Here’s a round-up of interesting links around the blogosphere:
— Buck has been busy. Check out his guide for web site creation for bloggers.
— Josh Claybourn and Hugh Hewitt discuss: “What American not in government has the most influence — James Dobson or Oprah and Limbaugh?”
— Steve takes on NRO columnist John Derbyshire on the intelligent design issue. Evangelical Outpost also has an open thread on this topic.
— Erick corrects the ACLU: the first freedom is the “free exercise of religion,” not freedom of speech.
— John Hawkins interviews Victor Davis Hanson, author of Mexifornia.
— Baldilocks is righteously indignant about people who send racist, misogynistic hate mail. Ed Brown wants to know, “What makes her [Malkin] special?…Putting this off on Armstrong Williams is low.”
– The Oxblog fact-checks Newsweek’s “death squad” story.
— Take Wizbang’s Rathergate Pop Quiz.
— David Limbaugh comments on the Rathergate Report.
— Myopic Zeal’s Senior Coffee Discount at McDonald’s: Is this for real? (Funny guy!)
— Ann Coulter: “Admittedly, Juanita Broaddrick’s charge against Clinton — that Bill Clinton raped her so brutally that her clothing was torn and her lip was swollen and bleeding, hence his parting words of ‘you’d better put some ice on that’ — was not a story on the order of Augusta National Golf Course’s exclusion of women members. But, unlike the Bush drug-use charge, which remains unsupported to this day, Broaddrick’s allegations had been fully corroborated by NBC News — which then refused to air Lisa Myers’ report until after Clinton’s acquittal in the Senate.”
Related item: See Jesse Jackson’s Hobby
— Dean doesn’t like Ann Coulter.
— Funny man Scott Ott: “Michael Chertoff, President George Bush’s nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security, said today that if he’s confirmed by the Senate his ‘job number one’ will be to protect the civil rights of illegal aliens suspected of terrorist activities….We’ve been over-eager in the past to detain men whose crimes consisted of little more than breaking our laws,’ said Mr. Chertoff, currently a judge on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. ‘Protecting Americans from death and dismemberment is important, but it must never stand in the way of guarding the civil rights of illegal aliens.’”
It’s comedy, but not far from the truth.
— Samantha addresses the role of women in Battlestar Galactica.
— Discriminations links to an article about the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would ban skin color preferences in government hiring and admissions. A record 508,000 signatures have been collected.
— Jerry McClellan on racial profiling.
— Welcome to the blogosphere, Steve Johnson!
— Power Line links to a columnist who extends a “warm” welcome to bloggers.
— No more war! Is somebody building nuclear weapons? See Ron Wright.
— More A.W. references over at Back of the Envelope. (Disclosure: Doc Rampage is not paying me for this linkage. Not much, anyway.)
Bloggers, trackback to this post if you have an annoucement or interesting post to share. HaloScan users, try Simpletracks. If you don’t have a blog and would like to suggest a link, leave a comment or e-mail me.
It’s also Open Thread Thursday, so there’s no such thing as “off-topic.” 
Suggested topics:
1) Who is else is tired of talking about Armstrong Williams?
2) Who else is tired of Ted Kennedy’s bloviating?
3) The war in Iraq: Was it worth it?
4) What’s more important to you: time or money? Why? (For me, time is more important than money, but then again, money can buy you time.)
5) Feds tell the District of Columbia to use its homeland security funds to pay for part of the inauguration (Also this AP story). Fair or unfair?
6) Servicemen and women on trial, during a war, for “torturing” terrorists who are bound and determined to cut off their heads. I think it’s atrocious. Is there a precedent for this? Were any Americans on trial during WWII for embarrassing or hurting the feelings of Nazi or Japanese prisoners? (Related link)
7) Blogger’s (Blog*Spot) commenting system stinks. There’s no trackback feature and you have to sign up for Blogger to leave a comment, or go “Anonymous.” Attention Blog*Spot bloggers: GET HALOSCAN! It’s much more flexible, and they insert the code for you.
Addendum: If you’ve e-mailed me in the past week, I’m experiencing a backup. I read all my e-mail, and I usually answer all of it, too. I’m not as big as Michelle Malkin. Yet.
Update:
Correction from a fan:
You idiotRush was not disclosing that he “was an unpaid consultant for the
Bush campaign.” Someone refered (sic) to him as a consultant to the campaign and he was repeating it. He often stated, just after uttering the above comment, that it was news to him that he had that status.please get it right.
That’s not the way I heard it, but OK. (At least he didn’t call me a wh***.)
There’s a very interesting discussion going on over at Roger L. Simon’s site re a new essay by Norman Podhoretz, “The War Against World War IV,”
Iraq and Afgan are only battles of a much larger war we are fighting. The MSM either doesn’t get it or they are refusing to admit it but President Bush has made a fundamental shift in our strategic foreign policy in the Middle East.
See my post at RLS:
Link Here
[don’t understand “no linking” If know links my post is about 100 in the que]
Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
http://www.hspig.org
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.13.05 @ 7:33 am
What’s more important to you: time or money? Why? (For me, time is more important than money, but then again, money can buy you time.)
I agree wholeheartedly. More often than not, I find myself with an opportunity that I simply can’t afford to take advantage of at that moment.
With more money as being most important, requiring less sleep would be 2nd on my list. Such a waste of otherwise productive time…
Comment by Charlie on the Pennsylvania Turnpike — 01.13.05 @ 7:35 am
OK - I now understand. Don’t think you want me to cut/paste my whole thread here. So see my comment at #102 under the thread at Roger L. Simon’s site:
“Not Just John’s Father”
Ron Wright
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.13.05 @ 7:38 am
Requiring less sleep is a good one.
