The best words that John Mccain has ever spoken

These are the words of Senator John McCain from the Senate floor. Via his website:

“Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

“The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.

“They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.

“What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.

“By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.

“I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.

“I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.

“I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

“I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

“The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.

“Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.

“There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.

“Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.

“Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.

“What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.

“Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

“The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.

“But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.

“We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.

“Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

“Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.

“Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

“Thank you.”

God Bless Him for standing up for what is right.

(via Memeoradum)

Pamela Geller is now starting to sound like David Duke

This is unreal. I support this woman and all; but she is dead wrong here. This is nothing more than straight up Jewish bigotry. Maybe Charles Foster Johnson was right about her after all.

Read it and follow the link: (Opens in new window or tab)

If 50 non-Muslims petitioned Walmart for anything — anything! — do you think Walmart would immediately cave? Neither do I. But when it comes to Muslims and the cruelty of halal slaughter, Walmart knew they would be facing headlines: “Islamophobia at Walmart!” “Walmart racist!” And who knows? Maybe even a visit from Obama’s DoJ would have been in their future. “Walmart Just Bowed To Islamic Sharia Law To Appease Angry Muslims,” Mad World, November 13, 2014 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):As America veers towards Islamic Sharia law in order to cater to the demanding minority of Muslims, citizens are seeing not only an attempt to include and appease Muslims, but an infringement upon the rights of the majority.With such a vocal group as that of Islam in the U.S., major corporations are making a shift toward including the brutal slaughter that is halal, and the newest addition to the list of Muhammad-approved businesses is the largest superstore yet.

via Walmart bows to Sharia, introduces halal meat after 50 Muslims sign petition | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.

 

This is what I wrote in her comments over there; I am posting them here, for when she deletes them, like she is prone to do.

But yet, it is perfectly OK for Walmart to have Kosher meals? Pamela, you are now starting to sound like David Duke. If you are going to have Jewish friendly meals, you have to provide those that are friendly to Muslims. That’s the way it works. Too bad that you have allowed your Jewish bigotry to cloud your judgement.

 

It is too bad that a sad event like 9/11 caused many upstanding and well-heeled Jews to become outright bigots. Radical Islam is an issue; I do agree with that. But, this above is not fighting against that —- it is fighting against an entire culture of people and that is something that I do not support. Just like I do not support David Duke and his ilk. Defending White culture is one thing; but unmitigated and blind hatred towards an ethnic group, I do not.

 

Video: Art Thompson on Dangers of Arming ‘Moderate’ Muslims

(via JBS HQ)

Another really good reason why I simply do not agree with Ron Paul

I might agree with Ron Paul on economics. I might agree with Ron Paul on wars and Wilsonian foreign policy. This below negates all of that, because what you see below is not a legitimate criticism of those things, what this is below is simply blind hatred of Jews and Israel in general.

I might not approve of Zionism, as it is, in this Christian separatists opinion, an unholy alliance between Christians and Jews; but I will never support this bile, which is below at the link.

Go read: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : ‘We Are With You…Here Are The Missiles’.

The truth is that Israel is defending itself from a Islamic terrorist organization, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. An organization who started this latest conflict, by kidnapping three Israeli kids, killing them and then burning their bodies. Then, when Israel enacted a blockade of Gaza; they began aimlessly firing rockets into Israel. Finally, Israel decided enough was enough, and invaded that strip of land to rid Gaza of these terrorists. If the United States of America wants to help Israel defend itself from Muslim terrorists, by sending them missiles, then by-golly let them do it. Frankly, America’s prosperity in the past has come from being a friend of Israel. 

Even I as a paleoconservative, think that what Israel is doing, is proper, right and moral. Furthermore, I question the motives, patriotism, Christianity and sanity of those who disagree with belief. I may have a beef with some of the political players here in America, who happen to be Jewish. But, my support of Israel and what it is doing in Gaza is without measure and frankly; I hope they bomb the strip of land to a pile of dirt and rubble.

Do not misunderstand me here; I do not wish to see American boots on the ground in the Gaza strip, nor in Israel. They do not need our help. But, they do need our support to fight the battle and I say let them have it.

Enough is enough! It is time that we Conservative Christians begin to call out those, like The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity; which is nothing more than a clearing house for anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel bile. If this think-tank was a legit group that put out papers or articles against Wilsonian foreign policy, it would not be a problem. However, this think-tank is nothing more than an Jew-bashing group of thugs, whose purpose is to issue blood libels against Israel and the Jews. They have proven that time and again with postings like the one above.

Bottom Line: It’s time to get real folks, and call these haters out for what they truly are; and expose them for what they are. That is not a neoconservative thing; that is an American thing, and it is about time we did it.

 

A very good observation

This, I agree with….

