. Why is that more legitimate than trusting the GAO numbers? (This also proves my point earlier, that you'd rather trust the military numbers and ignore the GAO. I guess I wasn't putting words in your mouth after all.)

The GAO is a non-partisan office. Their purpose is to give accurate information to other government offices. They have no reason to be anything but honest. Petraeus, on the other hand, wants to give positive results. He has a motivation to pick numbers which support his overall conclusion. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. And considering that his numbers contradict the GAO's numbers, it's a very meaningful fact.

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Need more hollywood types in political advertising. That will be way different than what they do now. "I hate my own country" needs to be packaged properly for its inherent rightness to become apparent to the masses. Of course, won't lots of your hollywood types need to move back from France where they promised to go if Bush got re-elected?

Posted by: P.T.Bull | September 11, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

If congress truely wanted to end the war all they have to do is stop the funding. Instead they continue to use the war as an opportunity to gain political advantage.
It's very simple, cut off the money and it ends.

Posted by: Dave | September 11, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

On point: I would have been so enthusiastic about Hollywood or Madison Ave. employing their art[s] to sell our Bill of Rights or even the UN Statement on Human Rights or the Uniform Code of Military Justice as ideas worth emulating around the world. Selling the Ds or the Rs is plainly of no account.

Bobby W-C, good to hear from the Valley. The answer to the airport conundrum is that the radiation detectors are new and have not been deployed everywhere. I went through one recently, I think in Albuquerque.

Where are you in the D scuffling for the Senate race? Did you see that Dolph Briscoe and Bill Hobby, the last of the Big Three since Bentsen died, endorsed Noriega?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Here's one article that cites differences in teh statistics:,1,4292381.story

"Petraeus placed a heavy emphasis on U.S. military figures showing a 45 percent drop in civilian deaths in Iraq since the peak of sectarian violence in December 2006 and a 55 percent drop in killings that the military judged "ethno-sectarian." But the December 2006 time frame that Petraeus used for the comparison was a high point in sectarian violence that predated the U.S. troop "surge.""


"The Associated Press counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, its second-highest monthly total this year. The GAO found the "average number of daily attacks against civilians" did not change between the beginning of the surge in February and July, though military officials say the GAO report did not include dramatic improvements during August."


"The military's estimates of sectarian killings are even more controversial. Late-night television comics have lampooned a comment that one U.S. intelligence official made to The Washington Post asserting that Iraqi civilians shot in the back of the head are counted as sectarian killings while those shot in the front of the head are not."

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I want to leave an irrelevant comment too

Posted by: sufur | September 11, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

zouk, there you go again, presuming anyone who questions you to be a dem/lib. I am neither.

Regarding the acceptance of good news, you misinterpret what I've written. I think the military is doing a great job. The problem is you can add up all the military successes and it does not mean we are achieving our goals. Whether we're talking about Iraq or the GWOT as a whole, it comes back to the Rumsfeld question from 2003: are we capturing or killing terrorists faster than we're creating new ones? And the signs still point to 'No'.

Have you read G Will's column today? What do you think of it? Is he right or off base? How about Krauthamer's endorsement of the partition plan? Has he finally come to his senses, or did someone slip him some 'lib kool-aid'?

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

rep jim walsh should have stayed in iraq and grew some balls he`s only worried about his job!!!!!

Posted by: newguy | September 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey Madge, how are those Ivory manicures coming along?

I wish I had just the thing to "Clean Up After the Elephant;" except it's going to take a lot more than the Quicker Picker Upper to clean up your boys' mess.

Posted by: Rosie | September 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I already said that either or both sets of stats can be accurate and not impune any motivations on the parties. what is the source of the data? how is it processed? etc. My first instinct would not be to call the general a liar. why is that the left's first reaction?

My understanding is that the GAO had decling violence as well but not the exact same numbers. Is this false? did the GAO conclude violence was rising?

I would trust the military numbers over all others with no other information to go on since I know they typically don't alter data and the GAO often does, but that is just a result of previous history.

I can't beleive they would report a 75% reduction if it was in fact an increase and they knew it. Only a conspiracy theorist Lib would beleive this with no proof. Are you one of them?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Term Limits ,its called Voting!

Posted by: Madge Owens | September 11, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I guess I just have problems with politicians in office not representing the total population rather than pushing party politics for either side. One useless person becomes a politician, a group of them form a law firm. Term limits should be a mandate.

Posted by: stu smalley | September 11, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe the people in this country wanting to be defeated by Osama and his idiot suicidal followers. The Democratic Party should just stop beating around the Bush and nominate Osama Bin Laden for their candidate. Sadly there are those who would actually vote for the pig. You disgust me....and on 911 yet. How very despicable you lefties are. I thank God for people like Bill OReilly Sean Hannity and especially RuSh Limbaugh. Otherwise we would already have been taken over and made to serve Allah or die!

Posted by: Madge Owens | September 11, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I stand corrected, Zouk. Apparently you don't want to ignore the GAO statistics. Do you then admit that it's not at all clear whether violence is down in Iraq? And that when Petraeus says violence is down 75%, he's being dishonest?

Those are your options. Either you can ignore the GAO statistics and say Petraeus is right, or you can pay attention to the GAO statistics and say Petraeus was cooking the books to get that 75% drop. Which is it?

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, did you expect the situation to completely clear up in 2 or 3 short months? your party has more patience in the war on poverty (30 plus years now).

If you doubt that the violence has ebbed, you must have preconceived notions like your friends in congress. I suspect you won't allow any data cloud your view.

I see you have been reading the lefty sites about bullet holes. where did this data come from, some editor in NY? It is one thing to be skeptical but wholly another to simply create facts out of the blue. show me the numbers you say are there. I have noticed a lot less coverage about car bombs and killing and it is not because the networks don't want to show it.

Why won't you accept ANY good news at all? do you desire power that badly?

