Posts Tagged ‘intelligence’

Leftist Unionized Intellingence Community Committing Treason In Its Collectivist Butthurt Against President Trump

February 16, 2017

Consider the headline and its ramifications in a story first reported by The Wall Street Journal:

Spies ‘keep intelligence from Donald Trump’
Shane Harris
The Wall Street Journal
1:06PM February 16, 2017

US intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward US spy agencies.

On Wednesday, Mr Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.

In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

A White House official said: “There is nothing that leads us to believe that this is an accurate account of what is actually happening.”

Intelligence officials have in the past not told a president or members of Congress about the ins and outs of how they ply their trade. At times, they have decided that secrecy is essential for protecting a source, and that all a president needs to know is what that source revealed and what the intelligence community thinks is important about it.

But in these previous cases in which information was withheld, the decision wasn’t motivated by a concern about a president’s trustworthiness or discretion, the current and former officials said.

It wasn’t clear Wednesday how many times officials have held back information from Mr Trump.

The officials emphasised that they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted. Still, the misgivings that have emerged among intelligence officials point to the fissures spreading between the White House and the US spy agencies.

Mr Trump, a Republican, asked on Monday night for the resignation of Mike Flynn, his national security adviser, after the White House said the president lost trust in him, in part, because he misstated the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Last night, Mr Trump castigated the intelligence agencies and the news media, blaming them for Mr Flynn’s downfall.

trumptweet

“The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by ‘intelligence’ like candy. Very un-American!” Mr Trump tweeted.

Mr Trump doesn’t immerse himself in intelligence information, and it isn’t clear that he has expressed a desire to know sources and methods. The intelligence agencies have been told to dramatically pare down the president’s daily intelligence briefing, both the number of topics and how much information is described under each topic, an official said. Compared with his immediate predecessors, Mr Trump so far has chosen to rely less on the daily briefing than they did.

The current and former officials said the decision to avoid revealing sources and methods with Mr Trump stems in large part from the president’s repeated expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his call, during the presidential campaign for Russia to continue hacking the emails of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia stole and leaked emails from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to undermine the election process and try to boost Mr Trump’s chances of winning, an allegation denied by Russian officials.

Several of Mr Trump’s current and former advisers are under investigation for the nature of their ties to Moscow, according to people familiar with the matter. After Mr Flynn’s dismissal, politicians have called on the government to release the transcripts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and to disclose whether Mr Trump was aware of or directed Mr Flynn’s conversations.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he has heard concerns from officials about sharing especially sensitive information with Mr Trump.

“I’ve talked with people in the intelligence community that do have concerns about the White House, about the president, and I think those concerns take a number of forms,” Mr Schiff said, without confirming any specific incidents. “What the intelligence community considers their most sacred obligation is to protect the very best intelligence and to protect the people that are producing it.”

“I’m sure there are people in the community who feel they don’t know where he’s coming from on Russia,” Mr Schiff said.

Tensions between the spy agencies and Mr Trump were pronounced even before he took office, after he publicly accused the Central Intelligence Agency and others of leaking information about alleged Russian hacking operations to undermine the legitimacy of his election win. In a meandering speech in front of a revered CIA memorial the day after his inauguration, Mr Trump boasted about the size of his inaugural crowd and accused the media of inventing a conflict between him and the agencies.

In a news conference today with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr Trump again lashed out at the media and intelligence officials, whom he accused of “criminal” leaks about Mr Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador last December.

Mr Trump didn’t explain Wednesday why he asked for Mr Flynn’s resignation. Instead, he suggested the leaks and the media were to blame for his ouster.

“General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media,” Mr Trump said. “And I think it’s really a sad thing that he was treated so badly.”

“I think in addition to that from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked,” Mr Trump said. “It’s criminal action. It’s a criminal act and it’s been going on for a long time before me but now it’s really going on.”

Reviving his line of criticism against intelligence officials during the transition, Mr Trump said the “illegally leaked” information was from people with political motivations. “People are trying to cover up for a terrible loss that the Democrats had under Hillary Clinton,” Mr Trump said.

A person close to Mr Trump said he was reluctant to let go of Mr Flynn because Mr Flynn had vigorously supported him at a stage of his presidential campaign when few people did. Mr Trump also felt Mr Flynn did nothing wrong in his conversations with the US ambassador to Russia and had good intentions.

“They both continue to support each other,” this person said.

For intelligence veterans, who had hoped that Mr Trump’s feud with the agencies might have subsided, Wednesday’s comments renewed and deepened concerns.

“This is not about who won the election. This is about concerns about institutional integrity,” said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior intelligence official.

“It’s probably unprecedented to have this difficult a relationship between a president and the intelligence agencies,” Mr Lowenthal said. “I can’t recall ever seeing this level of friction. And it’s just not good for the country.”

Several congressional probes are examining Russia’s alleged meddling in the election. On Wednesday, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested a Justice Department briefing and documents related to Mr Flynn’s resignation, including details of his communications with Russian officials.

Carol E Lee and Damian Paletta contributed to this article

And then, yes, as the story indicates, understand that these leftist unionized spooks who literally illegally leaked the phone intercepts of an American citizen are now literally saying that the fact that traitorous leftwing whackjobs leaking classified information is proof that traitorous leftwing whackjobs should be even more traitorous by withholding information from the President of the United States.

When the only reason these turds have jobs in the first damn place is to provide information to the President of the United States.

The leaks against Gen. Flynn are illegal and criminal: he is a private citizen and the intelligence community is criminal to capture telephone communications and broadcast them.  Even the damn LEFT acknowledges that the leftwing intelligence community leakers committed “serious felonies” by their criminal conduct.  Then they go on to say it’s okay that they did it because the don’t like Trump.  Which means I hope they don’t mind if we start using the raw power of government to expose THEM the same damn way and leak their phone calls and any embarrassing information the government finds out.  And their SSN numbers and identities, while we’re at it.

“We can’t give the President of the United States information because there are leaks.  And we won’t mention the fact that we’re the same people who are doing all the leaking as an act of sabotage against our Constitution and our republic and our democratically elected president.

I’ve already written my views about the abject hypocrisy surrounding the attack on Gen. Flynn: he just called the Russian Ambassador to talk about grandkids and golf games the way Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lorretta Lynch did when they had their illegal secret meeting in the midst of a presidential campaign while Hillary Clinton was facing criminal indictment that Democrats thought was no big deal.

I’ve been talking about the evils of what they call “public sector unions” for years now.

Liberal progressives don’t give a damn about the whole people. They have split America apart one racial group at another’s throats, one income level at another’s throats, and privileged union employees at the throats of fed-up taxpayers. Unions have been feeding off taxpayers – who get a fraction of the wages and benefits the privileged union pigs get – for decades. Government employees earn TWICE the wages and benefits of their counterparts in the private sector. But Democrats don’t care: they view the private sector and everyone who works in it as evil cash cows who are to be exploited and impoverished.”

Government workers don’t contribute to the tax rolls; they FEED OFF the tax roles. We pay our taxes so an elite class of bureaucrats can have TWICE the wages and benefits that we get for doing the exact same jobs. And then our tax dollars go to fund the Democrat Party so they can pass an un-American agenda. Big labor money is TEN TIMES anything conservatives have in special interests. And again, the most disgusting thing of all is that it’s our own damn money that is being used to attack the private sector workers who paid it in taxes.

One of the problems with unions is that the quickly become just another vehicle to take advantage of workers. They have three priorities: 1) the top brass of the union; 2) political ideology; 3) the workers who have seniority in the system. They don’t care about creating more jobs. And a lot of the time, unions when threatened will vote in Nazi goose step to hold on to their pay and benefits for the seniority class even though it decimates the bottom half of the union. Even if it means giving up just a few bucks to save hundreds of jobs.
And you can very easily see where the senior class of government unions are.
Do you have any damn idea how hard it is to fire a federal employee even after their incompetence or even outright criminal activity is proven???  in the second link you have a federal employee CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY who not only got her job back but received back pay to add insult to insulting injury.
These union thugs are out of control; and they are out of control for the Democratic Party and for leftist causes.

And we can see the power of a bureaucracy when that bureaucracy decides it has and should have more power than the President of the United States elected by the American people.

Every single one of the “spies” playing these Stalinist games against our president are dedicated members of government unions.

FDR pointed out that government unions are fundamentally treasonous because you have workers organizing against what or who?  The American people!!!  THAT’S who pays them.  FDR said:
The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.
And FDR then went on to say:
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
And what do you call this crap if it isn’t “militant tactics”???  This is now TREASON against the United States and against the American people.
What would FDR have done if he had learned as he was facing World War II that Republicans in the intelligence community were withholding vital information from him out of political bias???  What would have been the appropriate thing to have done to those people.
Government bureaucracies are without any question a form a monopoly. Liberals want to break up every single potential monopoly in the private sector because of the clear risks a monopoly can pose once it gets that kind of power.  But let me ask a question: how ELSE can you get your drivers license but through the DMV, as one example?  Where ELSE can a president get his intelligence but from the unionized government intelligence services?  It’s a monopoly.  Either make the monopoly work for all the people by totally and permanently removing all politics from hem or kill the damn things and kill them by the harshest means possible.
If government workers organize and collectivize themselves, there is inherent abuse of power.  That was what even FDR believed.
These illegitimate and un-American government unions must be destroyed. And they must be destroyed NOW.
At this point, if there is a terrorist attack on the United States, Donald Trump will be right to point a finger at the Democrats in the intelligence establishment, point at the fact that they are on the record withholding information from him, and initiate a witch hunt by which every single intelligence official who has expressed a leftwing political viewpoint find himself or herself on Gitmo.
We may now be seeing that it wasn’t just Barack Obama who was responsible in a one-thousand, nine-hundred percent skyrocketing increase in terrorist deaths in the world; our “intelligence community” was part of it, too.
I remember back when Mitt Romney said that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical threat and Obama mocked him and said the 1980s wants its foreign policy back.  Do you remember that?  Do you remember where all of the union “intelligence bureaucracy” was on that subject back then?  Were they calling Obama out for the pathetic fool he was?  These “intelligence professionals” who weren’t able to understand there is something called radical Islam and that this religious movement is responsible for like 99.99 percent of all terrorist attacks?  They were quiet as mice.  But now all of a sudden, Russia IS our greatest geopolitical threat, after all, responsible for everything bad and awful.  Trump very clearly wants to harness the world against the radical, violent Islam that is undermining stability across the planet and do with Putin what FDR did with Stalin and work to end a greater evil.  But lo and behold the same fool leftists that have always been wrong are still wrong.
It looks rather obvious what’s going on, here: we had the trend of Obama’s politically ideologue top brass caught in the act altering intelligence.  And when bad intelligence reports came out that showed ISIS was kicking our asses, Obama’s “intelligence experts” either altered the conclusions or pressured the lower level analysts to alter their findings.  Remember that?  These are the same sort of people now doing the same crap.
So this is what the man elected by the American people was trying to do through Gen. Flynn:
President-elect Donald TrumpDonald TrumpPutin says he will strengthen Russia’s security service Trump: Leaks are real, news is fakeChuck Todd: Trump’s treatment of the press is un-AmericanMORE’s skepticism of the Intelligence Community’s findings on Russian election interference has raised fears among experts that Trump will bypass intel analysts and demand that his personal team conduct its own analyses of raw data.
And the unionized bureaucracy in the “intelligence establishment” started screaming as their monopoly was threatened.  How DARE Donald Trump not believe whatever the hell these fools told him???  And they broke the law with criminal conduct that guarantees a minimum of a fifteen-year prison term to get rid of Gen. Flynn.
I think I’m on to something here.  I hope Trump’s team is on it, too.
At this point, the Democrats are very clearly a Nazi Fifth Column doing their utmost to destabilize and destroy the Republic of the United States.  The Democrat Party is a clear and present danger.
And it truly IS a fifth column of prominent, powerful forces that are aligned against the American people, in the form of the mainstream media and the federal unionized intelligence establishment.  The latter has viciously gone after Trump using illegal leaks.  This is now the third major leak in only the few weeks of the Trump presidency, with illegal leaks revealing conversations between President Trump and the leaders of Mexico and then Australia.  Oops, the fourth leak, as there was the leaked – and utterly fraudulent – intelligence dossier from a Russian that was gleefully printed by the savagely anti-Trump mainstream media.  The baseless allegations also caught up other players who were victims of vicious hatred of all things Trump.
And just today we had Nancy Pelosi played her own role in generating “fake news” as they lambasted Gen. Michael Flynn for referring to himself as a “scapegoat” on a tweet.  And Rep. Elijah Cummings actually demanded an investigation of Flynn.  The only problem being it was a baseless lie passed on by baseless liars who believed their own fake media and their own fake news.  And so the next time a Democrat opens his or her mouth to attack Trump just start screaming “scapegoat” and “liar” in the same sentence.
I say rehire Gen. Flynn and then FIRE every single other member of the intelligence community.  Just for starters.
I’m also going to express my hope that if these fascist shenanigans don’t end, the next Democratic president ought to face the very same treatment from any one who doesn’t like what he or she is doing.  This is going to guarantee the collapse of the United States and just remember that Democrats started this circular firing squad.

 

Advertisements

According To Mike Morell Testimony In Obama Admin, Professionals On Ground Useless While Analysts 1000s Of Miles Away Make Up ‘Facts’ In Vacuum

April 2, 2014

Why should professionals risk their lives out in the field to gather accurate information when analysts in offices thousands of miles away are going to completely ignore them anyway?

If you’re going to believe the testimony of the Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Benghazi attack, the answer is they shouldn’t bother.

You need to understand this: at this point, it is obvious to EVERYONE that when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and a host of other Obama types came out and said that the Benghazi attack that murdered the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter debacle in 1979 along with three other Americans was the result of a protest over a video rather than a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, that they were NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Everyone on the ground, along with the CIA station chief’s report from the region (Tripoli), proclaims that the attack had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any video or any protest, and in fact explicitly denies that any protest was going on at the time of the attack.

So why the bogus talking points?

The House asked the man who prepared them.

It should be noted that this man who prepared them, former Deputy Director of CIA Mike Morell, has played a game of revolving chairs.  While Obama put one of his own damned LAWYERS into the job that Morell left, Morell suddenly joined Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  Oh, and took a cushy job with the mainstream media that has pathologically refused to ever once be fair or objective.  He was rewarded well for misleading and in fact betraying America, I assure you.