DaTechGuy observes:

How is it possible if Israel is the 2nd coming of the Nazi that arab & Muslim populations grow where they rule while in places like Iraq where devout Muslims are taking control the Christian population flees for its life (following the jews who fled over half a century ago).

If you can come up with a good answer I’d be delighted to hear it.

My thoughts exactly. Which is why I take the position on Gaza and Hamas as I do. The funny thing is that the liberal media will try and say that Israel and Gaza; and Iraq are two separate issues. I call bullcrap on that one — it is the same issue; it is Islam. Islam is an intolerant religion that demands 100% loyalty and believes that killing to get that loyalty is justified, and if read the Koran, you will see that, according to the koran, it is justified.

Which further reinforces my ever growing belief that Islam is not a religion of peace; but a cult of death; and of which the practice of it should outlawed in the United States of America and those practice it should be given two choices; renounce it or be deported to your homeland and if you live here, you should be told, this religion is a threat to the national security and its practice is forbidden. If they refuse to renounce it, they should be put into camps and herded, like the dogs they are.

You say, what I have written is harsh? You say what I have written is racist? You say what I have written is un-American? Tell that to the people in Israel who are having to run for the lives to bomb shelters in Israel. Tell that to the Christians in Iraq who are having their possessions; houses, cars….everything taken from them by Muslims. Tell them how intolerant that my remarks are; and you what? They will agree….with me! 

I pray that people’s eyes will be open to what these Arab Bastards are truly about that Christians will get off the lovey-dovey crap and take up arms to fight these people, once and for all.

On Israel, Hamas and Gaza

I saw this opinion piece this morning and I couldn’t agree more.

Israel has had endure terrorist acts from these towel-headed idiots for long enough.

Hamas fires rockets aimlessly that land anywhere killing civilians; Israel does precision strikes that purposely avoid civilians in the Gaza Strip. Does anyone else see the unfairness here? I do.

What should happen is this: Israel SHOULD do a World War 2 style carpet bombing of the Gaza strip till the last one of those Arab dogs breathes his or her last breath. Enough is enough!

These bastard descendents of Ishmael want nothing but continual war. So, Israel should give them the war that they want and eliminate them from the map. It would not take much; and it could very well easily be done.

Children? Civilians? Collateral Damage.

As long as an Arab lives in Gaza, there will be no peace. KILL THEM ALL and GET RID OF THE THREAT! 

and that my friends….is all.

John Podhoretz gets exposed for the intolerant Trotskyite that he truly is

This is great;  a Trotskyite Zionist goes for a debate; and the minute he sees that he is losing the debate — he storms off the stage, takes his marbles and goes home.

I am referring to the greatest Trotskyite, Zionist, Neoconservative of them all — John Podhoretz.

See here, here, here and here.

Money quote:

Bottom line: I’d had a long day and I didn’t see the point in spending more of it getting booed and shushed. So I left. So sue me.

If only we could sue you and your family for all the trillions of dollars — and the 4000+ lives that were  wasted in the Iraq War —- which you and your satanic Father were cheerleaders for, after 9/11. Actually, I would very much like to see criminal charges filed against you and few of your Trotskyite friends as well. However, as we realists know; that will never happened to a protected class as yourself.

You want to know what got wrong with Conservatism? You want to know why the GOP is in the shape that it is in? Look no further than this man here and his idiotic Trotskyite magazine that he runs. They are the true enemies of America; they are the ones who put us in the war that almost broke this Nation and ruined its standing in the world.

It is a pity that there is not true justice in this Nation of ours; otherwise, this man and his friends would be sitting in jail cells.

 

This is why I do not trust Al Jazeera as a legit news source

It is because of events like this here:

An Al Jazeera investigative reporter who worked on the network’s high-profile probe into Yasser Arafat’s death was fired last Monday after raising concerns about the objectivity of the network’s Arafat coverage.

Since 2012, Al Jazeera has aggressively promoted the controversial theory that Arafat was assassinated with polonium in 2004 and did not die of natural causes.

Investigative journalist Ken Silverstein, who joined Al Jazeera two months ago and co-wrote the network’s November scoop about a team of Swiss scientists that found unusual traces of polonium-210 in Arafat’s bone samples, was fired after he refused to travel to Paris to cover the pending release of a French laboratory study on Arafat’s bone samples, multiple sources familiar with the situation told the Washington Free Beacon.

The French findings, released the following day, ended up contradicting the assassination theory.

Silverstein declined to provide a comment to the Free Beacon. A spokesperson for Al Jazeera said she could not discuss personnel issues.

via Al Jazeera Fires Reporter Who Questioned Objectivity of Arafat Coverage | Washington Free Beacon.

It is because Al Jazeera is not a legit news network. But rather an Islamic propaganda network.  

Great Britain continues it’s slide into a Islamic Occupied Government

The Video:

The Story Via CBN News:

LONDON — Nohad Halawi learned that in today’s Britain, you’d better not be perceived as having insulted Islam at work because it could ruin your life.