Then why run hillary - a foregone loser?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

All I had to see is Sierra Club and I know their goal in the destruction of the United States of America

Posted by: savage2 | September 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

z writes
"I think it is clear that violence is donw. by how much is not important. the question was and still is "Is the surge creating the situation we desire?" I think the answer is clearly yes."

Neither of those things is at all clear. As Blarg noted, the sets of statistics that ignores certain kinds of violence implies violence is down, but when all types are counted - i.e. bullet holes in the front of the head - violence is not down. You may not agree, which implies 'situation not clear'.

Same thing for the question "Is the surge creating the situation we desire?" If the situation we desired were created, the Iraqi gov't would be stabilizing and taking over their own country's security. Yet during this same period when violence is allegedly down, the government is also imploding - various parts of the 'ruling coalition' are splintering off. It is not at all clear that Maliki or any other politician will be able to build a new coalition that will actually be able to accomplish anything. So, again, the situation is not 'clear' that we are making the progress we desire.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"I never said that. why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth to win an argument?" - Zouk

And why Zouk, must every discussion be a Win-Lose proposition for you?

Would it be so bad to actually learn something in the back and forth?

Posted by: The Referee | September 11, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Libs hate Fox News. Democrats hate Fox News. Hollywood hates Fox News. Liberal bloggers hate Fox News.
Fox News is the most watched News channel on Television.


Posted by: right-a-roney | September 11, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"right MItchofDecatur. You got it. That's why I watch face."

That's why I watch FOx

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

right MItchofDecatur. You got it. That's why I watch face. Get into the heaad of a madman.

How can you speak to martians,, learn martian. :)

I got O'Reilly now. He is going down due to his inciting violence agaisnt me. I already filed the fcc complaint. I contacted my sources. Maybe one of them will ballon the o'reilly statements from last night. This is not ok. Reverse the rolls.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton Goes To Heaven
Clinton died and went to heaven or to be more accurate, approached the Pearly Gates. After knocking at the gates, St. Peter appeared. "Who goes there?" inquired St. Peter.

"'Tis I, your St. Peter, President Bill Clinton."

"And what do you want?" asked St. Peter.

"Lemme in!" replied Clinton.

"Soooo," pondered Peter. "What bad things did you do on earth?"

Clinton thought a bit and answered, "Well, I smoked marijuana, but you shouldn't hold that against me because I didn't inhale. I guess I had extra-marital sex, but you shouldn't hold that against me because I didn't really have sexual relations. And I lied, but I didn't commit perjury."

After several moments of deliberation St. Peter replied, "OK, here's the deal. We'll send you someplace where it is very hot, but we won't call it 'Hell.' You'll be there for an indefinite period of time, but we won't call it 'eternity.' And don't 'abandon all hope' upon entering, just don't hold your breath waiting for it to freeze over."

Posted by: so true | September 11, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

COME ON! IT's ABOUT TIME???? Where have you been? DEMOCRATIC party are Ruled by Hollywood already..Wake up Blind eyes.

Posted by: JojoRick | September 11, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

blarg - I never said that. why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth to win an argument?

I think it is clear that violence is donw. by how much is not important. the question was and still is "Is the surge creating the situation we desire?" I think the answer is clearly yes.

I think it is healthy to maintain a skepticism about any reports based on statistics, but have no way personally of choosing one over the other since the sources are probably classified.

what happened to all those predictions of rampant violence the week before the report. Perhaps Al queda is getting stomped and suffering a huge defeat. how wonderful. Let's keep it up.

Is winning the next election at any and all costs worth it to you Libs? discrediting our military worked during vietnam in the John Kerry and Hanoi Jane days. It will not work this time and will most likely backfire on the weak-on-defense Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Interesting thing is, FOX News is always buried on the upper tiers on cable systems. If you don't have the money for extended cable packages, you don't see FOX News. What these folks are going to do, is put thier side of events in areas that will reach almost all Americans. I say what they are doing is very smart business. These folks are on top of things. As for FOX News, I say watch them too. Watch all sources of info that are out there. As they say, "know thine enemy"!

Posted by: MItchofDecatur | September 11, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Too bad these folks didn't open this venture much in the 80's. Then they could have reversed the "fall of the wall" in Europe.

Like Joseph Stalin said: "These 'useful idiots' will help us defeat the west".

Posted by: urwrong | September 11, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyway you guys could post longer posts, I can't tell you how important your opinion means to me.
They give me a reason to live.

Posted by: labeau | September 11, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Defeating the enemy can constitute a victory, but only if military success is translated into political success. After all, wars are not fought for their own sake but to achieve a favorable peace. The reason defeating the enemy is not sufficient in itself for victory was articulated by Clausewitz: "In war, the result is never final...The defeated state often considers the outcome merely as a transitory evil, for which a remedy may still be found in political conditions at some later date."

The successful translation of an enemy's defeat into true victory is rare in history. World War II is one example. But even surrender does not necessarily lead to victory. Although Confederate armies surrendered at Appomattox and Durham Station, much of the social system of the militarily-defeated south was successfully reestablished in the years following the Civil War. The war is over when the loser, not the winner, says it is.

What would constitute victory in the war against the network of Islamist terrorists? The only meaningful metric is what Martel calls grand-strategic victory, the "strategic successes that occur through the destruction of a society, its military, economy, and institutions of government." I would add to this list the defeat of the ideology that underpins Islamist terrorism. One of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was that Communist ideology was successfully discredited.

As was the case with communism during the Cold War, the ideology of radical Islamist terrorism cannot be defeated by military might alone. Military success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere can buy us time. But in the long run, grand strategic victory against the network of Islamist terrorists requires defeat of their murderous ideas. The problem here is that many in the West are beginning to reject the principles of liberalism, and just when adherence to those principles is most necessary to achieve victory in a war of ideas.

Posted by: Mack | September 11, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"Is is simple economics but you want to try to make it something else. why?"

I was merely rebutting the anon coward's claim about one month's recruiting goals; the data does not support the conclusion (s)he claimed.