IF you believe that Morell was telling the truth and he did NOT cook the books in the form of the talking points that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney et al cited when they said over and over again that the Benghazi attack resulted from a protest over a video (even though it wasn’t), this is what you HAVE to now believe about the way Obama makes decisions about foreign policy: he makes them ENTIRELY based on what analysts sitting at desks thousands of miles away from what is happening write about.  He does NOT pay any attention to what the people on the ground say.  If the people on the ground at the scene say the opposite of what the analysts say, well, who cares?

Let me wrap this in a bow for you: as Deputy Director of the CIA, Morell had ALL the intelligence available to him.  That is why his office is charged with preparing the White House talking points memo to begin with.  Mike Morell KNEW what the CIA and military people on the ground watching the attack unfold were saying.

Again, that’s what you HAVE to conclude if Morell didn’t alter the talking points for political reasons.  He acknowledged that the professionals on the ground were screaming that the attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack having nothing to do with any stupid video.  But he pointed out that none of that mattered because what mattered was what the analysts said and the analysts said that it was a video protest and so that’s what the Deputy Director of Obama’s CIA went with.  And it was nothing beyond a random coincidence that the bogus output of the analysts was exactly what the political aspirations of Obama needed.

Obama had been saying he’d decimated and wiped out al Qaeda.  He had been saying the war on terror was over and he’d won it.  He did NOT want to have to explain a terrorist attack against the United States and one of its ambassadors.

And so he didn’t.

Sadly, for Obama not to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in the form of making his personal politics trump national security, what we are instead being told is that Obama blatantly ignores the facts on the ground and instead trusts to the spin of theorists in Washington.

If that makes you liberals feel good about Obama, fine.  It makes me sick to my stomach either way.

What do I believe Morell did?  I believe he deliberately chose to ignore the facts being screamed from the ground and influenced his analysts to cook the books the way Obama wanted instead.

With Obama having gutted our military we are truly week.  With Obama ignoring the experts on the ground who are seeing the events unfold, we are truly blind.  And under Obama, the CIA is no more “independent” than his thug IRS.  Both agencies and numerous others are merely political wings of the Obama political machine rewarding Obama’s friends and punishing Obama’s enemies.

Why The Left Will Never Understand Reality. In One Bible Verse.

December 31, 2012

My mother loves the Word of God and has always loved the Word of God, which is why she is the greatest hero of my life.  As a result of that love, she has several “verse a day” calendars in her home that she views every day.  And having heard me describe the moral stupidity and blindness of the left, she made sure I knew about the verse for December 28 (the day I wrote this):

This is what the LORD says, he who made the earth, the LORD who formed it and established it–the LORD is his name: ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you
do not know.’ — Jeremiah 33:2-3

This ties into something I have said again and again and again:

I believe – along with orthodox Christian theology – that man’s nature has been corrupted and we cannot understand truth or reality on our own.  And that the ONLY way we can so comprehend truth and reality is to see the world as God sees it; which is to say see the world through God’s Word.  But liberals despise the Word of God and have tried to replace it with every theory and ideology under the sun.  And the result is that liberal man is stupid; further, he is stupid by sheer brute force of will – he is determined to be stupid.  And the more intelligent the liberal is, the more stupid he becomes – because he is able to even further commit himself to failed liberal ideologies and theories than less intellectual liberals who must still at least partly base their worldviews on common sense because they can’t fully comprehend Marxism or other failed progressive socialist theories.

And:

I too often use the word “stupid” to describe the left.

When I do so, I am not referring to their IQs, their level of education or anything of the sort.  Rather, I am referring to their worldview and what their worldview has done to their ability to comprehend reality.

Understanding the world as it really is boils down to being able to see – at least in part and to a certain degree given our finiteness – the world as God sees it.  The Bible – the Word of God – is the lens that enables us to be able to do that.

Liberals as a whole reject that Book just as they reject the Judeo-Christian worldview that is based on what that Book teaches.

Instead of perceiving Truth, liberals turn to a world of theories such as Marxism (which is fundamentally hostile to the Christian world view).  And as such, they cannot even possibly see or understand the world as it actually is.

They literally make themselves stupid by sheer brute force of will.  They take the image of God that God bequeathed every human being with (it’s something that babies in the womb have, btw) and they piss it away.

That’s how I see the blinders that you describe.  And they are blinding indeed.

And:

I’ve had a couple of insights on the nature of “intelligence.”

1) is that real “intelligence” is the ability to perceive and understand the nature of the actual world.  Ultimately, that is the world as God sees it.  But liberals do not want to see the world as God sees it; and in fact they hate the world as God sees it.  We can begin to see the world as God sees it by reading His Word and believing it; but liberals refuse to do that.  Rather, they live in a world of theories, such as Marxism, or existentialism.  They cannot see the world as it actually is, and they literally end up willing themselves to be stupid by sheer brute force of will regardless of their intelligence quotient.

2) Evil is the ultimate form of stupidity.  And again, it is irrelevant how “intelligent” one is.  Take Lucifer/Satan: he is a super-intelligent being, but in his evil self-will he is determined to try to supplant God (His creator).  His wisdom is far greater than any human being’s, on the measure of intellect.  But in the end, and in the measure of ultimate reality, he is truly stupid.  His perverted will and desire made him stupid.

That’s why a dumb Forest Gump is a hell of a lot smarter than a brilliant liberal.

Liberals love to sneeringly think of themselves as “smart.”  Atheists started calling themselves “brights” as a means of letting us know how intellectually superior they are to everyone else.

The reality is quite the opposite; simply because liberals have inoculated themselves against ever being able to perceive reality.

And:

This in response to your 2/27 comment.

I have always tried to provide links to what I claim.  And even give at least a good chunk of articles for posterity – given that papers like the New York Times have a strange way of purging stories that lead to conclusions liberals don’t like.

But I don’t write to persuade liberals.  Frankly, I don’t think liberals can be reasoned with; they live in their own little self-constructed realities.

On my view, those who do not truly believe in God cannot even possibly see or understand reality as it is.  Such people fabricate their own theories of the world (such as Marxism), and literally use their intelligence to rationalize away the truth in order to “explain” their distorted view of reality.  Only God understands reality as it really is.  And only those who see the world and understand reality through the prism of God’s Word to us can possibly understand the world both as it is and as it ought to be.

J. Vernon McGee put it thus: “Now, you might have a better plan than God.  But what you DON’T have is your own universe.”  Romans 1 is a great chapter that explains that there is a giant group of people who don’t see the truth because they don’t WANT to see the truth.  And so they exchange the truth for a lie.

G.K. Chesterton said, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”  Once you rule out the truth, you open yourself up to increasingly ridiculous lies.  It’s as simple as that.  Self-deception becomes like a cancer that eats away more and more of what little truth you ever had to begin with.

Liberals become idiots by sheer brute force of will.  They won’t see the world God’s way.  So they construct alternate realities for themselves, and buy each others’ garbage views of the world.

The Bible, as usual, gets it right.  Look up Romans 1:18, 1:22, Psalm 52:3, Proverbs 8:36, Micah 3:2, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Timothy 4:2 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4 to see the self-imposed blindness of these people.

I want to reach those who are capable of being reached – the independents who haven’t committed their minds to oppose God and His ways.  I want to reach those people who CAN be persuaded with facts.  And just as important, I want

And:

Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an “intellectual” could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.  And the record of history proves him correct.  20th century intellectuals were especially appalling in this regard.  Every mass-murdering psychopathic dictator had widespread support among the “intellectual” class.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admiring sycophants among the Western intelligentsia.

I have often said that some of (most of?) our most educated people are true moral idiots.  They refuse to view the world through the prism of God and His Word, and instead view the world through their perverted theories.  The result is that they cannot even possibly see the world as it really is (i.e., as God sees reality).  And they end up becoming profoundly stupid people through brute force of will.

Nazi Germany was the most advanced nation of the world – and yet it was the most morally stupid culture that ever existed.  This sophisticated, advanced, scientific culture warped and degraded themselves into the most murderous of barbarians never once realizing how profoundly stupid they had become.

Paul put it well: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

And:

I don’t believe Obama is capable of “teachable moments” myself.

Obama’s worldview is a bunch of “-isms” such as Marxism and socialism and fascism and racism, etc.

The only way to experience truth is to experience it through Jesus Christ and His Word or to at least have a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Obama most certainly does not.  He has radically rejected Christianity while falsely calling his blasphemy “Christian” as though Jesus would have blessed abortion and literally championed the murder of the Son of God in an unwed teenage mother’s womb.  While he has called for an end to marriage that marks the official end of any scintilla of “Christendom” in Western Civilization.

When you think like Obama, you force yourself to be a moral and ultimately an intellectual fool through sheer brute force of will.  You can not see the truth because you WILL not see the truth.

These are just a few examples pointing out how many times I’ve said that the stupidity of the left isn’t intellectual; it’s moral.  These are truly stupid people because they hate God and hate His ways and WILL NOT seek truth from Him.  And the result is that they are the most demonically stupid leaders of the last generation before the beast comes and big-government-worshiping liberals take his mark and worship him.

Mother Teresa, who understood the full horror of poverty more than all the liberals in the world combined, nevertheless the true enemy of peace:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Every single Democrat – and that means YOU, Democrat – have directly participated in the holocaust-murder of 55 million innocent human beings.  And even eternity in hell will not last long enough for the left to pay for their moral crimes against humanity.

What does the counsel of God that liberals love to despise say about unborn human beings?

“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.  I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.  My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” — Psalm 139:13-16

What was it that God sent an archangel to tell Mary?

But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.  You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

Liberals have violently and viciously rejected the truest and deepest meaning of Christmas and the Christ who came.  Because what was in Mary’s womb was NOT a nonhuman lump of goop; it was a Child.  And the Child was not a curse to be exterminated, but a blessing to nurture and love.  And liberals have brutally tried to murder that spirit ever since.  And hell will be their reward.

Let me simply come out and state it as a fact: if the Virgin Mary were a young American teenage girl today, the Democrat Party would have encouraged her to have an abortion and thus murder the Savior of the world.

John MacArthur points out the fact that the agenda of the Democrat Party is the agenda of Romans chapter one.  Because the Democrat Party is the party of homosexual perversion and the party of the damnation of God.

Democrats are the most morally stupid people on the face of the entire earth.  Because they grew up in the nation that most allowed and most cherished the Word of God.  And they are the people who have most turned their backs on the truth that God would have given them had they but turned for one moment to Him.

We are surrounded by the colossal stupidity of Democrats at every level today.

We are seeing a categorical rejection of God and His ways as Democrats impose the way of their god, Satan, and seek to ultimately impose their false messiah, the Antichrist, and the curse of his big government upon the world.

Don’t be discouraged.  Don’t become frustrated that they can’t see the blindingly obvious.  How do you expect baby murderers and depraved perverts to possibly understand economic realities???  What can these people understand when they look at a pregnant mother and can’t realize that there’s a baby in her womb?  They can’t even understand the most basic of moral truths; everything else is as rocket science to a cockroach with them.

The Scripture tells us:

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” — 2 Corinthians 4:4

These are blind people who have blindly imposed the destiny of their god on the world and on America.  And it’s not like the Bible isn’t filled with warnings about the stupidity and evil that will characterize the last days.

And as a result:

“Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.  In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God
condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.” — 2 Peter 2:2-3 NLT

I believe that America has crossed the threshold of God’s judgment.  We are going to go down hard and we’re not going to get up.  And I believe that that will happen whether or not we go off the damn fiscal cliff.

I am now carrying a different message: don’t look to Republican victories in 2014 or 2016; it is too late to save America and neither politics nor politicians ever COULD save America.

Don’t look to America; for it will be burned up.  Look instead to the Kingdom of Heaven and store up your treasures in the new heavens and the new earth that God will create for His people.

Democrats are the enemies of Jesus Christ.  But Jesus told us to love His enemies even as He loved His enemies.  Which is only possible to do through true faith in Him.

My anger over the sheer pathetic stupidity as we rush to welcome the beast and worship him and take his mark isn’t gone; but I rejoice to say it is going away.  If I have one new year’s resolution it is to put anger and vengeance aside and realize that God is telling His people that the last days are at hand and that God will allow the beast to come so He can defeat the evil, the devil and His Antichrist once for all.

The Crisis In Egypt, The Future And Bible Prophecy

January 31, 2011

If the crisis occurring now in Egypt had instead occurred during George Bush’s watch, you can rest assured that the entirety of the mainstream media would have been asking, “Why didn’t the administration know this was coming?”  “How was this not a massive intelligence failure?”  And they would have characterized the Egyptian crisis as a failure of American leadership.

Conservatives like me have taken the attitude, “Do Unto Obama What Liberals Did Unto Bush.”  You find that the ideology out of power can drag down a president one bloody chunk of meat at a time.   Which was precisely what liberals did to Bush for eight unrelenting years.

As a conservative blogwarrior, what I would ordinarily want to do is take an event like the building collapse of the Egyptian government, link it to Obama, and blame his failure of leadership.  That’s what the liberals did on a daily basis to George Bush, and as much as the left decries the very tactic they developed and used to such advantage, it works.

And I CAN link this to Obama.  It was OBAMA’S regime that has been secretly backing Egyptian rebels, who literally set this whole firestorm in motion.  This support began during the period of transition, when Bush was on his way out and Obama was on his way in, and continued under Obama’s thumb.  And the American response to the Egyptian crisis has been nothing short of a fiasco:  Obama’s vice president Joe Biden said that Mubarak isn’t a dictator.  Which means he should stay.  But then Obama’s secretary of state Hillary Clinton says there needs to be an orderly transition of power, which means that he should go.  And then Obama’s press secretary says that the U.S. isn’t taking sides, when in fact the U.S. is incoherently taking sides first one way and then the other, basically as the wind blows.

Right wingers basically have all the evidence they need to throw out the bomb that Obama has been working to undermine US ally Mubarak in order to enable the Muslim Brotherhood to take over strategically vital Egypt.  And that he is even now undermining any coherent American effort to restore order.

And the thing about propaganda is that you can turn out to be completely wrong, but if people believe you at the time, you win, because those people turn against the leader(s) you’re seeking to undermine – and it’s hard to win them back.  And if you throw up enough blame, some of it is bound to stick.