Halawi worked the cosmetics counter in the duty free zone inside London’s Heathrow Airport for 13 years. She was by all accounts hardworking and well-liked.

But when Halwai ran afoul of her Muslim co-workers, she was effectively fired.

“I didn’t say anything wrong. I was complimenting a colleague of mine,” she said.

Halawi, a Christian from Lebanon, was having a conversation in Arabic with a co-worker and praising a Muslim colleague when it was misinterpreted by another Muslim employee as an insult.

The False Accusation

“We were talking about something else and I said, ‘Well, everyone is not like you. You are such an “alawi,’ which means ‘man of God’ in any religion,” she explained.

“And unbeknownst to me my accuser was standing quite close by and he just started jumping and shouting and in front of colleagues and passengers and everyone started telling me, ‘You are insulting Islam,'” she continued.

It sounds like a ridiculous accusation, but rumors began to spread among Heathrow’s many Muslim employees that Halawi was anti-Muslim. She was seen as a problem and eventually fired.

But Halawi isn’t anti-Muslim. She is married to a Muslim. She spoke of the embarrassment of having to explain to family and friends that she lost her job because she was a “racist.”

She said “it was all a total lie.”

Halawi is being represented by the Christian Legal Centre, headed by Andrea Williams.

“What happened to Nohad was totally unfair and grossly disproportionate,” Williams told CBN News. “Actually, when you hear what she said, she was not giving offense at all. So, to be perceived to give offense to Allah, to the prophet Mohammed, means she lost the job she had had for many years and now finds herself living in fear of reprisals.”

Such a tragic thing; this is what happens when people capitulate to Islamic supremacists. This is, by the way, coming to America. This is why the English Defense League exists, despite what some Jewish sellouts might say about it.

So much for a stable and safe Iraq!

Here’s more of that mess left in Iraq by the Neoconservatives and Bush:

BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide bomber blew himself up among a crowd of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad and another detonated his explosives inside a cafe north of the capital, the deadliest of several attacks across Iraq on Saturday that killed at least 66 people.

The killings, which also included attacks on journalists and anti-extremist Sunni fighters, are part of the deadliest surge in violence to hit Iraq in five years. The accelerating bloodshed is raising fears that the country is falling back into the spiral of violence that brought it to the edge of civil war in the years after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The extent of the carnage from the evening attack on the pilgrims became clearer as midnight approached, when officials sharply revised the death toll upward to at least 42. Another 80 were reported injured.

The bomber detonated his explosives at a checkpoint as the pilgrims passed through the largely Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah en route to a prominent Shiite shrine in the nearby neighborhood of Kazimiyah, according to police officials. At least four policemen manning the checkpoint were among the dead, the officials said.

Around the same time, another suicide bomber blew himself up in a cafe in the town of Balad, a largely Shiite town surrounded by Sunni communities about 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of Baghdad. Balad Mayor Malik Lefta said at least 13 people were killed and 22 were wounded in that attack.

He said the cafe was the same one hit by a deadly suicide bombing in August.

via Associated Press.

This is what happens when you start wars based upon bad intelligence from Germany; and then do not bother to “trust, buy verify.” You get an unstable middle east and a country racked by violence. This is what happens when you allow a group of people, who make up 2% of the population of the United States and even less of the rest of the World; direct your foreign policy. When they are not doing this, they are persecuting Christians.

They, like the Muslims; are truly a menace and should be treated as such.

Video: This is why I do not trust Al-Jazeera TV

American version of it or not. I simply do not trust it and this here is why. This comes via Memri TV:

Some of you might say, “But, aren’t you a Buchananite type?” Yes, indeed I am. Which simply means that I am not a fan of Wilsonian Foreign Policy and that’s all it means. If Al-Jazeera TV is putting this sort of garbage on it’s Arab speaking network, it has zero business being in the United States of America. This is nothing more than Anti-Jewish propaganda and it furthers the blood libels that the terrorists thrive on and use to commit acts of carnage.

If our President were actually worth a tinkers damn, he would tell Al-Jazeera TV, “You either do something about that, or you can pack your little network up and go back to mecca, where you truly belong.” But, because we have a President who kowtows down to Arabs and their religion, instead of defending Jewish Americans, you have this network Al-Jazeera TV here to brainwash Americans into believe that 9/11 was somehow justified.

…and that, my friends, is a great American tragedy.

(H/T to Commentary Magazine)

Bombing victim speaks out about Muslims and Terrorism

Glad to see this. :)

The Video is here. I was going to post it here, but it is an auto start embed and those drive people crazy! So, go to the link to view it!

The Story:

A Boston Marathon bombing victim hospitalized for weeks after the blasts lashed out at the mother of the accused bombers, calling Zubeidat Tsarnaeva “vile” for her jihad-laced rants and denials.