I would also argue that the purely economic argument regarding mil service doesn't quite wash. There's a 'respect' angle that you apparently don't consider. Just like there are people who teach because its what they want to do, despite the economic disincentive, there are (or were) people who join the military out of pride of service, not just for the money. The numbers I cited imply that this number is dwindling - I disagree with your claim that the cause is mere economics.

In the same article I mentioned (Wash Post, today), there was another statistic I didn't quote - that parents are also less likely to encourage/support their kids to join the military. The economic argument doesn't support that data point.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that 12:25 post about military enlistment was me.

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"bsimon - the military is a job choice just like any other. the key factor in this choice is the unemployment rate and the rate of pay. Increasing the rate of pay increases interest in this career. Lowering the private job opportunities also increases enlistment. Recruiting is extremely sensitive to bonuses and unemployment rates."

So you disagree with the anonymous post at 11:22? That post said that enlistment rates were up because "the youths want to win". But you say that military enlistment is based on the unemployment rate and bonuses, not wanting to win. If only that 11:22 post was signed; then you'd know who to tell off.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Mudcat Sanders on Hillary: 'Hell, We Will Not Only Lose the White House in 2008, But Could Lose the House and Senate As Well.'

Democratic srategist Dave "Mudcat" Sanders, talking up a Mark Warner Senate run:

The national press, for some reason or another, has not gotten around to talking about the "collateral damage" that the polarizing effect of Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket would inflict on other races all over America. It's whispered all over the Capitol but not shouted out anywhere. How would you like to be a Democratic member of the House or Senate in a red state and have to deal with Hillary at the top of the ticket? Hell, we will not only lose the White House in 2008, but could lose the House and Senate as well. What scares me is I believe in my heart that if Mark doesn't run, no other Democrat could beat Tom Davis in Virginia with Hillary at the top. This is still Virginia.

So here's my early line. With Hillary at the top: Mark wins by 5-8. With Obama at the top, Mark wins by 7-10. With Edwards at the top: Mark wins by 15-plus.

Sanders was one of the strategists behind Warner's 2001 gubernatorial win. I'm sure the Edwards and Obama campaigns will be calling attention to this. Iowa's a red state, isn't it? New Hampshire was one in 2000, and South Carolina is as red as they come.

Posted by: from your own side | September 11, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, Petraeus claims that violence in Iraq is down 75%. The GAO says that's not the case, and there's no clear trend in violence. This isn't about differences between two sets of statistics, it's about how one set of statistics is interpreted.

The only way to find a 75% reduction is to cherry-pick positive indicators and ignore negative indicators. In other words, to cook the books. Why do you believe that everyone should take Petraeus' numbers as gospel and ignore what the GAO has to say?
Here's a link:

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Osama More Or Less Admits He Was Touting Kerry in 2004

From the transcript of Osama's latest message:

"Yet in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you - with your full knowledge and consent - to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan."

So he was urging Americans to vote for Kerry in his 2004 message, as some had suggested. Nice to have that cleared up.

And now he wants hillary. I wonder why? why is his platform so much like hers? why is chinese money so much like hers?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Ahhhhh Hollywood. What better community to teach all Americans what to think and who to vote for. It makes sense. These people are of the highest moral fiber creating works of art to entertain the public.
One thing's for certain. There will be sequels, and lots of them. That's creativity.
My prediction; Republican President and Congress in 2008.

Posted by: right-a-roney | September 11, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow! After reading the comments of Rufus with the misspellings and poor grammar, I think it's safe to say the biggest misspelling is in his name. Rufus, shouldn't that R be a D?

Posted by: Jim | September 11, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I am sure the movie will be just as successful as Moore's latest, or air america, or CNN or MSNBC or Keith O. you might make it all the way up to an O'Reilly rerun in audience share if moveon pays 20 billion for an ad.

Posted by: liberalism (crime) doesn't pay | September 11, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Re-Defeat communism in 2008

Vote no to Hillary

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Let the Libs form such an organization. As long as we know who they are, we can avoid going to their movies. Just ask Clooney how much he has been hurt by his running of the mouth!!!!!

Posted by: David | September 11, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - point to two databases of numbers or statistics that match perfectly.

do you Libs know anything about math or the military before you spout off all this nonsense?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Oooh, oooh, can I be in a movie too? Preferably one with some big strapping Marines!

Posted by: Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, R-Uranus | September 11, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"It's high time for the Democrats, who so love revisiting the McCarthy era and their myths of courageous resistance (in fact, it was a Pentagon lawyer, not a liberal pol, who stopped Tailgunner Joe), to stand up to this un-American tyranny of an intolerant minority. "

So you can't trick people zouk. Mccarty was the bill o'reilly and hannity of his day. A RIGHT-WING authoritarian. Silencing LEFT-wing "socialist-communist" voices. It's funny how you gop'ers try and use that, EVER SINCE YOU LOST MAJORITY. Not going to work. Nobody feels sorry for you. Mccartyism is a right-wing attack method, not left. Talking points only work with dittoheads buddy. Not here.

"McCarthyism is the term describing a period of intense anti-Communist suspicion in the United States that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s. This period is also referred to as the Second Red Scare, and coincided with increased fears about Communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the actions of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, "McCarthyism" later took on a more general meaning, not necessarily referring to the conduct of Joseph McCarthy alone."

The red scare. When the GOP STOLE our rights due to fear. The red scare revisted.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - the military is a job choice just like any other. the key factor in this choice is the unemployment rate and the rate of pay. Increasing the rate of pay increases interest in this career. Lowering the private job opportunities also increases enlistment. Recruiting is extremely sensitive to bonuses and unemployment rates. (I know of what I speak in this regard, actually a SME).

so with very low unemployment, it is natural that recruiting is hard, expecially considering that the military pays on average only about 88% of private pay.

Is is simple economics but you want to try to make it something else. why?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

No "working man" reads the New York Times? I get the feeling a few working men in New York read it. Would it have been more "populist" to put the ad in USA Today, or on a billboard, or an ad during a dancing-based reality show? Would that change the message at all?