All that said…

While I’m a political conservative, I’m not JUST a political conservative.  Unlike political liberals, who are secular humanists whose religion is big government – and for whom government is the only answer to the problems of man – politics is NOT the only solution to the world’s problems for me.  I also have Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that He came to fulfill.

And what the Scriptures say are more important to me than my opinions about Obama or even my limited government conservative political ideology.

With that said, I will NOT play the game of the political ideologue, using the latest crisis to denounce the current administration’s mishandling and predicting doom as a result of the president’s incompetence.

I will try to state what the Scriptures say about a strategically incredibly important nation that is nearly as ancient as man himself.

And so I am going to say that, as a student of Scripture and of Bible prophecy, I believe that Egypt will ultimately turn out okay.  Rather than point to the unrest in Egypt and denounce Obama for the horrors that will surely follow – as I would do if I were simply operating as a conservative ideologue and blogwarrior – I am stating my belief that Egypt won’t turn out like Iran.

Now why do I say that?

Because of the book of Ezekiel chapters 38-39.

Ezekiel 38 and 39 describes a list of seemingly obscure names of nations bearing their sixth century BC names.  Scholars can trace those ancient names and pair them with peoples and nations of today.  What we learn is that in the future, in the last days, a vast army of what are today Islamic countries led by Russia and Iran will launch a surprise attack against Israel.  And that God Himself will divinely and supernaturally intervene on Israel’s behalf.

Two things are significant: 1) the names of the nations on the list.  Why?  Because except for Russia – a key ally to Islamic regimes – every nation on the list is today a Muslim nation with animosity toward Israel; and 2) the names of the nations that are not on the list.

Joel Rosenberg became famous understanding this.  As just one example, Rosenberg wrote a “last days” novel.  Because he understood that Iraq (ancient Babylon) was not mentioned as one of the nations that would join the Russian-Iran-led coalition to attack Israel, Rosenberg “killed off” Saddam Hussein – whom he rightly understood would have participated in such an invasion.  And how did he do it?  By having America take him out after a terrorist flew a plane into an American building.  And he wrote this nine months prior to the 9/11 attack.

He writes in an interesting article that explains the book of Ezekiel and Bible prophecy:

It should be noted that conspicuously absent from the list is Egypt and Iraq (typically referred to in Scripture as Babylon or Mesapotamia). This is noteworthy since Ezekiel was writing the prophecy in the City of Babylon, in the heart of Iraq. We would have to expect, then, that neither Egypt nor Iraq will participate. Egypt, of course, signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Iraq is now so engrossed in its own internal struggles that it would be unlikely to join a coalition to destroy Israel in the next few years. We are, therefore, living in the first window in human history in which neither of these historic enemies of the Jewish people are likely to be involved in the next major Middle East war.

This isn’t the first article in which I make mention of Egypt and Iraq and their role in the future according to Bible prophecy, for the record.

Now, I don’t cite Joel Rosenberg because he’s a “prophet.”  Nor would he want me to do so.  Rather, I cite him because he has a rock-solid understanding of Bible prophecy and because he has concretely demonstrated that his understanding of the Bible makes him prescient of otherwise obscure and constantly-changing modern times events.

Prior to Anwar Sadat’s signing of a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 (for which he was murdered), Egypt had fought Israel during the 1948 war; it had fought Israel in 1956; it had fought Israel again in 1967; and it had fought Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

What is happening now in Egypt – with riots and violence and deaths and looting and vigilantes – is terrifying.  But somehow Egypt will end up with a government that will continue to be at peace with Israel.  Which means it won’t ultimately be controlled by terrorists or jihadist regimes.  We can’t know what will happen in the very near term, but overall, the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood will not end up in control of Egypt.  And up to this point, thank God, there has been a conspicuous absence of Israeli and American flag burnings in Egypt.

Frightening things are happening in the Middle East.  Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria and Egypt are spiraling out of control as we speak.  Iran is one the verge of having The Bomb, and the world will become a very different place after this terrorism-sponsoring rogue regime feels it can act with impunity.  And the fact that Iran is Shiite will force many Sunni nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own in a terrifying arms race in the craziest place in the world.  And, of course, North Korea has committed several acts of war against its South Korean counterpart.

Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars.  He described “birth pangs” in which each wave would be more painful than the last.  And while there have ALWAYS been wars, what we would see would be a level above anything the past has witnessed.  After two thousand years of relative peace, we had World War I, World War II, the Cold War (of which the Korean War and the Vietnam War were part), and now fighting that has at once gone to the “biblical world” (Iraq – Operations Desert Storm and then Desert Fox – as well as Afghanistan) even as it has spread to the rest of the world in an unprecedented way via terrorism.

And we aint seen nothin’ yet.  Soon there will come the Antichrist, also called the beast, who will come promising peace and prosperity, and who will come to rule the world, but who will in reality turn into the devil incarnate.  And those who are left on the earth will find war and ruin and death such as the world has never witnessed in all of its history.

It all sounds terrifying.  And of course it IS terrifying.  But I don’t have to be afraid.

First of all, I believe that God is in control.  And that God protects and delivers His people.  Second, I believe in the Rapture of the saints prior to the wrath of God.

What is God’s purpose for allowing such terrible events to befall mankind?  Why does God permit the coming of the beast?  Because mankind is in a stage in which it denies God and even claims that belief in God is creating all the problems in the world.  This powerful global secular humanist movement says that mankind is on the verge of greatness and that if the intolerant Christians could only be removed, humanity could attain that greatness.  And God will give them their chance.  He will remove all those who believe in His Son, and give the world its chance to govern itself without Him.  And what we will see instead of the Utopia these secularists have always described will be literal hell on earth.

And Jesus Christ will ultimately return to earth as King of kings and as Lord of lords just in time to prevent mankind from totally destroying itself as all the armies of the world gather at a place known as Armageddon.

It is THIS King of kings whose government I trust in; and no other.

The Book of Daniel says, “Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4).  Knowledge has exploded as no other period in human history has ever seen, and yet we run to and fro in panic and uncertainty more than at any other time.

You don’t have to be afraid.  There is a God who knows the end from the beginning.  Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own [or the expert’s] understanding, and rest assured that ultimately the government of the world will be upon the shoulders of the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Obama Lies Better Than Fox News Reports The Truth

January 10, 2011

You know what they say: “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”

Unfortunately, we’ve got Barack Obama anyway, whether we need him or not.

There’s another saying that is appropriate here: “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on.”  And that’s particularly true when “the truth” – in this case Fox News – is more like the Keystone Cops.

In this case, Fox News seems to have tied its left bootlace to its right bootlace and fallen flat on its face.  In fact, they fell so hard, with their noses in some cow pie, that they could possibly even see the ratings of CNN and MSNBC.

There are too many people who just can’t understand that Barack Obama is a shameless, cynical liar.  They think, “Well, if the government says it, it must be true.”  When they really should be thinking just the opposite.

Case in point:

Obama Officials Use Fox News to Smear Conservative Group in Shootings
Sunday, 09 January 2011 22:26 Cliff Kincaid

The only certain fact about the motivation of Arizona killer Jared Loughner is that, like the lunatic who opened fire on the Pentagon last March, he is a pothead. Several people who knew Loughner say that he was a serious abuser of the drug and “liked to smoke pot.” What’s more, Loughner had been arrested in 2007 for possessing drug paraphernalia.

The use of marijuana has been linked to mental illness, including psychosis, and increases the kind of paranoia exhibited by Loughner in his writings.

However, Jennifer Griffin of Fox News recklessly and irresponsibly claimed on Sunday morning that the killer was a political conservative. Using Obama officials as her sources, she reported that “intelligence gathered by the Department of Homeland Security and shared with state officials across the United States” had revealed “a strong suspicion” that the shooter was influenced by a conservative publication called American Renaissance (AR).

This publication is on the right side of the political spectrum and is politically incorrect because of its criticism of racial preference and “diversity” programs and immigration policies that weaken the strength of a country. It has scheduled a Feb. 4–Feb. 6, 2011, conference in Charlotte, North Carolina.

One would have expected that a “conservative” news channel dedicated to fairness and balance would not be so quick to publicize the charges or “suspicions” of some anonymous federal officials in the Obama Administration who seem anxious and eager to smear conservative groups.

But without bothering to get a response, Griffin claimed, “This is based on some of the videos he posted on YouTube. This group’s ideology is anti-government, anti-immigration, and anti-Semitic.”

But a review of Loughner’s YouTube videos finds nothing about American Renaissance.

To make matters worse, it turns out that Griffin not only did not contact AR for a response but badly mischaracterized the nature of the publication.

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance told AIM that he first heard about the charge from CNN, not Fox News. He said that when he found out about the story on the Fox News website, he emailed several Fox News correspondents denouncing the allegations. “I got no response,” he said.

Eventually, he was contacted by James Rosen of Fox News. But that was after Fox News analyst Juan Williams, recently fired by National Public Radio, cited the charges as if they were true on Fox News Sunday.

Apparently using the questionable Griffin story as his source, Williams was quick to claim “there are connections between him [the shooter] and this group, American Renaissance, I think they’re called, and they are strongly anti-immigrant, they’re anti-Semitic and they’re anti-government.”

Nothing Williams said was backed up by the facts and he did not cite any.

Taylor told Rosen that the charges are “scurrilous” and that he took issue with the reference to his group being “anti-ZOG” (Zionist Occupational Government).

“That is complete nonsense,” Taylor said. “I have absolutely no idea what DHS [Department of Homeland Security] is talking about. We have never used the term ‘ZOG.’ We have never thought in those terms. If this is the level of research we are getting from DHS, then Heaven help us.”

In a statement on the publication’s website, Jared Taylor went into more detail and countered: “No one by the name of Loughner has ever been a subscriber to American Renaissance or has ever registered for an American Renaissance conference. We have no evidence that he has even visited the AR website.”

He added, “American Renaissance condemns violence in the strongest possible terms, and nothing that has ever appeared in it pages could be interpreted as countenancing it.”

A subsequent story by Griffin claimed that American Renaissance was mentioned “in some of his [Loughner’s] internet postings and federal law enforcement officials are investigating Loughner’s possible links to the organization.”

But no evidence of such postings or links was cited or has surfaced.

In this Griffin story, the source became a “law enforcement memo based on information provided by DHS and obtained by Fox News…” She falsely characterized American Renaissance as “a pro-white racist organization.”

Giving it a high degree of credibility, Greta Van Susteren of Fox News insisted it was “an internal memo” that was “put out by DHS” and reproduced the entire thing.

While American Renaissance is critical of government affirmative action programs and unrestricted immigration, there is no evidence of anti-Semitism, and there is no evidence that American Renaissance by any objective standard is a racist organization. It does deal with racial issues. But so does the Congressional Black Caucus.

The memo in question supposedly said, in relation to AR,  “…no direct connection—but strong suspicion is being directed at AmRen / American Renaissance. Suspect is possibly linked to this group. (through videos posted on his myspace and YouTube account.). The group’s ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic. Gabrielle Gifford is the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government. She was also opposite this group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate.”

Jared Taylor countered: “AR is not anti-government, anti-Semitic, or anti-ZOG, as is clear from the 20 years of back issues that are posted on our website. The expression ‘ZOG’ has never appeared in the pages of AR, and we have always welcomed Jewish participation in our work. Many of the speakers at American Renaissance conferences have been Jewish.”

What’s more, Taylor noted that, “Gabrielle Giffords is not the ‘first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government.’ Barbara Boxer has represented California in the Senate from 1993, and Dianne Feinstein has done so since 1992. There are at least six Jewish congresswomen listed by Wikipedia as currently serving in the House. If this memo is typical of the research done by the Department of Homeland Security, our country is in serious danger. I telephoned DHS today to try to get the bottom of this nonsense, but apparently there is no homeland security on Sundays. The person who answered the phone said no one is there and that I should call back on Monday morning.”

He added, “Fortunately, some of the media organizations that have been reporting this story have contacted me, and have reported my assertion that American Renaissance knows nothing at all about Jared Loughner, that we condemn all violence, and that we cannot possibly be described as anti-Semitic.”

After going on the air with the false and malicious charges about AR, Fox News finally published a story with a response to the charges under the headline, “American Renaissance Denies DHS Charges, Any Affiliation With Shooter.”

A later Fox News story reported, “New details are emerging about Loughner as a law enforcement memo based on information provided by the Department of Homeland Security and obtained by Fox News suggests he may have ties to the American Renaissance group, though it’s unclear if he was directly affiliated with the publication or group.”

It is apparent that Fox News is backing away from the story, after already doing damage to and smearing the organization.

By this point, however, dozens of liberal-left media outlets and bloggers have already cited Fox News as the source of the claim that the killer was involved in a conservative group.

Taylor called for an investigation into how and where DHS obtained the bogus information and who leaked it to Fox News.

“I’d like to know where they are getting this nonsense,” Taylor told AIM. “What else are they telling other people?”

Ooh, ooh!  Let me answer that one!  They’re telling lies, Mr. Taylor.  Demagogic lies.  It’s what Obama does.  He has the Midas touch in that department of political talent.

Is the Obama Homeland Security totally incompetent?  You bet it is.  But you don’t have to be competent when you can lie like a snake in the grass; all you need to be able to do is blame your failures on some poor scapegoat with the help of a an either idiotic or biased media.

It sounds like the Obama DHS is at a point of impending implosion, though: it’s one thing to foment lies; it’s quite another to actually believe your own lies.  It sounds like the Department of Homeland Security has degenerated to the point where they are believing their own lies.

Fox News is the most accurate and most trusted name in news, as studies and surveys clearly demonstrate.  But it’s success has sadly transformed it into “the mainstream media.”  And many of its journalists have come from other propagandists I mean networks.

I must not be a very good conservative, because I’m frankly not familiar with American Renaissance.  All I can say is that I’ll be tuning them in from now on.  After all, in being dishonestly demonized by the Department of Homeland Security, they have joined such esteemed company as our combat veterans, pro-life defenders, and opponents of illegal immigration.

I got an idea for you, Barry Hussein: instead of smearing “right wing groups,” why don’t you try getting your act together, instead?  Because the last I heard, American Renaissance wasn’t doing the background checks that allowed Jared Loughner to legally obtain the Glock that he used on his murderous rampage.