Michelle L’Heureux, a 38-year-old John Hancock consultant, told the Herald yesterday it’s time to stop being “politically correct” and speak out — making her one of the first victims to stand up to the terror-talking Chechen family.

“I feel a little bit of hatred towards her. I think she is a vile person,” L’Heureux said of the mom. “If you don’t like our country, get out. It’s as simple as that.”

L’Heureux lost most of her left knee in the blasts, and 30 percent of her hearing in her left ear. Her left arm is riddled with shrapnel scars, and there’s a piece of metal still inside her leg. She was 8 feet away from the first blast on Boylston Street. She came to the city to see her boyfriend cross the finish lin

via Bombing victim calls suspects’ mom ‘vile’ | Boston Herald.

If only more liberal Democrats felt this way, maybe we would have actually won the war on terror. Instead, because of the Democrat’s almost allergic reaction to war and because of the bungled methods of the Bush Administration — we lost it and badly. Oh, and BTW, I have seen where people have blamed this guy here for the loss of the Afghan war.  Sorry, but that is bunch of flipping malarkey and I think the person that wrote that knows it; he is just looking to deflect the fact that Bush’s mishandling of the war in Afghanistan and the overselling of the war in Iraq.

Plus too, I believe we pulled out too early of Iraq and Afghanistan; we could have done it better, but we needed more time. But, when you have a war weary nation, what can you do?

Others: Weekly StandardThe Jawa Report and Instapundit

No, Sorry, Dick (head) Cheney, I do NOT trust you or your idiotic successor in the White House!

Ol’ Dick (head) Cheney says that we ought to just trust the Government.

The Video: (Via Think Progress)

Okay here is the little small problem with trusting Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, they lied, as in like 935 times in a row, during their Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Prove it, you say? Sure.

Via The Center for Public Integrity, which is as follows:

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.

Anyhow, here is why I don’t trust Neocons, nor do I trust Democratic Party liberals or Neo-leftists:

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

  • On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “
  • In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
  • In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear.”
  • On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
  • On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
  • On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. 

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

A video:

The real sick and sad part is this; the same people that are having a hissy fit on the right about this program existing under Obama, are the same ones who were perfectly fine with it existing under Bush. In other words, they trusted the program under Bush. like idiots. My question to that crowd is this; why do  you not trust Obama? Because he is black or because he is a Democratic Party liberal?

Anyone and I mean anyone, who puts their trust in this Government of ours, based upon partisanship is nothing more than a darned fool in my opinion. Both of these political parties are two sides of the same coin and that is corruption and big Government socialism. Both parties promote it, both parties contribute to it. Government hand outs are Government hand outs; whether it be in the forum of welfare or Government subsidies. It is big Government statist and it flies in the face of our Constitution and in the face of what this great Nation was founded upon.

Others: Prairie Weather

Has CPAC gone politically correct?

It appears so:

For the last four years, Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com and the American Freedom Defense Initiative have held events at CPAC featuring guests she invites to discuss the influence of Islamism on America. But this year, the American Conservative Union (ACU) has no room for Geller or her message.

In 2009, she brought Geert Wilders, who is the head of the third largest party in the Netherlands and has spoken out against the Islamization of his country.

In 2010 she held an event that her organization, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, hosted, titled “Jihad: The Political Third Rail”, with speakers like Allen West, Wafa Sultan, Simon Deng, Anders Gravers, and Steve Coughlin.

In 2011, she hosted an event discussing the Ground Zero Mosque with 9/11 families. In 2012, the event was titled “Islamic Law in America.”

In years past, the events were standing room only thanks to their popularity, but that apparently was not enough to counter pressure brought to bear from somewhere to exclude Geller’s message.

Geller and her coworkers recently won a court battle allowing them to post ads that countered the #Myjihad ad campaign that posited that jihad was a peaceful word. Yet despite the law’s defense of her rights, the ACU will not stand up for her against critics

via CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller.

You know there is nothing more that I despise more than racism, from blacks and towards blacksand that is political correctness. I have not always agreed with Pamela Geller; her words and sometimes her tactics; but damn it, Freedom of Speech, is freedom of speech is freedom of speech! :mad: If CPAC is now starting to squish Anti-Jihad bloggers right to point out the truth, then they can just take the one-way train to irrelevancy!

For the record: I have never been to a CPAC, nor most likely will I ever be attending one. More so now that something like this is going on. Also too, this buffoon here can go play in the kiddy pool. Idiot Morally depraved buffoons. I got no love them nor their lifestyle, nor does God. :mad:

Others:  Atlas ShrugsJihad WatchThe Other McCainAmerican Power

Update: Counter Jihad Report Links in, as does I am 41.  Thanks Ya’ll! :D

Update #2: ‘Da Tech Guy Links in, Thank You! :D