The MoveOn ad pointed out that Petraeus has been giving some very suspicious numbers about Iraq. His numbers contradicted the government's own GAO numbers. For some strange reason, all the response to the MoveOn ad focuses on its terrible personal attack on a brave and wise man. Nobody actually refutes its claims.

I don't know how "ralph" wrote that article with a straight face. Yeah, MoveOn are just like fascists, because they accused a general of presenting false information to Congress. That's what the fascists were most known for, after all.

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Right ralph. Attack Attack the koz. They control all. They are the problem with this country. Yeah right.

do you gop'ers really beleive that. Come on now. It's me talking here.

The koz and moveon are a RESPOONSE to a problem. Not the problem itself. Misdirection. Gop divide and conquer. What a joke. Normal non dittoheads don't care about moveon or the koz, do they? More so that what fox is doing?

And if you think moveon and the koz should be silenced, do you think Fox Rush Malkin Savage coulter should alos be silenced. If not, why?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

MOVEON.ORG's exploitation of the Internet misleads the public into thinking it's a breakthrough phenomenon. It isn't: Technology aside, MoveOn belongs to the first half of the 20th century, not to the 21st.

Pretending to represent grass-roots democracy, it is totalitarian in outlook and practice. Complete with on-line commissars to enforce party discipline, this neo-Stalinist group crushes dissent mercilessly.

Far from populist, MoveOn is elitist, made up of the same sort of pseudo-intellectual activists who "knew" that Bolshevism, Maoism or fascism was what was best for the common people.

And make no mistake, you are the common people these activists despise: In their lofty view, you're not qualified to choose presidents, senators or even alder-men. They mean to make your choices for you.

MoveOn has been a cancer within the Democratic Party for years now, and not one leading Dem has had the guts to recommend surgery. Indeed, Democrats are terrified of the group's much-exaggerated power - but, then, it's always been the illusion of power, the bravado, that put totalitarian minorities over the top.

Yesterday, MoveOn reached a new low. Unable to refute the changed facts on the ground in Iraq, the commissars questioned Gen. David Petraeus' personal integrity in a very expensive ad in The New York Times. (Nice "populism": an ad in a newspaper no working man or woman ever reads.)

In our democracy, it's fair to disagree with the general's analysis - hopefully, from an informed position. But attacking the man himself in a back-door bid to undercut his testimony is reminiscent of the Stalinist practices of the 1930s.

Gen. Petraeus is a thoroughly honorable man who has dedicated his life to protecting us.

This is a man of whom every American, Democrat or Republican, should be proud.

And MoveOn's smear tactics should shame every conscientious American.

It's high time for the Democrats, who so love revisiting the McCarthy era and their myths of courageous resistance (in fact, it was a Pentagon lawyer, not a liberal pol, who stopped Tailgunner Joe), to stand up to this un-American tyranny of an intolerant minority.

Having seen MoveOn attack legislators who dared to deviate from its party line, Democrats are terrified of offending the Internet's "Ministry of Truth." But how can politicians who lack the courage to stand up to a pack of e-thugs be expected to lead our country in these perilous times? New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton projects an image of strength and resolution; will she condemn MoveOn's personal attack on Petraeus? Hasn't a single Democrat got the guts and decency to say, "Enough!"?

Posted by: ralph | September 11, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Do the Democrats really believe that producing some slick garbage is the way to bring back the America that most people want?

What we need are ideas and people that are not afraid to stand up and speak their minds, not a bunch of over produced slick garbage propaganda posing as truth.

Posted by: sickofallofthem | September 11, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"to use the creative minds of Hollywood to create content...designed to move a political or policy message" and "a longer term politics and policy venture aimed at re-branding the look and feel of online and television communications of the Democratic Party and the overall progressive movement."

I find that this whole article creates a lot more questions for me than answers. Why would the Democratic message need re-branding? Am I to assume there is a problem with the current brand? Will John Williams be doing the scores? Will there be a new award for this type of venture? If so will it be called the Leni Riefenstahl award? Is it a coincidence that this is occuring at the same time that Democrats are trying to legislate conservatives off of talk radio? Is Dick Gephardt enjoying retirement by trying to become a producer and has he moved to Hollywood? Is he trying to compensate for his lack of personality with his involvment in these media ventures? And speaking of lack of personality and Hollywood, where is Al Gore in all of this?

Posted by: Dave! | September 11, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I hate Hollywood now. Lived there for over 20 years, so I know how worthless these delusional stuckup actors are. To the rest of you on the left, please, PLEASE move to So Cal, Then we can just kick it out of the union....

Posted by: Screw Lefties | September 11, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Useful idiots like rich Hollyweird fools who got that way because of American Capitalism will never learn. Lenin was right when he called idiots like them useful idiots!

Earnest Hemmimgway another socialist fool was shocked when his hero Fidel Castro evicted him from the mansion he owned when he lived in Cuba; the drunken, drug addict fool didn't believe an artist like himself was really a closet capitalist.

Posted by: Hank Fiorin | September 11, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Useful idiots like rich Hollyweird fools who got that way because of American Capitalism will never learn. Lenin was right when he called idiots like them useful idiots!

Earnest Hemmimgway another socialist fool was shocked when his hero Fidel Castro evicted him from the mansion he owned when he lived in Cuba; the drunken, drug addict fool didn't believe an artist like himself was really a closet capitalist.

Posted by: Hank Fiorin | September 11, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"That scares the hell out of me."

Not me. The place to address the problem is in material acquisition. Once they have the material, smuggling it around isn't that difficult.

Look at Bobby's story. He had to tell border patrol he'd recently had a medical procedure, thus his showing up 'hot' (dare I say incandescent?). Could a person concoct such a story in order to cover other material they might have on their person? Perhaps.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Has the left no remaining ounce of shame? Its latest target: the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, whom Senate Democrats unanimously confirmed.