Obama: Fool Or Tool, Either Way He is Dangerous

May 3, 2009

I came across an interesting article via Atlas Shrugs.  I don’t know who Dr. Wheeler is – or if he is actually interacting with an actual French intelligence source (or if that source is being honest if he is) – but the read is interesting and illuminating.

A LAUGHINGSTOCK IN PARIS

Dr. Wheeler has interesting friends in faraway places. He is inside, and always has a fresh skinny inside the beltway and outside — this time, outside the Left Bank. Every once in a while I will run an entire piece of Jack’s, because it’s too juicy not share. But subscribe to his newsletter — worth every penny.

Obama laughingstock

100 DAYS OF BEING A LAUGHINGSTOCK IN PARIS

Paris, France. It is very cool to be a French intel guy. A spectacular meal at a Parisian bistro with $90 entrées and a $200 bottle of Bordeaux? No problem. I’d known this fellow since he got me out of a jam in Sudan years ago. His James Bond days are over, but still, riding a desk for the DGSE — Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (General Directorate for External Security), France’s military intel agency – in Paris has its decided benefits.

One of them is not being infected with Obamamania. “My agency considers him a joke,” he confides. “Every day there is some fresh lunacy that we cannot believe. Mr. Bush would often make us angry. But at this man we just laugh.”

“In truth, it also makes us sad,” he continued. “French resentment towards America is strong, so being able to laugh at your country feels good. But it is such a sad and strange thing to see America – America The Great! – do something so crazy as to elect this ridiculous man.”

“There are many people in America who think he isn’t a legitimate president as he wasn’t born in the US and isn’t a natural citizen. What do you think?” I asked.

He shrugged. “I wouldn’t know. I’ve never had reason to make an inquiry.”

“There are a lot of people convinced he is a traitor who hates America and is actively determined to destroy it. Any opinion on that?”

He didn’t shrug at this. After a long slow sip of wine, he mused, “I would not go that far. Many of his actions, however, are very puzzling because they are so counter-productive regarding America’s best interests. There seems to be a consistent pattern in that direction.”

“What does Sarkozy think of him?”

Nothing but contempt.”

After a pause he asked, “And Langley?”

“Well, if you thought the war they waged against Bush was intense, it was nothing compared to how they’re going to screw Obama. He has tried to gut them with the ‘torture memo’ release and slashing their budgets. The morale is depressed, sullen, and enraged. You know what a left-wing outfit Langley is. They thought he was their boy and they feel betrayed. All kinds of damaging stuff on him will be appearing via their media friends.”

He nodded. “And in Tel Aviv City?”

He was referring to the huge underground city complex of Langley’s underneath the US Embassy in the Israeli capital. “That’s an interesting question. You know how vast and deep the relationship is there. Langley is making every effort to overcome the total and massive distrust their Israeli colleagues have for Obama, whom they know is selling them down the Jordan River. So far though this effort is in words. The Israelis are waiting to see what Langley does.”

He said nothing. I smiled. “You guys wouldn’t be Langley’s cutout for thwarting BO regarding Israel, would you? I’d never suspect that…”

He continued to say nothing, gave me only a slight smile in return, and poured me another glass of wine. “The Bordeaux is good, yes?” I nodded.

“You know, the French media worships this man the same as yours in the US. All of this ‘100 days’ talk, it is impossibly stupid. Most anyone in the French elite, the business leaders, Sarko’s people, they all know this. They all think this is some crazy joke of the Americans. But it is a very, very dangerous joke. For 100 days your president has been a laughingstock among the tout le monde No one may be laughing 100 days or 10 months from now.”

He leaned forward. “The world can go – how do you say – sideways with this man very quickly. No one he has working for him knows what they are doing – possibly excepting Mrs. Clinton – and he certainly does not. All of us in our little community are worried – us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv, and Langley too as you say. It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is everythere are no gates. The Somalis, Chavez, Iran, Putin, Beijing, the ‘Norks” as you call them, the list is long and it is growing. We are not sure what to do.”

It took me a moment to respond. “The best thing that has happened now is Obama making Langley his enemy. They will be cooperating with you more, be more a part of your worried community. Working together, you can undermine his efforts more effectively, block and maybe even repair the damage.”

It was my turn to lean forward. “Then again, all together you could be more pro-active. The man is a mystery. Nobody can make public his actual birth certificate, or even the particular hospital he was born in, or his college grades, or how he got into Harvard, or how he made editor of the Harvard Law Review and never wrote a single article for it. It goes on and on. He really is a Zero. I think all of you guys should find all of this out and make it known.”

I added, “The quicker the better, before the laughing stops and the real dangers begin.”

“What is that phrase you use?” he asked. “Something to consider?”

I laughed. “Yes, there is much to consider – and much that you can do. I mean, really, if the Soviet Union could be dismantled, so can this presidency.”

It was a beautiful April afternoon in Paris. He walked me back to my hotel. It could be that the times we live in may get even more interesting.

I added the links to the article.  Whether the French intelligence agent sipping his Bordeaux and disclosing his insider knowledge is genuine or a literary device, the facts and fears presented are nevertheless legitimate facts and fears.

Barack Obama is pursuing so many dangerous and foolish policies at once that it is simply unreal.  The U.S. is on the hook for $12.8 trillion dollars – and counting.  He is taking over the auto industry by way of a foolhardy government-UAW partnership that will produce political correctness at the expense of profits.  He is seeking to nationalize one-sixth of the American economy by taking over health care, which is guaranteed to become a massive boondoggle and a massive failure.  He is attempting to impose cap-and-trade on the energy industry in yet another takeover, which will (in Obama’s own words) necessarily send energy prices skyrocketing.  And he has all but decided to surrender on a war on terror that he refused to even call a war on terror any longer.  And his bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia and shaking the hand of an America-hating Venezuelan dictator only underscore the massive changes in our foreign policy.

Any one of these policies by themselves would undermine America; Obama is pursuing all of them very nearly at once.  Fear – and the desire of many Americans to feel like the government is “doing something” – have created the perfect storm of imposing radical action in the name of averting the “crisis.”

Is Obama a laughingstock among those in the know?  I’m sure not laughing.  Whether he’s a fool or a tool, Obama is the most dangerous man in the world.

CIA Memos: Obama Releases What Makes Us Look Bad, Conceals What Makes Us Look Good

April 22, 2009

President Obama released legal memos revealing our interrogation methods of terrorists, essentially referring to the Bush years following 9/11 as a “dark and painful chapter in our history.”

Thus we found out that:

Prisoners could be kept awake for more than a week. They could be stripped of their clothes, fed nothing but liquid and thrown against a wall 30 consecutive times.

In one case, the CIA was told it could prey on one prisoner’s fear of insects by stuffing him into a box with a bug. When all else failed, the CIA could turn to what a Justice Department memo described as “the most traumatic” interrogation technique of all, waterboarding.

What Obama refused to allow the American people to learn was that these things worked and kept us safe.

Cheney Calls For More CIA Reports To Be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel’s Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration’s interrogation tactics:

CHENEY: “One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven’t announced this up until now, I haven’t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

In short, Obama wanted to release only the stuff that made America and the Bush administration look bad. He DID NOT want to release the stuff that made America and the Bush administration look good. And that should really bother you.

Mind you, we shouldn’t have released ANYTHING.

WASHINGTON – Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records.

Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to detail internal government discussions.

The Obama mentality seems to be that the terrorists aren’t our enemy; George Bush is the real enemy, and anything that discredits him – even if it provides aid to terrorists and allows them to be more successful in the future even as our own ability to stop them is undermined – is worth pursuing.

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden – a career intelligence professional unlike the career political hack Obama appointed to head the CIA – offered the following in an op-ed entitled, “The President Ties His Own Hands On Terror“:

[On the impact of the CIA as an institution]: “The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.”….

[On the ability of the terrorists to resist American interrogations in the future]: “[P]ublic disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.”….

[On the morale and effectiveness of our CIA officers in the future]: “The effect of this disclosure on the morale and effectiveness of many in the intelligence community is not hard to predict. Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable.”…

The money quote of the Hayden piece has got to be this:

“fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those [harsh] interrogations.”

In short:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency insisted Sunday that harsh interrogation techniques widely condemned as torture had succeeded in battling Al-Qaeda and saving American lives, something he characterized as “an inconvenient truth.”

Michael Hayden, who was replaced as CIA chief earlier this year by President Barack Obama, assailed Obama’s decision last week to release “Top Secret” memos detailing the interrogation techniques as “really dangerous” for US intelligence efforts.

We had darned good reason for waterboarding terrorists such as Abu Zubaydah. Our guys washed the defiance right out of those murderers’ hair.

I demand that Barack Hussein address the nation and assure us that the comfort of a terrorist is more important to him than an American city, and that he would rather that ten million Americans perish in a terrorist attack than that one terrorist with “ticking time bomb” knowledge be waterboarded. Let’s lay it on the line. Let’s allow the American people to decide, “Our lives and the lives of our families aren’t worth the ‘torturing’ of a terrorist. The president is right.” Or NOT.

But that won’t be the kind of honesty we’ll get. We won’t get any real honesty at all. Rather, in the guise of “openness,” and “transparency,” Obama will only let us have enough information to lead us to a false conclusion that America and George Bush really were evil.

Finally, if we are attacked again, I further demand that Barack Hussein be impeached and removed from office for refusing to uphold his sworn Constitutional duty to defend and protect America. I demand that he be held personally responsible for his dismantling of our intelligence capability. And I demand that he – rather than the officials who tried to protect us following the worst attack in American history – be criminally prosecuted for depraved indifference by abandoning measures that successfully protected the citizens of this country in favor of political ideology.

President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

November 9, 2008

There’s a coming crisis looming that may make every situation the world has faced since World War II look like a children’s game.  President-elect Obama isn’t ready for it.  Are you?

There is already historical precedent that Israel will attack Iran during the U.S. Presidential transition.  Israel attacked a target in Lebanon in December of 1988 – during the Reagan-Bush transition.  In a Jerusalem Post article  Historian Benny Morris describes that operation, and notes:

The operation took place one month after US President George H. Bush was voted into office, and a month before he was sworn in, replacing the popular Ronald Reagan, a leader widely viewed as a staunch ally of Israel.

Operation Blue and Brown says nothing about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran today. But it does show that IDF operations have been ordered in the interim period between the election of a new American president and his inauguration.

And it is this same period in 2008/09 that provides an “attractive date” for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear program, according to historian Benny Morris.

In June, Morris wrote an op-ed for The New York Times in which he theorized that Israel would likely strike Iran between November 5 and January 19, the day before Obama is sworn in.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post this week, Morris said he continued to believe that time period was a “reasonable” one for Israeli action.

“There is certainly a friendly president in the White House until January 20. There is no certainty over what will happen after that, in which direction the wind will blow.

The second thing is the advancement by the Iranians in creating the bomb,” Morris said, speaking from his home in Li’on, southwest of Beit Shemesh. Morris said the Iranian regime was guided by messianic clerics who could not be trusted to act logically in a state of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

“These men are not rational like the men who ruled America and Russia during the Cold War. When [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad talks about destroying Israel and denies the Holocaust, we hear no contrary voices from the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei saying that Ahmadinejad is crazy,” Morris said.

“So long as Iran makes progress, we are under pressure, if we plan on doing something. Iran is supposed to purchase advanced anti-aircraft guns from Russia at the start of 2009. All of these point to the fact that if the US provides support, an Israeli strike is reasonable,” he said.

Acknowledging the lame-duck nature of the Olmert administration, Morris said the difficulties posed by a weak government could be overcome by notifying the leaders of the major political parties in advance of the attack. He even raised the possibility that a date had already been chosen.

Joe Biden warned of an “international crisis” to test a young and inexperienced President Obama:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

And, somewhat disturbingly, Biden said, “we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Biden went on to say:

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

“Gird your loins,” Biden warned.

Have you “girded”?  I have a feeling you’ll be using your girdle for a much-needed diaper when this mess hits the rotary oscillator.

Former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton flat-out stated that if Obama won, Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran.  He said:

(IsraelNN.com) John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the United Nations, told a London newspaper Tuesday that Israel will attack Iran if Senator Barack Obama is elected President. He predicted the attack would take place between the day after the elections, in early November, and January 20, when the next president succeeds George W. Bush.

The interview with Bolton continued:

Bolton told the newspaper that if Senator Obama is elected in November, Israel cannot afford to wait until he takes office on January 20, before taking action. “An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” according to Bolton, who served as ambassador to the U.N. for less than two years until 2006.

“My judgment is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election,” he added. “The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defenses by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations.”

He said that Israel might be able to delay a strike if Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain is elected. Bolton said the Republican candidate’s position is “much more realistic than the Bush administration’s stance.”

It’s not just John Bolton.  The former head of the Israeli Mossad – one of the most esteemed figures in the Israeli intelligence establishment – has also openly advocated an major strike against Iran in the immediate future.  And Western intelligence sources are saying, “An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program “will most probably take place before 2009.”

And Israel’s Debka File has stated that US intelligence is warning that Iran may have the bomb as early as February of 2009.

Israel has been practicing for something big.  On June 20, more than a hundred Israeli aircraft staged a massive exercise.  The Jerusalem Post, in an article titled, “Iran: IAF drill jeopardizes global peace,” opened by saying, “Iran criticized on Saturday a recent Israeli military exercise that US officials said was designed to show Jerusalem’s ability to attack Teheran’s nuclear sites.”

Hot dang, would it ever get have-a-massive-coronary-terrifying if a major ally of the United States attacked a major ally of Russia to attack nuclear facilities (as in unleashing massive radioactive debris?).  The world would go to hell in a hand basket so fast it you’ll have to lie down or else fall over, and all this with that naive young appeaser President Obama not even sworn in yet!  I mean, Israel would be bombing stuff in Iran that Russia built for them.  Iran is already ranting and raving about Israel, and Israel hasn’t even done anything to them yet.  How close do you think we’ll get to World War III, sports fans?

I hope you’re ready to ride that roller coaster, because, judging by the polls, it is more probable that you voted for it than that you voted against it.

You voted for it in spite of watchmen on the wall like me have been shouting, “We warned you! We warned you! WE WARNED YOU!” over and over and over again.

I have been writing about the problem of Iran for months.  Given the fact that we will now have a President who fundamentally opposed the reasoning of the Iraq War, how on earth can he justify a war with Iran?

Sanctions haven’t worked, and they won’t work.  The United Nations – which has never done anything useful anyway – will again be no help, with key Iranian allies Russia and China wielding veto status as permanent members of the Security Council.  Both nations have already repeatedly blocked US and European sanction efforts against Iran’s nuclear program.  They will continue to guarantee that no international measure with any teeth passes.  And Europe – which relies heavily on Russian and Iranian oil, can hardly be counted upon as a strong ally.

Europe doesn’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  But that doesn’t mean all that much.  I didn’t want Barack Obama to be elected President.  Fat lot of good “not wanting” did me.  Only a steel-eyed unyielding commitment to the use of massive military force has any chance of swaying Iran from its goal.  And Europe simply isn’t willing to go that far.

This would be comical, if the stakes weren’t so incredibly deadly, and if this same game hadn’t already been played before in Iraq.  The United States was ultimately forced to attack Iraq because there was no chance of passing international sanctions that would have been able to force Iraq to demonstrate that it had disarmed.

Barack Obama, by having opposed an attack on Iraq, fundamentally opposes any attack against Iran.  The situations are nearly identical politically.  Just as with Iraq, the United States can never know for certain that Iran has nuclear weapons, and isn’t merely bluffing, as Iraq was alleged to have done.  Every major intelligence service in the world believe Iraq had WMD; and even senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion.  Given the persistent failure to get any meaningful sanctions passed against Iran – just as was the case against Iraq – there is no reason whatsoever to believe that we will be able to do so in the future, whether President Obama is personally charming or not.  And – just as was the case against Iraq – we have a coalition of enemies actively aiding and protecting Iran in international diplomacy efforts, just as we have weak European allies that benefit from the product Iran is producing.

If you believe that Barack Obama is going to be able to talk Iran out of developing nuclear weapons, you are the very worst kind of naive fool.  Neither Iran or Russia will join hands with the choir Barack Obama will be able to assemble to sing, “We are the world.”  The “harmony” and “unity” Obama has inspired will be proven to be completely artificial the moment the first real test comes along.  And it is coming.

Iran has demonstrated that it is utterly determined to develop its nuclear program to its logical conclusion: weaponizing.  US intelligence has said that it can “Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.”  In fact Iran has only blinked once: in 2003, immediately after the United States invaded Iraq over that country’s alleged WMD arsenal.  Bottom line: Iran didn’t want to be next.

By opposing the Iraq War, Barack Obama de facto opposed Iran’s halting its nuclear program, and opposed the only meaningful threat that would stop Iran from its determined course in the future.

John McCain – by standing on the principles of the Iraq War, and by standing by his commitment to employ the successful surge strategy to win that war – was the only hope the world had to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons without war.  Iran very likely would have believed an assurance from John McCain that he would attack Iran rather than allow it to possess nuclear weapons.  It is extremely unlikely that Iran will believe Barack Obama, given his history of opposing a virtually identical war with Iraq.  The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama was the assurance of military action versus the rhetoric of a meaningless threat.

And that is why it is highly likely that Israel will attack Iran.  The only thing that will prevent them from attacking before Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009 is the fact that their own government is in transition and may not be able to act effectively before then.  That is why I have said that a vote for Obama would be a vote for a nuclear Iran.  It’s why I ultimately believe that a vote for Obama will ultimately result in a vote for Armageddon.

A nuclear-armed Iran will be able to pursue both direct and indirect (via terrorist organization intermediaries) global jihad with complete impunity.  Again, that was exactly what President Bush feared would occur if Iraq was able to develop WMD.  For to attack them with such weapons at their disposal would be to risk a nuclear holocaust.

Israel is a tiny country.  A single nuclear weapon of sufficient megatonnage  could destroy the whole nation and produce in just one day a worse Holocaust than Hitler achieved in years.  And Iran’s leadership has clearly demonstrated that they are insane enough to do anything, given their apocalyptic religious fanaticismA nuclear Iran is far more terrifying than a nuclear Russia, or even a nuclear North Korea.  Both President Ahmadinejab and the Ayatollah Khamenei (who called for the destruction of “cancerous tumor” Israel) have made their position clear.  Iranian leaders have consistently voiced their determination to wipe Israel off the map.  Israel simply cannot take a chance.

Just as was the case with World War II – when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s aversion to war and determination to pursue dialogue (without preconditions, by the way) invariably resulted in a far greater and far more destructive global conflagration – President Barack Obama’s aversion to face a preemptive war with determined evil tyrants may well result in the deaths of untold millions.

I hope we’re ready.  We voted for it.

Just so you know, the Bible speaks of the war of Gog and Magog in the last days, with Russia and Iran leading an Arab-African coalition against Israel.  The Book of Ezekial chapters 38 and 39 spell it out to any who have ears to hear.  The Antichrist/beast of Bible prophecy won’t come in a time of prosperity and peace; he’ll come during a time of crisis.  And we are headed for the very crisis that will see the world welcome the son of perdition as a savior.

My personal view: President Barack Obama will be one of the “false messiahs” that Jesus described.  He too is seen as a savior, but he will lead the United States to catastrophe.  Ezekiel 38:13 describes the rest of the world as merely standing idly by and wondering what is going on as the Russian-Iranian-Arab/African confederation attack a lone Israel.  The nations are potrayed as worrying only about what the attack will have on the global economy.  And for the first time in the history of the Israeli-American alliance, the United States is virtually at that point right now.  Somehow, the United States – the historic ally and protector of Israel – had to be rendered unable or unwilling to come to Israel’s aid when it most counts.  I see the United States being too weakened to help Israel both in terms of its economy and its loyalty.

The pawns are all in position.  The board is nearly set.  The most terrifying game in human history is about to be played out across the global stage.

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

May 8, 2008

The United Nations is by its very nature paralyzed in that five nations with incompatible views and goals can obstruct the process at will; but when corruption is added into the mix of systematic ideological biases, entrenched naiveté that borders on a prerequisite for a UN career, and blatant incompetence, then even the possibility for justice is perverted into a disgusting sham of profiteering and demagoguery – all with a profound sense of self-righteous moralistic judgmentalism. (A long sentence, I know… but describing the pompous windbags at the U.N. demands long sentences).

The United States could have the best resolution in the world for any given global issue, noble and good and effective and whatever else one wants to add; but human rights-abusing China can throw it out with its veto at will. France, based on its currently-deserved place in the world, is and has been virtually irrelevant; but with its veto power – based on its long-past heyday – gives it a clout that is completely without merit. And it is impossible to ignore the alliance with genuine evil that rapidly-approaching-totalitarianism Russia is forming in order to regain its former power and glory from its days as the vile U.S.S.R. That, plus Britain, is your U.N. Security Council, folks.

And that’s the United Nations on a really GOOD day.

What the Iraq War revealed (because no one would have ever known about it otherwise, given that we metaphorically had to pry the evidence from Saddam’s cold dead fingers) is that the United Nations implemented and participated in the greatest case of fraud and corruption in global history; and that the nations who most vociferously opposed any meaningful UN resolution – which could have shaped Iraq’s willingness to cooperate with open weapons inspections – were subsequently discovered to have been completely compromised and corrupted into serving as lackeys for the agenda of Saddam Hussein.

Given that the primary reason for the Iraq War was over the failure of meaningful weapons inspections, let me begin with what Saddam Hussein himself said about his mindset in refusing to allow weapons inspections to unfold. In a way, I am beginning at the end, but I want you to understand the case I am making, and why I am making it. I will add bold face type to point to the specific points in cited passages, but otherwise do not edit in any way.

According to the liberally-oriented Council on Foreign Relations:
Judging from his private statements, the single most important element in Saddam’s strategic calculus was his faith that France and Russia would prevent an invasion by the United States. According to Aziz, Saddam’s confidence was firmly rooted in his belief in the nexus between the economic interests of France and Russia and his own strategic goals: “France and Russia each secured millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi. In addition, the French wanted sanctions lifted to safeguard their trade and service contracts in Iraq. Moreover, they wanted to prove their importance in the world as members of the Security Council — that they could use their veto to show they still had power.”

Ibrahim Ahmad Abd al-Sattar, the Iraqi army and armed forces chief of staff, claimed that Saddam believed that even if his international supporters failed him and the United States did launch a ground invasion, Washington would rapidly bow to international pressure to halt the war. According to his personal interpreter, Saddam also thought his “superior” forces would put up “a heroic resistance and . . . inflict such enormous losses on the Americans that they would stop their advance.” Saddam remained convinced that, in his own words, “Iraq will not, in any way, be like Afghanistan. We will not let the war become a picnic for the American or the British soldiers. No way!” …
When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.

Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali” for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq‘s ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack…

Ironically, it now appears that some of the actions resulting from Saddam’s new policy of cooperation actually helped solidify the coalition’s case for war. Over the years, Western intelligence services had obtained many internal Iraqi communications, among them a 1996 memorandum from the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service directing all subordinates to “insure that there is no equipment, materials, research, studies, or books related to manufacturing of the prohibited weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear, and missiles) in your site.” And when UN inspectors went to these research and storage locations, they inevitably discovered lingering evidence of WMD-related programs.

In 2002, therefore, when the United States intercepted a message between two Iraqi Republican Guard Corps commanders discussing the removal of the words “nerve agents” from “the wireless instructions,” or learned of instructions to “search the area surrounding the headquarters camp and [the unit] for any chemical agents, make sure the area is free of chemical containers, and write a report on it,” U.S. analysts viewed this information through the prism of a decade of prior deceit. They had no way of knowing that this time the information reflected the regime’s attempt to ensure it was in compliance with UN resolutions.

What was meant to prevent suspicion thus ended up heightening it. The tidbit about removing the term “nerve agents” from radio instructions was prominently cited as an example of Iraqi bad faith by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 5, 2003, statement to the UN.

We learn still more about Saddam, the nature of his regime, and of desire to maintain his WMD capability in statements made by Saddam Hussein himself. In a CBS 60 Minutes interview with FBI Special Agent Piro, who ran Saddam Hussein’s interrogation:

That June 2000 speech was about weapons of mass destruction. In talking casually about that speech, Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months.

“Oh, you couldn’t imagine the excitement that I was feeling at that point,” Piro remembers.

“And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?” Pelley asks.

“He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the ’90s. And those that hadn’t been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq,” Piro says.

So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” Pelley asks.

It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

He believed that he couldn’t survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?” Pelley asks.

Absolutely,” Piro says.

As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn’t he stop it then? And say, ‘Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.’ I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?” Pelley asks.

He didn’t. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially,” Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. “He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage,” he says.

Saddam didn’t believe that the United States would invade,” Pelley remarks.

Not initially, no,” Piro says.

“Once it was clear to him that there was going to be an invasion of the country. I mean, did he actually believe that his armies could win?” Pelley asks.

“No,” Piro says. “What he had asked of his military leaders and senior government officials was to give him two weeks. And at that point it would go into what he called the secret war.”

“The secret war. What did he mean?” Pelley asks.

“Going from a conventional to an unconventional war,” Piro says.

“So the insurgency was part of his plan from the very beginning,” Pelley remarks.

“Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency,” Piro says.

The Piro interviews with Saddam turned up other revelations about one of the most notorious war crimes of his regime: the use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1988. Iraq gassed its own people in something called the Anfal campaign to counter Iranian incursions and Kurdish resistance to his rule.

Piro says Saddam told him he himself gave the orders to use chemical weapons against the Kurds in the North. When shown the graphic pictures of the aftermath, Piro says Saddam reacted by saying, “Necessary.”

In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. “The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” Piro says.

And that was his intention?” Pelley asks.

Yes,” Piro says.

What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?” Pelley asks.

He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program,” says Piro.

Chemical, biological, even nuclear,” Pelley asks.

Yes,” Piro says.

In the summer of 2004, legal custody of Saddam transferred from the U.S. to Iraq. And Saddam had no illusions about what that meant. “Prosecution and execution,” Piro says.

And we have Saddam Hussein talking about weapons of mass destruction on tape before the U.S. invasion. Note that there is also a discussion of burying prohibited weapons:

Saddam Discusses His Nonexistent Weapons Program The Washington Times reports that Saddam Hussein sure talked a lot about a weapons program he supposedly didn’t have: Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration’s argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone. In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.

The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, according to a government official familiar with the declassification process Some pundits and recently retired military officers are convinced that Saddam moved his remaining weapons to Syria. They cite satellite photos of lines of trucks heading into the neighboring country before the invasion and the fact Saddam positioned his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service agents at border crossings.

This news reminds me of a little-noticed Chicago Tribune analysis released at the end of last year: “After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.”

What comes out of these sources above? We learn that:

1) That Saddam Hussein did not believe the United States would attack, in spite of President Bush’s unequivocal statements to the contrary and 150,000-plus troops on his border. Why did he think this? He thought his bribed French and Russian lackeys would protect him in the UN, and that he could ride out a US attack as long as “world opinion” – as constituted by the French and Russian-distorted view – would never sustain a real invasion.

2) That Saddam Hussein and his military and intelligence apparatus continued to put forth the impression that they had WMD so as to deter enemies from attack. How was the United States to learn the truth in such an environment in such a closed society? The U.S. could not hope to penetrate a closed totalitarian state and ferret out the truth from the lie, but neither could it withdraw from Iraq until it had done precisely that. And

3) That Saddam Hussein had EVERY intention of rebuilding his WMD and nuclear program as soon as the United States pulled back its troops and left him alone. Which is to say, had the United States not invaded when it did, it would either have had to go back and go through the year-long mess at the United Nations and another lengthy and expensive troop buildup all over again, or it would have had to tolerate Iraq possessing WMD and take the inherent risks that came from such possession.

A transcript of CIA Director George Tenet’s address from 5 Feb 2004 and the questioning that follows provides as good of an insight into the American intelligence community’s findings and mindset as anyone without a high-level security clearance could ever hope to find.