Remember Democrats faulting President Bush for being inflexible, not following the advice of the generals and having no strategy in Iraq -- never mind that they've never had so much as a paper-napkin sketch of a clue as to what to do in Iraq or the War on Terror? Yet, when he took decisive action that can fairly be said to have addressed all of these criticisms, they reflexively opposed him again, proving once more their allegiance to party over nation.

Some still deny our military gains. Others -- exemplars of legislative excellence that they are -- say the gains are irrelevant because of the lack of political progress by the Iraqi parliament. They are demonstrating an astonishing amount of inflexibility themselves, not permitting the facts to interfere with their bias toward failure nor their partisan interests.

Sen. John Kerry called the Iraq mission "disastrous." Sen. Ted Kennedy accused the administration, through Petraeus, of "playing for delay." Sen. Chuck Schumer said the violence in Anbar had decreased in spite of the surge, not because of it, and that American troops had failed to protect the "tribes." Too despicable for comment.

But accusing Bush and Petraeus of ongoing incompetence wasn't enough. Sen. Richard Durbin accused Petraeus of "carefully manipulating the statistics" in favor of the surge. Sen. Harry Reid essentially called Petraeus a liar. Rep. Nancy Pelosi called Petraeus's report "the Bush report," and Sen. Dianne Feinstein likewise challenged Petraeus's "independence."

In his impressive testimony, the general blew these slanderers out of the water. He denied that generals cited by Democrats disagreed with his recommendations, gave an optimistic but modest assessment of the surge, and emphatically asserted his independence and authorship of the report, which "has not been cleared nor shared by anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the congress until it was just handed out." It was a sight to behold.

To answer my opening question: No, the left truly seems to have lost all shame.

Posted by: david | September 11, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Listen now, O Pretender of Zouk - this is from Fox News today - the enemy! - and even THEY don't agree with you.

NEW YORK -- Americans are giving bad grades all around. President Bush's job approval rating now stands at 31 percent, the lowest ever in the FOX News poll, and almost twice as many Americans say they disapprove of the president's job performance. And those harsh sentiments extend down Pennsylvania Avenue to Capitol Hill. Six months after the new Democratically-controlled Congress convened, the poll finds that Americans are dissatisfied with the job both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are doing.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from June 26 to June 27. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

Bush's ratings have been in the thirties for the last several months. Since the midterm election, the president's approval has ranged from a high of 38 percent (January and April) to a low of 33 percent in March. Today, 31 percent of Americans say they approve and 60 percent disapprove.

Declining support from key constituencies has clearly contributed to the diminishing rating. Today 61 percent of Republicans say they approve -- the lowest rating ever among this group. Approval among conservatives is now at 46 percent and 42 percent among Born-Again Christians.

"Some Republican legislators have recently made statements disagreeing with actions by the administration. These statements are mirroring attitudes of many Republican voters across the nation," said Opinion Dynamics Vice President Lawrence Shiman.

The overall picture is similar for Congress. Just over a third of Americans -- 36 percent -- approve of the job Democrats in Congress are doing, about the same as their 37 percent rating in October 2006, prior to taking control of both the House and Senate, and 49 percent disapprove.

The ratings are slightly worse for Republicans in Congress, as 30 percent approve today, down from 34 percent (24-25 October 2006), and 56 percent disapprove.

Republicans are more dissatisfied with the job their party is doing in Congress than Democrats are with their party.

Among Democrats, 59 percent approve and 28 disapprove of the job Democrats are doing in Congress. Among Republicans, 16 percent approve and 72 percent disapprove.

On the other side, 51 percent of Republicans approve and 37 percent disapprove of the job their party is doing. Among Democrats, 18 percent approve and 72 percent disapprove of Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Posted by: democratofzouk | September 11, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

anon coward writes
"don't look now. the youths want to win."

but the Wash Post reports:

"Also worrisome for the Army is the dropping desire of young adults to serve in the military. Bostick said that 20 years ago, approximately 25 percent of people ages 17 to 24 showed a desire to serve in the military, a figure that has dropped to 15.7 percent today."

In the same article, they mentioned the Service's August numbers being up, making up for shortfalls in May and June. It appears that the Aug numbers are boosted by 'immediate deployment' bonuses.

So, all in all, its great the the armed forces are able to boost their recruitment numbers in order to stay on-target for hitting annual goals. But it is premature to claim that 'the kids want to win'. There's a big problem in this country, when such small percentages of the population consider a military career.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

If you look at the official poor, particularly at children who are officially in poverty, there are two main reasons for that. One is that their parents don't work much. Typically in a year, poor families with children will have about 16 hours of adult work per week in the household. If you raised that so that you had just one adult working full time, 75 percent of those kids would immediately be raised out of poverty.

The second major reason that children are poor is a single parenthood in the absence of marriage. Close to two-thirds of all poor children live in single-parent families. What we find is that if a never-married mother married the father of her children, again, about 70 percent of them would immediately be raised out of poverty. Most of these men who are fathers without being married in fact have jobs and have a fairly good capacity to support a family.

I don't work and I don't care. I like to sleep around and think clinton is soo cool. Where do babies ceme from? I am a Lib. give me money.

Posted by: give them money | September 11, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

'Bobby, I don't think the airports have ever tested for radioactivity.'

That scares the hell out of me.

Posted by: Jane | September 11, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Whoever is posting that stuff from Kos stop it. I have no purpose here now thanks to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes writes
"Something is not right, and for the first time in my life I feel a lot less safe on the planes. So the question is, is TSA security compromised?"

Bobby, I don't think the airports have ever tested for radioactivity.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, dude, I usually read at least most of what you have to say, but you gotta stop referring to yourself in the 3rd person. It's a little creepy.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

well zouk's on for the rest of the day with his sock puppet posts..too bad you don't have a life, zouk. a mind woud be a terrible thing to waste, if you had one..

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Kathleen Willey and David Schippers appear to be crazier than a s-house rat, or zouk even.

Look, over there -- it's Clintons! And there! And there!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 11, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

David Schippers: Clinton Gang Broke Into My House, Too Clinton impeachment chief counsel tells Kathleen Willey of similar attempt to steal copy of book manuscript

Posted by: common criminals | September 11, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

All Services Meet Active Duty Recruiting Goals All four services reported strong recruiting success in August, with the Army marking its second consecutive month exceeding its monthly goal, Defense Department officials announced today.

don't look now. the youths want to win. go away smelly old hippies.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The news is good - hopefully they will realize Americans want honesty - if they make it into another Air America then it will fail- we can win the battle with the right - we just have to be honest


TSA security is compromised. Before leaving for New York on Wednesday last I went to Matamoros, Mex to buy some things my family requested that I bring to New York. Upon my return I set off the alarm for nuclear material. I was not surprised because just days before I had a stress test with Thallium. As always the border guards were professional.

Several days later I am expecting to have a similar experience before getting onto the plane. Nothing - I am shocked because the sensors should be able to pick-up on Thallium for 30 days. Again, on my return trip from New York on Sunday nothing - the sensors let me right through. So I am thinking - I guess the levels are too low for the sensors.

Here is the kicker - yesterday I went to Matamoros with a friend - he had a dentist appointment - I was shocked that I set off the nuclear material alarm. And as always the border guards were professionals. My concern here is, how did I manage to get on a plane to New York and one back to Brownsville without the sensors going off?

Something is not right, and for the first time in my life I feel a lot less safe on the planes. So the question is, is TSA security compromised? I think so.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | September 11, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

right vdh. Colin powell recently said. "The terrorists can knock buildings down, but they cannot change us. Only we can can change this country."

Sounds like rufus doesn't it?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Bin Laden and his evil Rasputin Dr. Zawahiri were confident on September 11 that such guilt and self-loathing in our hearts could be seasoned, and that it could then be harvested through their own arts of revisionism, victimization, and lies. And consequently within a brief six years of his murdering, our own voices -- indeed the very elites of the West -- in the luxury of calm before the next attack, are often emboldened to proclaim that the government of America, not the terrorists abroad, is the real danger.

The great lesson of September 11 was not that the jihadists ever believed that they could kill us all. Rather, they trusted that enough of the West and indeed enough of us here in America, might at the end of the day declare that we had it coming.

In this long war, that belief was -- and is -- far deadlier even than an unhinged murderer at the controls of an airliner.

Posted by: VDH | September 11, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

This is interesting: Some new numbers from this week's New York Times poll have just been released, and they suggest that Rudy is having no success in selling himself to GOP primary voters as the candidate best prepared to battle terrorism.

The survey finds that a solid majority of Republican voters -- 61% -- say he would do about the same job as his GOP rivals in handling the terror threat. Only 26% said he would do a better job.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

with a cast like that, the product is sure to be...

mediocre, at best.

Screenwriters for 'Oceans Twelve' and 'The day after tomorrow'? I happend to catch the latter on TV earlier this year, it was horrendously bad. I can't imagine Oceans 12 was much better. And the guy responsible for 'American Pie' is now getting into politics? What's he going to do, put the candidates in a wet t-shirt contest?

No thanks.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Representative Jim Walsh (R-NY) has returned from a trip to Iraq with a strong message: There is little evidence of any real progress being made there, and America should get out.

"Before I went, I was not prepared to say it's time to start bringing our troops home," said Walsh. "I am prepared to say that now. It's time."

Posted by: xx | September 11, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Rufus -- or whomever is posting these unsigned articles, please stop. This has nothing to do with censoring you, just sign it . Nobody reads anything this stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Another Republican (Walsh) sees the light? Does it matter? The esteemed John Warner wants troops out, and that got him nowhere.

Posted by: matt | September 11, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Denying the Truth: Petraeus, Iraq, and Our Pontius Pilate Press
Posted September 10, 2007 | 03:56 PM (EST)


Read More: Breaking Politics News, U.S. Republican Party, White House, Arianna Huffington, Michael Gordon, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Harry Reid, Bob Menendez, U.S. Democratic Party, George W. Bush

I was in Miami last night for the Univision-hosted Democratic debate. Listening to their responses on Iraq left no doubt that the candidates have gotten the message that, no matter what Gen. Petraeus says during his testimony, the American people -- including the Hispanic community -- are done with this war.

"We need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible," said Hillary Clinton.

"I believe no political progress [in Iraq] means no funding without a timetable for withdrawal," said John Edwards.

"I'm calling on Republican congressmen and legislators to overturn the president's veto of a timetable," said Barack Obama.

Later, after the debate, Chris Dodd told me he had made it clear to Harry Reid: "As you are trying to get Republican votes for a compromise bill, don't count on my vote on any legislation that doesn't include a clear withdrawal date."

I asked freshman Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey if he felt the same way. "I voted against the war as a Congressman," he told me. "I've been in favor of a definite withdrawal date for a long time. I don't close the door on a bill that, like the Webb amendment, would achieve the same results by making troops unavailable. But it's time for America to stop enabling Iraqis' refusal to come to terms with what they need to do."

So the American people get it, and the Democrats running for president and trying to win their votes get it. Then why do so many in the media still not get it?

In Sunday's New York Times, Michael Gordon, Judy Miller's former partner in the Ahmed Chalabi vaudeville production of "Saddam's Got WMD," served up a fact-challenged piece of administration propaganda in which he asserted, "The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population."

Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Nowhere does Gordon point out that the methodology the Pentagon uses to arrive at the comprehensive stats he cites has been thoroughly discredited, as shown by the Washington Post. Instead he asserts:

"Data on car bombs, suicide attacks, civilian casualties and other measures of the bloodshed in Iraq indicate that violence has been on the decline, though the levels generally remain higher than in 2004 and 2005."
Apparently, this means there was some period in 2006 in which attacks, as measured in some particular way, were higher than now. Thanks, Michael Gordon. Your White House thank-you note is no doubt in the mail.

Gordon ends his muddled piece by adopting the pseudo-objective "on the one hand... but on the other" stance favored by so many in his profession: "The figures that have emerged in recent government reports have seemingly provided something for everyone."