Let me now provide a series of comments from multiple media sources detailing how France and Russia completely prostituted their international policy positions on Iraq in order to financially benefit from the corrupt United Nations oil for food program. This fraud, incompetence, abuse, and corruption will be shown to extend far beyond these individual member nations and go straight to the heart of the United Nations itself. The facts reveal that the United States government simply never had any hope for any kind of legitimate redress whatsoever from the United Nations, and thus had no option but to invade:

The Oil-for-Food Scandal: Next Steps for Congress
The Oil-for-Food fraud is potentially the biggest scandal in the history of the United Nations and one of the greatest financial scandals of modern times (see Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., and James Phillips, “Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1748, April 21, 2004). Set up in the mid-1990s as a means of providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, the U.N.-run Oil-for-Food program was subverted and manipulated by Saddam Hussein’s regime–allegedly with the complicity of U.N. officials–to help prop up the Iraqi dictator.

Oil-for-food scandal haunts United Nations
In the wake of the Iraq War, we are learning the depth and scope of Saddam Hussein’s treachery. In late November, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations concluded that the total amount of money that Saddam swindled out of the Oil-For-Food program is $21 billion, where previously it was estimated to be $10 billion. The money, which was stolen over a period of years, was part of Saddam Hussein’s master plan to reconstitute his WMD programs…

The Duelfer Report, presented to the Senate Armed Services committee in October, details the methods Saddam used to manipulate both the Oil-For-Food program and the U.N. Security Council. While the Duelfer Report states that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), it does state that Saddam had a broader plan to get rid of U.N. weapons inspectors and erode the sanctions imposed against him in the hopes of one day reconstituting his weapons program. The report paraphrases the mindset of Saddam in this respect: “We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody.” Saddam destroyed his WMDs in order to allay suspicions of weapons inspectors at the same time he boasted of his arsenal in order to appear strong.

3 Nations Reportedly Slowed Probe of Oil Sales
Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars.

The wages of greed: Robert Winnett and Stephen Grey reveal how the UN betrayed the poor of Iraq in what is being called the greatest financial scandal ever

The biggest humanitarian programme in history, it nominally allowed his regime to sell Iraqi oil to buy essential supplies under UN supervision. For years Saddam had systematically abused it to fill his own treasury and to reward foreign friends and helpful governments. The records appeared to implicate some of the most powerful figures on the planet.

In 1999-2001, the twilight days of UN sanctions against Iraq when parliamentarians from Russia and across Western Europe were rushing to Baghdad to express horror at the injustice of the decade-long embargo enforced by America and Britain, Mr Cash provided some recompense for their trouble. He sidled up as each new foreigner returned to the hotel from an audience with Saddam. “Have you been given any coupons for oil? Do you know what to do with them?” he asked.

The wages of greed
Every six months Saddam drew up a list of who would be allocated the oil. According to leaked Iraqi oil ministry documents: “During the first two stages (of the programme) the regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN security council. This was done by favouring companies from these countries by giving them oil contracts.”

It was in the “third stage” of the programme that Saddam began handing cut-price oil to “non-end users” — individuals unconnected to the oil industry but at the centre of international decision making, who could sell on their rights for a quick profit. The names of senior Russian and French politicians and businessmen — including an oil trader close to President Jacques Chirac and a senior Roman Catholic priest close to the Pope — have appeared in documents in Iraq. All strongly deny that they ever received or illegally profited from the sale of oil. Evidence has also emerged alleging that Benon Sevan, the UN official in charge of the oil for food programme, personally profited from selling Iraqi oil to the tune of $1.2m. He, too, strenuously denies the allegation.

By 2000 Iraq was free to sell as much oil as it wished through the programme. Corruption went into overdrive as Saddam began insisting on a kickback from every barrel of oil he allocated. A letter written on August 3, 2000 by Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, marked “urgent and confidential”, informed fellow ministers that a high command committee wanted “extra revenues” from the programme…

Saddam made an estimated $20 billion between 1996 and 2003, once oil smuggling and other bribes are taken into account — while rates of disease and malnutrition rose among the Iraqi public. Why was he allowed to get away with it for so long?…

[And when Americans and British tried to slow down oil for food to reduce the enormous fraud that they saw benefitting Saddam and providing him cash for potential weapons programs,] “The people who opposed that were the French and Russians,” said Greenstock. “We consistently got opposition in the security council from the same quarters because there were a lot of their companies involved . . . Everyone was harping on about what the Americans and British were holding up.”

Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a former chairman of the management board at Price Waterhouse Coopers now advising the Iraqi government on the oil for food investigations, believes Annan should accept his responsibilities and that the UN should be reformed. “This is the world’s worst financial scandal, which needs to be thoroughly investigated. I would be surprised if, at the end of the day, as much as 50% of what the Iraqi people were supposed to receive they actually got,” he said.

New Details Emerge: France and Russia Bought and Paid for by Oil for Food
Also on October 6, the CIA released a final report from weapons inspector Charles Duelfer which provided new details about the extent of corruption in the Oil for Food program and the ease with which Saddam was able to ignore international sanctions and illegally export oil with the cooperation of his neighbors.

Most disturbing, however, was the Duelfer report’s disclosure that supposed U.S. allies, most notably France and Russia were literally trading their friendship with Saddam’s regime for billions of dollars in profits from the sale of oil and humanitarian goods. France’s and Russia’s “friendships” apparently also included the illegal sale of guns, ammunition, military spare parts, and so-called dual use items like dump trucks that can be easily converted into missile launchers.

Many concluded long ago that the real motive behind France’s and Russia’s opposition to U.S. plans in Iraq stemmed from the billions they were getting from Saddam Hussein. But the Duelfer report finally provided many of the details that had been missing, and left the French and Russians without their proverbial clothes.

The United States NEVER had a fair shake at justice in the United Nations, because influential countries with veto power over any resolution the U.S. and its allies could hope to pass would be immediately condemned and rejected. And there is no question that Saddam Hussein had a quid pro quo understanding with France and Russia for their cooperation in circumventing any resolution which would have forced Saddam Hussein to open up his country for honest weapons inspections or face severe consequences.

Susan Sachs and Judith Miller of the New York Times wrote a 13 Aug 2004 article titled, “Under Eye of U.N., Billions for Hussein In Oil-for-Food Plan,” that further describes how the oil for food program worked and how it came to be so corrupted. But I am more focused on the corruption of the program as it related to the United Nations attitude toward any Iraq resolutions than I am toward the fraud and incompetence of the U.N. itself.

What follows is more headlines, more revelations of the shocking corruption that the U.N. faced trying to gain legitimate international momentum on Iraq. The U.S. was left with literally no choice but to unilaterally invade Iraq:

Oil-for-Terror?: There appears to be much worse news to uncover in the Oil-for-Food scandal
Beyond the billions in graft, smuggling, and lavish living for Saddam Hussein that were the hallmarks of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, there is one more penny yet to drop.

It’s time to talk about Oil-for-Terror.

Especially with the U.N.’s own investigation into Oil-for-Food now taking shape, and more congressional hearings in the works, it is high time to focus on the likelihood that Saddam may have fiddled Oil-for-Food contracts not only to pad his own pockets, buy pals, and acquire clandestine arms — but also to fund terrorist groups, quite possibly including al Qaeda.

There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as “belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda.” The other was a Swiss-registered subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during Osama bin Laden’s 1990’s heyday in Afghanistan.

As I’ve already pointed out in my first article in this series, Saddam Hussein DID have ties with terrorism. He operated a terrorist training camp which had a dedicated section for the training of foreign terrorists. And he was paying the families of Palestinian gunmen killed in battles with Israelis $15000 and the families of suicide bombers $25000. And now we have yet another definitive link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism – even al Qaeda (though, as a note, a link to ANY terrorist organization is sufficient to jeopardize the United States and merit invasion).

How the U.N. Helped Saddam Buy Allies
United Press International recently reported the discovery of documents from Saddam Hussein’s oil ministry that show the Iraqi dictator “used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.”

And according to ABC News, allies of Saddam Hussein profited by pocketing the difference between the price of oil under the U.N.’s “Oil for Food” program and the price of oil on the open market. Some of these allies included “a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac”, “Russian political figures” including “the Russian ambassador to Baghdad” and “officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin”, “George Galloway, a British member of Parliament”, and even some—gasp!—”prominent journalists”.

Because the U.N. allowed Saddam Hussein to decide who received contracts under the “Oil for Food” program, he was able to use it as a personal slush fund to pay off his defenders. France and Russia were two of the most stubborn supporters of the Hussein regime, and their friendship was rewarded well: Russian interests got the biggest cut of the loot, while the French came in second. British politician George Galloway, who likes to refer to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice as “the three witches“, personally pulled in nearly $10 million while defending Saddam.

Saddam paid Russia in oil for support at Security Council

SADDAM HUSSEIN rewarded Russia with oil for protecting Iraq from key British and American initiatives in the United Nations Security Council, US Senate investigators report today.
The Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations found evidence that the Russian Presidential Administration and the political party that backs President Putin were among those who were paid off with oil allocations in what Iraqi officials knew as the “Saddam Bribery System.”

At one point, Saddam gave Russia additional oil and food contracts under the UN’s Oil-For-Food scheme, specifically to “show gratitude” to Moscow for vetoing a plan by the United States to crack down on cross-border smuggling by Iraq, the report says. Russia was also rewarded for derailing a British and American plan to restrict Iraqi oil sales to an approved list of recognised oil traders, the report says.

Focus: Weapons of mass corruption? The CIA says Saddam abused the UN’s oil for food scheme to buy influence. Robert Winnett reports. Saddam’s trump cards were the oil allocations or “vouchers” that he was allowed to distribute. These pieces of paper entitled the holder to a certain amount of Iraqi oil at a fixed price. By selling them on the international oil market, the voucher-holders could make a quick and virtually invisible profit. In effect, the vouchers were as good as cash, enriching anyone who could get hold of them.

According to the ISG report last week: “The UN (oil-for-food) voucher programme provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organisations and individuals willing to co-operate with Iraq to subvert UN sanctions.”

The three biggest recipients of vouchers were Russia, France and China, which received 30%, 15% and 10% of the total respectively. Among the individuals named are the French businessman Patrick Maugein, whom the report says is considered “a conduit to President Chirac”, and Charles Pasqua, the former French interior minister.

Oil-for-Food report names companies that bribed Saddam
Saddam Hussein received $1.8 billion in bribes from more than 2,200 companies in the scramble for lucrative contracts under the United Nation’s Oil-for-Food programme, investigators claimed today.
Russia harboured the most companies involved in the programme, followed by France, according to the inquiry led by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board.

Many of the firms which benefited were obscure front companies which had been set up specifically to manipulate the UN programme.

The sordid truth about the oil-for-food scandal

So now we know the truth. Forget the row about Saddam’s non-existent weapons stockpiles. That, after all, should never have been the justification for war in the first place. The proper casus belli for regime change in Baghdad was Saddam’s non-compliance with 17 United Nations resolutions over a period of more than 12 years.

The real scandal contained in the long-awaited report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that was published last week concerns the fecklessness of the United Nations, not to mention the treacherous conduct of some of its security council members, in its dealings with Saddam’s regime between the end of the 1991 Gulf war and last year’s Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In the diplomatic build-up to last year’s war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the two most vociferous opponents of military action were Russia and France. Even though Presidents Putin and Chirac reluctantly signed up to UN Security Council resolution 1441 in November 2002 – which threatened Saddam with “serious consequences” if he did not fully complythey were at the forefront of the international campaign to block military action.

At the time it was felt that their main motivation was to protect their lucrative trade ties with Baghdad. In late 2002, Saddam still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.

Even so, Moscow and Paris tried to claim that they were opposing the war as a matter of principle. That was certainly the impression Mr Chirac sought to give when he announced that he would veto any second UN resolution that authorised military action. Mr Putin also opposed the invasion of Iraq and, just as hostilities were about to commence, even dispatched Yevgeny Primakov, his trusty former KGB colleague, to Baghdad on a last-ditch mission to persuade Saddam to comply and avoid war.

Thanks to the efforts of the ISG team, we now know that there was another, even less palatable, explanation for their duplicity. Far from seeking to protect their lucrative trade ties, the real explanation for the opposition of France and Russia to the war was that both countries’ political establishments were deeply implicated in a lucrative scam to divert the profits of the UN’s oil-for-food programme into their own private coffers.

Annan faces questions on oil-for-food
THE ROLE of Kofi Annan in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal is to be investigated after it emerged that the United Nations secretary-general was in charge of some of the most controversial aspects of the discredited humanitarian programme.

Oil-for-Corruption?

The cover-up is always worse than the crime, they say. But that doesn’t necessarily hold true when you’re dealing with the crime of the century — in fact, two centuries. And the United Nations Oil-for-Food program is among the largest criminal enterprises in history.
Over the course of several years, the U.S. General Accounting Office estimates Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi dictatorship generated more than $10 billion in illegal revenues by exploiting Oil-for-Food.

Members of the U.N. seem to have been deeply involved in the scandal. For example, Benon Sevan, once the executive director of Oil-for-Food, was included on an Iraqi Oil Ministry listing of hundreds of people who allegedly received oil vouchers as bribes from Saddam’s regime.

As such details have dribbled out, the United Nations has reacted predictably — by attempting to sweep Oil-for-Food under the rug or change the subject. For example, the U.N.’s commission of inquiry, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, has been at work for almost six months. But it doesn’t seem to be making progress.

And that’s not surprising — the commission seems to have been set up to fail. As Heritage Foundation experts Nile Gardiner and James Phillips reported recently, it has “no subpoena power and is clearly open to U.N. manipulation. It bears no enforcement authority (such as contempt) to compel compliance with its requests for information and has no authority to discipline or punish any wrongdoing it discovers.”

Let the Revelations Begin

Moreover, the French, Russian, and Chinese had “much to gain from maintaining the status quo.” Confidential records of the sanctions committee examined by subcommittee staff reveal that these nations and others “continually refused to support the US and UK efforts to maintain the integrity of OFFP.”

Leaks from a highly confidential new report prepared for the interim Iraqi government confirm that Saddam’s “regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council.”

The report claims that Russians had a prominent role. They received “unprecedented priority” and were allocated a third of all Iraqi oil – most of which was resold to other nations. Those named as having received oil include a former senior aide to [President Vladimir] Putin’s political parties, Russian oil firms and the foreign ministry.

The Oil-for-Food Scandal: Next Steps for Congress

The Oil-for-Food fraud is potentially the biggest scandal in the history of the United Nations and one of the greatest financial scandals of modern times. Set up in the mid-1990s as a means of providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, the U.N.-run Oil-for-Food program was subverted and manipulated by Saddam Hussein’s regime–allegedly with the complicity of U.N. officials–to help prop up the Iraqi dictator.