I guess we just can't know anything, can we?

Like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility, too many in the Washington press corps want to pretend they are leaving the question of "what is truth" to their readers -- refusing to admit that there is even such a thing as truth. It is particularly troubling that so many in a profession dedicated to the idea that there is a truth to be ferreted out -- and that the public has a right to know it -- remain so resolutely committed to presenting two sides to every story -- even when the facts are solidly on one side.

Progress in Iraq is actually something that can be measured. Last week's report from the Government Accountability Office did such measuring. That's why it was immediately attacked by Republicans -- because it pointed out that Iraq was failing to meet 11 of 18 benchmarks.

But the administration has faith that, because of the way too many in the press operate, all it has to do is sow doubt. The GAO puts out one set of facts, the administration puts out an opposing set of "facts" -- and counts on reporters to refuse to see the difference between facts and "facts."

Case in point: Sunday's AP story about how Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker wouldn't be meeting with "Mr. Bush or their immediate bosses" in order to protect the "independence and the integrity of their testimony." This is a claim that is beneath contempt. It is hard to fathom how a journalistic operation could write something so blatantly untrue when there have been numerous stories about how the Petraeus report has already been discussed and thoroughly vetted by the White House and how Ed Gillespie has set up a war room between the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House to coordinate the Petraeus PR campaign.

The stated purpose of the surge was to provide the stability and security necessary for political progress to be made by the Iraqi government. Progress that, as the GAO report made clear, is unequivocally not happening.

So the White House focuses on small improvements in cherry-picked data. But it surely isn't surprising that in the immediate vicinity of the 30,000 troops involved in the surge, attacks might temporarily decrease. Just as it's not surprising, for instance, that the crime
rate inside the gates of the White House is lower than the rate in NE Washington. The point of the surge was that it would have a political spillover effect. But since that hasn't happened, the White House is once again attempting to move the goalposts, and the Michael Gordons of the press corps are there to help with the heavy lifting.

The problem for the White House, and General Petraeus, and the go-along members of the press, is that the public isn't buying it anymore. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 40 percent of Americans expect General Petraeus to give an accurate picture of Iraq. Fifty-three percent believe he'll give an overly optimistic presentation. And a whopping two-thirds say it doesn't matter what Petraeus says because Bush will hold to his Iraq policy no matter what.

Today, we've been told by the White House and by the press, is The Big Day. Petraeus has come down from the mountaintop with his 10 Commandments and all of humanity now knows the way forward in Iraq. Except, unlike the original, Petraeus' message is not divinely inspired. Indeed, having watched his opening salvo -- which he delivered while barely looking up from his script -- it's not even grounded in reality.

The driving force of the White House's approach to this war has been the belief that saying something is so makes it so. That truly is the first commandment of the Bush administration. But it wasn't true when the war started and it's not true now.

The time has come for the media to stop acting as if there are two sides to the story of what's happening in Iraq when there is only one

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

my posts say rufus under them. Read of don't read. Ignore or don't. Do you I'll do me. I don't control all. You'll know my posts from others. They say rufus under it :)

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Representative Jim Walsh (R-NY) has returned from a trip to Iraq with a strong message: There is little evidence of any real progress being made there, and America should get out.

"Before I went, I was not prepared to say it's time to start bringing our troops home," said Walsh. "I am prepared to say that now. It's time."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Rufus -- or whomever is posting these long obnoxious articles, please stop. This has nothing to do with censoring you, just make it shorter. Nobody reads anything this long.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"what did he say, rufus?"

Bill O'REilly with his little robot with wood eyes, Michelle MAlkin, asked these questions ,and begged for an answer.

He asked "How long are americnas going to stand for these "crazies". When are americans on both sides going to rise up against these conspiricy theroies. How long are americans going to stand for it."

"I think the american people are going to finally rise up." Malkin says.

O'reilly then says his other guest which says, "I don't thik the democrats are going to stand up against the "crazies"."

How long is america going to stand for the left? What about the right? What about BIll O'Reilly? Without fox news would we even be in iraq right now? Would bush had won the last election without fox? How long is america going to stand for and not stand up agianst what the right is doing? What has the left done to this country? Who has done more damage. The elft is just trying to hold someone accountable after 7 years.

I'm serious. This is getting O'REIlly off the air. I'm putting the worl in. This is not ok. Inciting violence agaisnt americans. "How long will american take it and not stand up against me?"

Already happening, isn't it. Everyday. Live through your avatars gop. Just know he is about to be pulled off the air. What will you do without you avatars, gop?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Open Thread for Night Owls (The Right Makes Its Case)
by Meteor Blades
Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:23:13 PM PDT
I almost always avoid linking to rightwingers, but I'm making an exception so tonight you can chew on the views of two NeoCons and an aristocrat talking about what's next in Iraq.

First, from the Houston Chronicle, the ethically challenged pinstriper who's been nibbling at Mister Bush's heels for a couple of years:

By Bush's Standard, Surge Has Failed
By George Will

To declare this a substantial victory won by them requires Democrats to do two things. They must make a mountain out of a molehill (Petraeus suggests withdrawal of only a few thousand troops). And they must spuriously claim credit for the mountain. ...

But Democrats cannot advertise a small withdrawal as a victory without further infuriating their party's base, the source of energy and money. The base is incandescent because there are more troops in Iraq today than there were on Election Day 2006, when Democratic activists and donors thought, not without reason, that congressional Democrats acquired the power to end U.S. involvement in Iraq.

A democracy, wrote the diplomat and scholar George Kennan, "fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it -- to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be carried to the bitter end." ...

What "forced" America to go to war in 2003 -- the "gathering danger" of weapons of mass destruction -- was fictitious. That is one reason why this war will not be fought, at least not by Americans, to the bitter end. The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president's decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war -- the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.