Saddam’s dictatorship was able to siphon off an estimated $10 billion from the program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, by demanding illegal payments from companies buying Iraqi oil, and through kickbacks from those selling goods to Iraq–all under the noses of U.N. bureaucrats.
Members of the U.N. staff that administered the program have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime. Benon Sevan, former executive director of the Oil-for-Food program, appeared on an Iraqi Oil Ministry list of 270 individuals, political entities, and companies from across the world that allegedly received oil vouchers as bribes from Saddam Hussein’s regime….

The heated U.N. Security Council debates before the U.S.-led war to liberate Iraq cannot remain separated from the Oil-for-Food program and the fact that influential politicians, major companies, and political parties from key Security Council member countries may have benefited financially from the program.

The Al Mada list of 270 individuals, political entities, and businesses across the world that allegedly received oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein’s regime included no fewer than 46 Russian and 11 French names. The Russian government alone allegedly received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers.

The list of Russian entities accused of accepting bribes from Saddam goes to the heart of the Russian financial and political establishment and includes the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Communist Party, Lukoil, Yukos, Gasprom, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the chief of the President’s Bureau. The list of French names includes former Interior Minister Charles Pasqua.

The close ties between Russian and French politicians and the Iraqi regime may have been an important factor in influencing their governments’ decision to oppose Hussein’s removal from power. They also highlight the close triangular working relationships among Paris, Moscow, and Baghdad and the huge French and Russian financial interests in pre-liberation Iraq. Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country’s oil wealth (See Carrie Satterlee, “Facts on Who Benefits from Keeping Saddam Hussein in Power,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 217, February 28, 2003).

Without a shred of evidence, European and domestic critics have frequently derided the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq as an “oil grab” driven by U.S. corporations such as Halliburton. They ignore the reality that the leading opponents of war at the U.N. Security Council–Russia and France–had vast oil interests in Iraq, protected by the Saddam Hussein regime. The Oil-for-Food program and its elaborate system of kickbacks and bribery was also a major source of revenue for many European politicians and business concerns, especially in Moscow [Note: it is now apparent after five years of war that the United States has fundamentally left Iraqi oil alone, proving the falseness of the above charge].

3 Nations Reportedly Slowed Probe of Oil Sales
Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars.

In a briefing paper given yesterday to members of the House subcommittee investigating the program, the investigators said their review of the minutes of a United Nations Security Council subcommittee meeting showed that the three nations “continually refused to support the U.S. and U.K. efforts to maintain the integrity” of the program.

The program, set up in 1996, was an effort to keep pressure on Mr. Hussein to disarm while helping the Iraqi people survive the sanctions imposed after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The briefing paper was prepared by the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, before hearings scheduled for Tuesday on the scandal-ridden program.

The paper suggests that France, Russia and China blocked inquiries into Iraq‘s manipulation of the program because their companies “had much to gain from maintaining” the status quo. “Their businesses made billions of dollars through their involvement with the Hussein regime and O.F.F.P.,” the document states, using the initials for the program. No officials of the three governments could be reached for comment.

The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having “pressed” contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges, the paper says, because it apparently saw oil-for-food “strictly as a humanitarian program.

Oil for Food, Fraud, Terror, etc. Moreover, Oil-for-Food gave several key players a financial interest in the survival of Saddam’s tyrannical regime. The U.N. had an interest in seeing the program grow, as it received a 2.2 percent cut (a total of $1.8 billion) of every deal for administrative costs (more here). So did some conspicuous opponents of the U.S.-led coalition. Gardiner, Phillips, and Dean note that over fifty French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country’s oil wealth.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has launched a special investigation into the scandal, (though he hasn’t yet labeled it as ‘illegal’) but the Independent Inquiry Committee into the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is “strikingly opaque,” conclude Nile Gardiner and James Phillips. So far, Volcker has refused to cooperate with Congress by releasing 55 internal U.N. audits and other documents (see more on Congressional investigations here). According to Gardiner and Phillips, “[t]he Commission bears all the hallmarks of a toothless paper tiger, with no subpoena power, no enforcement authority, no deadline, and no accountability.

As Rosett wrote back in April, “[t]he issue is not simply how much Saddam pilfered but whether he availed himself of the huge opportunities to fund carnage under the cover of U.N. sanctions and humanitarian relief.” That is, did some of those unaccounted-for billions go to fund terror against the United States and Saddam’s own people? Marc Perelman unearthed at least two links in a June 2003 Forward piece. While journalists inexplicably failed to follow-up on his findings on Asat Trust and Delta Oil, Fox News released the results of a new investigation over the weekend. As the New York Post reports:

“The network found that Hayel Saeed Anam, a director of a Yemeni company [HSA Group] that did $286 million worth of business with the program, is also the founder of a European-based firm called Malaysian Swiss Gulf and African Chamber – abbreviated MIGA – [which] was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as “belonging to or associated with” al Qaeda [Fox called MIGA a “terrorist chamber of commerce”]. Fox said that in 1984, Anam gave power of attorney to run MIGA to financier Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, a member of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, who also ran a bank designated by the Treasury Department as a financial backer of al Qaeda.”

The wages of greed
Robert Winnett and Stephen Grey reveal how the UN betrayed the poor of Iraq in what is being called the greatest financial scandal ever.

On July 1 the world’s attention was on Baghdad. Three days after the Americans had formally handed power to an interim Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein was due in court to face charges of war crimes and genocide.

When Ehsan Karim left home that Thursday morning, however, he had other things on his mind. A little-known government accountant, Karim was in charge of the Iraqi supreme audit board. Not obviously a frontline job, it would nonetheless cost him his life.
After trawling through the financial records of Saddam’s former regime, Karim had uncovered evidence of a multi-billion-dollar global web of deceit and corruption.

Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil
A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.

The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.

A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN…

The former Iraqi regime was in effect free to “allocate” oil to whom it wished. Dozens of private individuals were given oil at knockdown prices. They were able to nominate recognised traders to buy the cheap oil from the Iraqi state oil firm and sell it for a personal profit.

The report says oil was given to key countries: “The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.”

The report claims that Russians had a prominent role. They received “unprecedented priority” and were allocated a third of all Iraqi oil — most of which was resold to other nations. Besides Putin’s private office, those named as having received oil include political parties, Russian oil firms and the foreign ministry

A section of the report on Russian involvement says Saddam and his henchmen furthered “their political and propagandist cause through companies, individuals and political parties that have no relation to the oil industry. Through their activities, they have gained the indebtedness of the Russian Federation and with that, its weight and leadership on the world stage as well as its permanent membership of the UN Security Council”.

Last week Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an Iraqi government adviser who worked on the investigation, confirmed the report as genuine. “The records demonstrate that the UN oil-for-food programme provided Saddam with a vehicle to buy support internationally by bribing political parties, companies, journalists and other individuals,” he said. “This shows the need for a complete review of the UN.”

Report: U.N. oil-for-food fraud widespread: 2,000 firms made $1.8 billion in illicit payments to Iraq, investigation finds
UNITED NATIONS – About 2,200 companies in the U.N. oil-for-food program, including corporations in the United States, France, Germany and Russia, paid a total of $1.8 billion in kickbacks and illicit surcharges to Saddam Hussein’s government, a U.N.-backed investigation said in a report released Thursday.
The report from the committee probing the $64 billion program said prominent politicians also made money from extensive manipulation of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq.

The investigators reported that companies and individuals from 66 countries paid illegal kickbacks using a variety of ways, and those paying illegal oil surcharges came from, or were registered in, 40 countries.
There were two main types of manipulation: surcharges paid for humanitarian contracts for spare parts, trucks, medical equipment and other supplies; and kickbacks for oil contracts…

But Saddam, who could choose the buyers of Iraqi oil and the sellers of humanitarian goods, corrupted the program by awarding contracts to — and getting kickbacks from — favored buyers, mostly parties who supported his regime or opposed the sanctions.

Tracing the politicization of oil contracts, the report said Iraqi leaders in the late 1990s decided to deny American, British and Japanese companies allocations to purchase oil because of their countries’ opposition to lifting sanctions.

At the same time, it said, Iraq gave preferential treatment to France, Russia and China, which were perceived to be more favorable to lifting sanctions and were also permanent members of the Security Council.

An article from 21 April 2004 titled “Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud” by by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., and James Phillips had the following:
There is mounting evidence that the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, originally conceived as a means of providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, was subverted by Saddam Hussein’s regime and manipulated to help prop up the Iraqi dictator. Saddam’s dictatorship was able to siphon off an estimated $10 billion from the Oil-for-Food program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, by demanding illegal payments from companies buying Iraqi oil, and through kickbacks from those selling goods to Iraq–all under the noses of U.N. bureaucrats. The members of the U.N. staff administering the program have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history.

As previously already noted, the figures provided – already characterized as the “the biggest scandal in U.N. history” would subsequently DOUBLE (showing just how massive this scandal truly was) as even more evidence emerged. The article continues:

Emerging from the evidence is a mosaic of international corruption involving a patchwork of politicians and businesses across the world that benefited from the Oil-for-Food program and helped to keep Hussein in power. The Iraqi Oil Ministry recently released a partial list of beneficiaries: 270 names of individuals, political entities, and companies from across the world who received oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein’s regime, allegedly at below-market prices (The names were published in January in the Arabic Iraqi newspaper Al Mada and subsequently reported on in Therese Raphael, “Saddam’s Global Payroll,” The Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2004).

The list includes former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, the “director of the Russian President’s office,” the Russian Communist Party, the Ukraine Communist Party, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahud, the son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, and George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament.

Ominously, the list also implicates U.N. Assistant Secretary General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food program, who has stringently denied any wrongdoing. Sevan, a longtime U.N. bureaucrat with close ties to Kofi Annan, has taken an extended vacation, pending retirement later this month.

Kofi Annan’s son Kojo may also be implicated in the mushrooming scandal. Kojo Annan had ties to Cotecna Inspection SA, a Swiss-based company that received a contract for inspecting goods shipped to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program. The younger Annan worked for Cotecna in the mid-1990s and became a consultant to the company until shortly before it won the Oil-for-Food contract (Claudia Rosett, “Turtle Bay’s Carnival of Corruption: Digging Deeper into the Scandalous Oil for Food Program,” National Review, March 21, 2004, at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403212155.asp). Cotecna, reportedly implicated in earlier bribery scandals, did not disclose this potential conflict of interest, and neither did the United Nations.

No fewer than 46 Russian and 11 French names appear on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list (For a full list of names by nationality, see Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair, Middle East Media Research Institute, February 20, 2004, at memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=IA16404). The Russian government is alleged to have received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein.

The close ties between French and Russian politicians and the Iraqi regime may have been an important factor in influencing their governments’ decision to oppose Hussein’s removal from power. They also highlight the close working relationships between Moscow and Baghdad and between Paris and Baghdad, and the huge French and Russian financial interests in pre-liberation Iraq.

Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country’s oil wealth. French oil giant Total Fina Elf had won contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq, which contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil (25 percent of Iraq’s oil reserves). Russian company Lukoil had won the contract to develop the West Qurna field, also in southern Iraq, which has an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil (See Carrie Satterlee, “Facts on Who Benefits from Keeping Saddam Hussein in Power,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 217, February 28, 2003).

Political and military ties between Moscow and Baghdad were extensive. Documents found in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi intelligence service under Hussein) reveal the full extent of intelligence cooperation between the Russian and Iraqi governments.

According to reports in the London Sunday Telegraph:
Russia provided Saddam Hussein’s regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders. Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for “hits” in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries” (see also David Harrison, “Revealed: Russia Spied on Blair for Saddam,” The Sunday Telegraph (London), April 13, 2003).

The Russians are also believed to have sold arms to Iraq illegally right up until the outbreak of war with the United States in March 2003. The Bush Administration has accused Russian arms dealers of selling anti-tank guided missiles, electronic jamming equipment, and thousands of night vision goggles to the Iraqis in open violation of U.N. sanctions.13 During Hussein’s dictatorship, Russia reportedly provided him with $14 billion worth of arms shipments (David Harrison, “Revealed: Russia Spied on Blair for Saddam”).

Evidence has also come to light of intimate political cooperation between Paris and Baghdad in the period leading up to the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein. Documents found in the wreckage of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry reveal that “Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington (Matthew Campbell, “Dossier Reveals France Briefed Iraq on U.S. Plans,” The Sunday Times (London), April 27, 2003).

Officials in the French Foreign Office reportedly shared information with their Iraqi counterparts on a sensitive meeting between former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell following the terrorist attacks on September 11. Details of talks between French President Jacques Chirac and President George W. Bush were also reportedly passed on to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry by the French ambassador in Baghdad. One Russian company signed contracts valued at about $20 million to provide material for Iraq’s missile systems. Another Russian firm, Uliss, negotiated a deal to support a tank project dubbed “Saddam the Lion,” according to the report.

See also the fact sheet, “Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power.”

The French Connection
France, China and Syria all have a common reason for keeping American and British troops out of Iraq: the three nations may not want the world to discover that their nationals have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface missiles.

We’re not talking about short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles, which Saddam is ostentatiously destroying to help his protectors avert an invasion, nor his old mobile Scuds. The delivery system for mass destruction warheads requires a much more sophisticated propulsion system and fuels.

If you were running the Iraqi ballistic missiles project, where in the world would you go to buy the chemical that is among the best binders for solid propellant?

Saddam’s Arsenal: Arms From France, Russia, Germany, Belgium and China

Paris, Moscow, Berlin, Brussels and Beijing all threaten to veto any U.N. move for the United States to war with Iraq. All of these worldly members have vowed to strike a blow for peace and not challenge Saddam Hussein. However, Saddam has more than just diplomacy to thank our global allies for.

Saddam is not one to settle for second best. Thus, Saddam had to arm his nation with the best military equipment the world could offer. Saddam’s quest to arm his country led him on a shopping spree in Paris, Moscow, Berlin, Brussels and Beijing.

For articles detailing the evidence of the above mentioned moving of Saddam Hussein’s WMD arsenal to Syria prior to the U.S. invasion, see the following articles:

Many Helped Iraq Evade U.N. Sanctions On Weapons
The French were hardly alone in helping Hussein to reinvigorate his military forces during the 12 years that Iraq was under strict U.N. sanctions. Arm dealers and military suppliers from the former Eastern Bloc — Russia, Poland, Romania, Belarus and Ukraine — provided critical assistance to Iraq as it tried to build a long-range missile program and other systems that weapons inspectors feared could have been used someday to launch chemical, biological or even nuclear attacks.

“It was well known within the U.S. government that individuals and companies were selling Iraq various kinds of prohibited items,” said Gary Samore, a nonproliferation specialist in the Clinton administration who now works as an analyst for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
While the United States sought to shut down suppliers through diplomatic and other means, Samore said, it was common knowledge that Iraq was able to bypass sanctions by buying in small quantities and paying high prices, using a network of front companies in Jordan, Syria and other countries in the Middle East.

“The world is awash in conventional arms, and every time there’s been an arms embargo on a country they’ve been able to circumvent it,” he said. “It’s much more difficult to buy more exotic technologies like nuclear weapons, but there are so many private dealers and corrupt state entities, especially in the former Soviet Union. The best you can do is slow down sales, obstruct them or make it more expensive.”
Some of the clearest evidence of government corruption, according to the report, involved Russia, a country that has vast storehouses of military technology.

Although the Russian government has denied past accusations that it played a role in supplying arms and military equipment to Hussein’s government, U.S. weapons inspectors reported finding “a significant amount of captured documentation showing contracts between Iraq and Russian companies.”

In one case, a Russian general, Anatoly Makros, formed a joint company with Iraqi partners in 1998 “just to handle the large volume of Russian business,” according to the report, which also cited a former Iraqi diplomat as saying that Russian customs officials ignored the illegal commerce in exchange for bribes. Trade with Russia was so brisk that Iraqi Embassy officials smuggled military supplies on weekly charter flights from Moscow to Baghdad, according to the former Iraqi diplomat, who was not named in the report. The equipment included radar jammers, night-vision goggles and small missile components.

The French Connection
France, China and Syria all have a common reason for keeping American and British troops out of Iraq: the three nations may not want the world to discover that their nationals have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface missiles.

We’re not talking about short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles, which Saddam is ostentatiously destroying to help his protectors avert an invasion, nor his old mobile Scuds. The delivery system for mass destruction warheads requires a much more sophisticated propulsion system and fuels.

If you were running the Iraqi ballistic missiles project, where in the world would you go to buy the chemical that is among the best binders for solid propellant?

Saddam’s Arsenal: Arms From France, Russia, Germany, Belgium and China
Paris, Moscow, Berlin, Brussels and Beijing all threaten to veto any U.N. move for the United States to war with Iraq. All of these worldly members have vowed to strike a blow for peace and not challenge Saddam Hussein. However, Saddam has more than just diplomacy to thank our global allies for.

Saddam is not one to settle for second best. Thus, Saddam had to arm his nation with the best military equipment the world could offer. Saddam’s quest to arm his country led him on a shopping spree in Paris, Moscow, Berlin, Brussels and Beijing.

For articles detailing the evidence of the above mentioned moving of Saddam Hussein’s WMD arsenal to Syria prior to the U.S. invasion, see the following articles:

In addition, there are legitimate questions whether a massive bomb plot uncovered in Jordan used expertise and materials that came from Iraq.

In this absolutely toxic environment, the United States recognized that it had no feasible alternative but to go to war. The Iraq resolution was overwhelmingly passed by both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, with 29 Democrats voting to support the resolution and only 21 opposed. In addition, there is a massive trove of statements compiled by snopes.com from Democrats acknowledging both that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he posed a clear and present danger to the United States. There subsequent repudiation of the war they supported represents one of the most despicable acts in U.S. political history.

The Iraq War resolution can be found here. It was granted to the President of the United States in the name of the people of the United States by their duly appointed elected representatives. Like it or not, it was the United States of America – and not President George Bush – which voted to go to war.

If anyone actually bothers to read that war resolution, you’ll find it all there: Saddam Hussein’s violation of his surrender terms; his repeated acts of firing on our forces conducting legitimate operations as agreed in the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War; his longstanding refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors in direct violation of U.N. Resolution 1441; his ties to terrorist groups. And the long-term threat he steadfastly maintained to our strategic interests if we left him in power. All of that and more is found right there in the resolution in plain black and white.

Another document worth reading is the Apparatus of Lies: Saddam’s Disinformation and Propaganda 1990-2003, which details the longstanding pattern that mandated his removal in the aftermath of 9/11.

Every major intelligence service in the world – whether in Asia, Europe, or the Middle East – believed along with the United States that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that his possession represented a potential threat. British, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Australian, Saudi Arabian, Turkey, you name it, they accepted that conclusion. Paul Pillar wrote in “Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq,” Foreign Affairs 85:2 (March/April 2006): “the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam’s weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services.” See also Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “Foul-ups — Not Felonies,” U.S. News and World Report (November 14, 2005)).

Hans Blix, the head of the un inspection effort in Iraq, reported as much to the Security Council two weeks before the invasion began: “intelligence agencies have expressed the view the proscribed programs [in Iraq] have continued or restarted in this period [since 1998].” “It is further contended,” he noted, “that proscribed programs and items are located in underground facilities . . . and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq.” From this information, Blix himself drew the judgment that, although Iraq had undertaken “a substantial measure of disarmament,” Iraq’s actions, “three to four months into the new resolution [referring to U.N. Resolution 1441], cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation, nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.” (“In a Chief Inspector’s Words: A Substantial Measure of Disarmament,” excerpts from reports by Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei to the un Security Council, New York Times (March 8, 2003)).

Those are the facts as basically all the world’s intelligence experts understood them at the time.

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

What would have happened had the U.N functioned as it should have functioned? The legitimate concerns of his past, present, and future WMD program would have been taken seriously. Resolutions would have been passed that mandated consequences for any failure to comply. Faced with no powerful corrupt ally on the outside, Saddam Hussein may very well have opened up his regime to inspection and averted war. As it is, France, Russia and other such countries self-righteously criticized the United States while literally making deals with the devil. They put the security of the United States and quite possibly the world at risk for the sake of profit and self-advancement. They transformed a humanitarian program that was supposed to feed the hungry and needy people of Iraq into a den of thieves that only profited criminals in high places.

There is plenty of blameworthy parties leading up to the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein, for his refusal to cooperate with the arms inspections; France, Russia, and China, for allowing themselves to be corrupted by Saddam Hussein, and for opposing any U.N. resolution that had any hope of forcing Iraq’s cooperation; and the United Nations itself, for incompetence and negligence. Rather than being the deceitful and malicious party – as so many have claimed – the United States was actually the only party that was acting honorably and reasonably.

See also Part 1: Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History

See also Part 2: Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals

Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning

April 29, 2008

I can pretty much stand by what I’ve said before: a Jeremiah Wright in context is nothing but an even more racist, more hateful, more anti-American Jeremiah Wright than a Jeremiah Wright out of context. Now – in living, glowing context – Jermemiah Wright is saying things that would make even a self-respecting fascist blush.

You have simply GOT to hear these words from Wright, spoken before a cheering crowd of 10,000 at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP on April 27.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.

Miseducation. Miseducation incidentally is not a Jeremiah Wright term. It’s a word coined by Dr. Carter G. Woodson over 80 years ago. Sounds like he talked a hate speech, doesn’t it? Now, analyze that. Two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of the Institute for the study of the African-American child. and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hail in education and Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean deficient. Somebody is going to miss that.

Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. In fact, Dr. Janice Hale was the first writer whom I read who used that phrase. Different does not mean deficient. Different is not synonymous with deficient. It was in Dr. Hale’s first book, “Black Children their Roots, Culture and Learning Style.” Is Dr. Hale here tonight? We owe her a debt of gratitude. Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.

And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale’s research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America. Back in the early ’70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Reverend Wright believes that white children and black children learn differently. White children are left-brain object oriented; and black children are right-brain subject oriented. White children are “logical and analytical.” Black children are “creative and intuitive.”

Imagine if a white man had said that. Imagine, furthermore, if the pastor of John McCain’s church had presented such a pet theory to a national audience. There would be a firestorm of unimaginable proportions. As it is, not so much as a peep from the elite media. They are too busy hoping that they can either whitewash Wright’s views as “an acceptable form of culturally-black expression” or at least distance Barack Obama from any damage if plan A fails.

Jeremiah Wright says, “Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different.” The problem is that different actually very often DOES mean deficient. Pol Pot was different from the Dalai Llama. Adolf Hitler was different from Winston Churchill. Ice cream is different from colon cancer. Saying “different is not deficient” over and over again don’t make it so.

Do you see the can of worms Jeremiah Wright’s views open? should we now re-segregate our schools, so that black right-brain children can learn “their kind’s” way? The answer is ‘absolutely yes,’ according to Barack Obama’s mentor. And decades of hard-earned integration go right down the drain. Different classrooms come first. Different water fountains and bathrooms, of course, presumably come later. Do you see how completely radical these views are?

And, if there truly is a biological difference between black and white intelligence, as Wright claims, how does that not mean that one might very well be superior to the other? The record of history comparing the success of white European society to that of black African society now comes into play as a rather powerful prima facia argument that “logical and analytical” biologically trumps “creative and intuitive.” Racists have been making the very point that Wright embraces for generations. And from that understanding of difference, they argue to the deficiency: Prior to and during the Civil War, southern white elites professed to be taking care of blacks through the institution of slavery. “Blacks can’t think like whites. They are like monkey-children, and we have to use our superior white intellect to take care of them,” they claimed. We got the phrase, “That’s mighty white of you” from that sort of attitude. Jeremiah Wright himself now opens the door to a return to some of the darkest racial times this country – and the world – has ever seen.

You simply must understand that the kinds of “differences” Wright points to have been – and are to this very day – viewed very much as “deficiencies” by many others who have dreams about solving such “deficiencies.” Jeremiah Wright, who argues that he is “descriptive,” not “divisive,” is indeed extremely divisive – and this particular brand of divissiveness has led humanity down dark and terrifying pathways.

Genuine Christianity – unlike Wright’s racist brand – does not fixate on such “differences,” but instead fixates on the image of God that all humanity shares in common. It’s not about what separates us, but what we share in common.

I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King, Jr. said rather famously. But let us instead follow the thought of Jeremiah Wright and separate those children on his perceived difference in learning ability?

Let me take you down that dark path, from the idea to the consequences:

Out of Darwinism comes social darwinism. If the former theory is true, the latter is a necessary corolary. And Darwin’s subtitle for The Origin of Species was “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Darwin described the development of life-forms in terms of an ongoing struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.

In his Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

People have argued about Darwin’s racial views, but don’t think for a nanosecond that a vast array of intellectuals did not pick up on the clear implications of Darwinian thought – or that the consequences of that thought brought us horror on a scale that humanity had never dreamed of in its worst nightmares.

Francis Galton ackowledged that he was greatly influenced by Darwin’s Origin of Species. In his book Hereditary Genius he extended Darwin’s theory of natural selection into a concept of deliberate social intervention in his work, which he held to be the logical application of evolution to the human race. Galton was by no means satisfied to let evolution take its course freely. Having decided to improve the human race through selective breeding, brought about through social intervention, he developed a subject which he called “Eugenics”, the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.

Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, “I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.”

In his essay, Eugenics as a Factor in Religion, Galton laid out arguments that would one day lead to Nazi death camps. He left no doubt about the link between evolution and eugenics: “The creed of eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that can to some extent direct its own course….”
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/legacy.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301
http://www.galton.org/books/memories/chapter-XXI.html

A quote from Tom DeRosa’s “From Darwin’s Theory to Hitler’s Holocaust” fills in the picture:

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin’s terms, to preserve the “favoured” race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and [superior white Aryan] intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany’s borders in order to achieve more living space, or “Lebensraum,” to make room for the expansion of the “favoured” race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler’s rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine categories of the unfit to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington’s chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

American eugenicists celebrated the German sterilization program. A leading U.S. eugenics publication, Eugenical News, published an admiring article on a German eugenics institute and extended “best wishes” to its director “for the success of his work in his new and favorable environment.” The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized in 1934 that “Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit.”

Eugenics in America was not a fringe movement. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1927 ruling that authorized the sterilization of a “feeble minded” Virginia woman. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

DeRosa points out that “Today when evolutionists are questioned as to how Darwinian evolution gave birth to Hitler’s Nazism, they immediately want to beg the question, answering that racism has nothing to do with science. They are correct! Racism has nothing to do with science, but it has everything to do with evolution—a fact that is unavoidable.”

It might be worth mentioning at this point that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to put her philosophy of eugenics to life. And blacks were near the top of her list of “deficients.”

Eugenics is back in the news today. Recently, a UCLA pro-life student group conducted a “sting” that exposed the fact that the organization created by racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger may well be as racist as ever. An overwhelming number of “Family Planning clinics” are located in predominantly black neighborhoods, helping black women terminate half their pregnancies.

Pro-abortionists call it “exercising a woman’s right to choose.” Francis Galton called it “discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock.” Should I again mention Jeremiah Wright’s mantra, “Different does not mean deficient” here? I argue that such views are morally deficient.

Black pastors are coming out in force to condemn the genocide of black babies in Planned Parenthood clinics. Unfortunately, Jeremiah Wright is not among their number; he supports abortion. I don’t know how he feels about the fact that half of all black babies are killed before they can see the faces of the mothers who don’t want them.

Now, I have no doubt that Jeremiah Wright would immediately disassociate himself from Nazis, from eugenics, from the genocide of black babies, and maybe even from Darwinism.

The problem is that there is a world of unintended consequences. Liberals once added a luxury tax on items such as yachts to collect more revenue. They were very quickly forced to suspend the tax because wealthy people quit buying yachts resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers. In this case, Wright wants to pursue an agenda of black racial separatism, but I am arguing that the consequences for blacks will be anything other than good.

The problem is that, for all of his intelligence, Jeremiah Wright is a moral idiot who does not understand that Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and every other racist social Darwinist would listen to the comments I’ve quoted from Jeremiah Wright and completely agree with them.

The problem is that ideas have consequences, and Jeremiah Wright has a head crammed full of vile ideas.

The problem is that the more the American people hear these vile ideas, the more they will legitimately question whether a man who sat under such teaching for twenty years is fit to be president.