Next up from Rupert Murdoch's new acquisition, the NeoCon editor who hated the New Left before it was born:

'America the Ugly'
By Norman Podhoretz (Rightweb's bio)

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on us that took place on this very day six years ago, several younger commentators proclaimed the birth of an entirely new era in American history. What Dec. 7, 1941, had done to the old isolationism, they announced, Sept. 11, 2001, had done to the Vietnam syndrome. It was politically dead, and the cultural fallout of that war--all the damaging changes wrought by the 1960s and '70s--would now follow it into the grave. ...

But I could not fully share the heady confidence of my younger political friends that the change was permanent, and that nothing in American politics and American culture would ever be the same again. ...

The few people I knew who shared my apprehensions believed that if things went well on the military front of what we were calling World War IV (the Cold War having in our scheme of things been World War III), all would be well on the home front too. And that was how it appeared from the effect wrought by the Afghanistan campaign, the first front to be opened in World War IV. For a short spell, the spectacular success of that campaign dampened the nascent antiwar activity on at least a number of campuses. But I felt certain that, as other fronts were opened--with Iraq most likely being the next--opposition not only would grow but would become more and more extreme.

I turned out to be right about this, and yet even I never imagined that the new antiwar movement would so rapidly arrive at the stage of virulence it had taken years for its ancestors of the Vietnam era to reach. Nor did I anticipate how closely the antiwar playbook of that era would be followed and how successfully it would be applied to Iraq, even though the two wars had nothing whatever in common.

And, finally, from National Review On-Line, the classicist who is patriarch of a whole family of NeoCons:

Today's Defeatists
By Donald Kagan (Rightweb's bio)

Observers of today's fierce partisan conflict between those demanding immediate or rapid abandonment of the war in Iraq at any, or almost any, price, and others who refuse to give up the fight, might think this a rare event in American history, but it is not unprecedented. ...

In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, "that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory." Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ''Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!" ...

The Democratic convention was dominated by the anti-war faction whom the Republicans called "Copperheads," after the poisonous snake. According to their best historian, they were "consistent and constant in their demand for an immediate peace settlement. At times they were willing to trade victory for peace. One persistent problem for [them] was their refusal or reluctance to offer a realistic and comprehensive plan for peace." Pressed by the Copperheads, the Democrats nominated a rabidly antiwar candidate for vice president and adopted a platform that called the war a "failure," and demanded "immediate efforts" to end hostilities...." Their platform statement would permit abandonment not only of emancipation, but of the most basic war aim, reunion. ...

No one would have predicted that within a matter of months the war would end with a total victory for the Union forces, slavery abolished and the Union restored, but events took an unexpected turn. A series of Union military victories changed the course of the war.

If only General Petraeus had gotten his degree from Yale instead of Princeton, he could have told the Representatives on Capitol Hill Monday that the Sunn'i, Shi'a and Kurds will be sitting down to tea in Appomattox just a few months from now.

Permalink :: Discuss (147 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Cheers and Jeers: Tuesday
by Bill in Portland Maine
Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:25:54 AM PDT


It had to happen sooner or later. The vehicles containing the two defining events of the Bush presidency---the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Iraq war---have finally collided at the intersection of Incompetence Street & Deception Boulevard in the town of Fear.

Today is the sixth anniversary of the day Osama bin Laden's terrorist goons flew four airliners into three buildings and a field. It's also the day General Petraeus gives his progress report to a couple Senate committees on the 4½ year-old Iraq war and occupation. Barring a fresh Britney or Paris scandal, 9/11 and Iraq will be front and center in the public consciousness today in roughly equal measure. So what better time than now to state, plainly and simply, a few truths that all the right-wing spinners in the world will never be able to whitewash:

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, yet that country has paid no price for producing and harboring terrorists. Neither has Pakistan, the country in which Osama bin Laden is now hiding.

The PDB said: Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

Sitting in a classroom for seven minutes after being told "America is under attack" is a poor display of leadership, especially if you're America's president.

If the administration had tried to sell the Iraq war based on anything other than the fear of weapons of mass destruction, we never would have invaded.

Colin Powell, the most trusted man in the administration, said: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

There were no WMDs. Not "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat," and not even in the Oval Office "somewhere."

Four and a half years after declaring that "major combat operations have ended," major combat operations have not ended.

Taunting the insurgents by sneering "Bring 'em on" was really dumb because the insurgents brought it on.

The insurgency wasn't "in its last throes" then, and it isn't in its last throes now.

The Taliban has bounced back in Afghanistan. The Maliki government has flatlined in Iraq.

Osama bin Laden has not been caught, either dead or alive. He is still making videos.

There ain't a tow truck big enough to haul those clunkers away.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Did General Petraeus's testimony yesterday convince you that we need to stay in Iraq?

5% 190 votes
92% 2931 votes
Not sure/No opinion
1% 58 votes

| 3179 votes | Vote | Results

Permalink :: There's more... (307 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Representative Jim Walsh (R-NY) has returned from a trip to Iraq with a strong message: There is little evidence of any real progress being made there, and America should get out.

"Before I went, I was not prepared to say it's time to start bringing our troops home," said Walsh. "I am prepared to say that now. It's time."

Posted by: another one bites the dust | September 11, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It is about time that the Democratic party used the Hollywood folks for what they are good at making pretty ads and packaging of an idea.
I don't care what Angelina Jolie thinks about the war in Iraq, but I would rather have the democrats views told to me by Angelina Jolie then say Madeline Albright, whose view of the Iraq war I DO care about.

Posted by: Andy R | September 11, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

what did he say, rufus?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Well, it's about time the Democrats got into the media/messaging business. The R's have been controlling the public discourse with dozens, hundreds of ventures like this--backed by vast amount of corporate and Gilded Age family money [like the Mellon-Scaifes and Olin Bradleys] for more than 30 years.

I wish them luck!

Posted by: Cassandra | September 11, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

laST NIGHT bILL o'rEILLY WAS INCITING VOILENCE. i GUESS THE FAR RIGHT IS OK, but like this site the left should be silenced.

I will no stand for this. This is what will get Bill Oreilly off the air. Incitig violence against americans 9/10/07

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company