Ron - You can post the URL, but you can’t use tags.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.13.05 @ 7:41 am
Myopic Zeal Senior Coffee Discount*
From now through the end of January, go into any McDonalds in the U.S., and if you are over age 60 say:
“I read Myopic Zeal’s blog, and I would like a senior cup of coffee please.”
And you will be given a discount on your coffee purchase!
*…
Trackback by Myopic Zeal — 01.13.05 @ 8:05 am
“Vaccine-A” by Gary Matsumoto
DOD’s Anthrax Vaccine Causal Factor of Gulf War Syndrome.
LaShawn,
I sent this email to you yesterday. I’m just going to post it here. I will excerpt it extensively and put in the complete URL links so readers can cut and paste them if they wish.
This story has the potential to drawf Rathergate and even rival Rathergate!
[…]
Enjoy your blog. Since you stick up for the smaller blogs. Here’s something I’ve been trying to break into the Blogos but haven’t got much traction yet because it’s very complex.
Many at first and I don’t blame them suggest I get my “tin foil hat.” I would put it on if it would get them to go to the sources and just read the stuff.
I’m trying to ride the Blogos effect much like Rathergate to fact check/vett this story. I’m wearing out my welcome because I’ve done about everything except hit them with a 2×4 along side their head.
[…]
Anyway if you have time please review the info here and pass it on if you believe it is worthy. See the e I just sent to Hugh Hewitt.
Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
http://www.hspig.org
*****
Dear Mr. Hewitt,
I just recently bought your book and believe you “get it,” with regard to the newly emerging medium of the Blogos as a new level of human consciousness. A vast neuro net of inteligent nodes with dendrtitic/synapses cells interconnecting at an exponential rate with massive processing power to do distributive parallel processing on research questions posed to it.
Further this is a medium essentially free where the value of the thoughts and ideas are free to transcend political boundaries and filtering of editoral board rooms and media comglomerates ( see further in my reply on RLS below).
[…]
HSPIG is a nonprofit. See our mission statement:
http://www.hspig.org
We have an interest in all things WMD including bioterror agents and their defenses. Gary Matsumoto’s new book, “Vaccine-A,” caught our attention and we are tracking this story. My wife is a Dr. of Public Health, MPH, and OTR. She teaches medical ethics and bioterrorism preparedness for healthcare professionals.
She has spoken with both Matsumoto and Dr. Asa and find them to be both very ethical and meticulous researches. We have yet to find any fault with the facts and science here. However this story is not something people who do not have specific information can understand. It needs to be explained in plain language.
See Ross Perot’s testimony before the House Subcommittee. The crusty ole soul that he is, mind you smarter than a tack, has intutitively recognized the problem but at that time did have the exact science to back his assessment. But in his gut he new there was something not right here.
Matsumoto’s book provides the forensic link to show that an adjuvant in the DOD’s anthrax vaccine is the causal factor of Gulf War Syndrome. Go check it out for yourself that’s what we are trying to get the Blogos to come online to research.
People do trust the government afterall I’m a member. But without the NIH and the MSM doing their jobs a small sector of the DOD, NIH, and the pharma industry more than likely have run amuck and are using national security issues to CYA.
[…]
The MSM is sitting on this story. The ramifications of this story are so great, this story must be reported objectively to the American people so they can decide what is the truth and/or fiction and hold their government accountable if necessary.
I’ve been spiking the blogs behind the Rathergate story because I feel this is very related. Further I’m trying to generate a response in the Blogos much like in Rathergate to fact check what is being reported here. Hopefully this will force the MSM to entry the fray.
Some folks have encouraged me to go find my “tin foil” hat. Hopefully sir you will understand the method to my madness here.
Here is a link to Roger L. Simon’s site where I posted a comment yesterday and to the fellow suggesting I go get my tin hat.
Please review the info here, on our forums site, and at http://www.vaccine-a.com. Please pass the message along if you find it worthy.
RLS initial post
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/01/the_big_pinnoch.php#c33632
Reply as to my motivation:
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/01/the_big_pinnoch.php#c33696
Ron Wright
[…]
*****
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:49:13 AM PST
Subject: UPDATE ON VAC STORY RE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY
See recent post to the HSPIG site which has statements made to Congressional Hearing by Dr. Robert Garry (Principal researcher who co-developed squalene antibody assay test) and Ross Pirot.
Read very carefully the prepared statement by Dr. Garry as it will clearly show the game that is afoot by the DOD et al.
Ron Wright
[…]
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2103
*****
Many readers in this field probably served in the military at one time or another. If they received the DOD anthrax vaccine and developed GWS they need to hear this.
[…]
HSPIG is interested in all things WMD including bioterrorism - its agents and countermeasures. Our attention was caught by a new book by Gary Matsumoto, “Vaccine-A.” (discussion board http://www.vaccine-a.com)
In short if the facts as reported by Matsumoto are true then there is a direct forensic causal link between the DOD’s anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Syndrome:
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2056
The consequences of which are:
The DOD vac shop, the NIH, and the vaccine pharma industry ran amuck and this is endangering crucial vaccines needed to protect against real dangers to mankind - smallpox. This small tight little group was running experimental clinical trials on an adjuvant (additive) in the vaccine starting in GW I and continuing right up until today. They can claim plausible denial perhaps in GWI - they were stupid and were not aware of other research at the time that “squalene” was vary dangerous.
However if these facts are true, what they are doing is nothing less than premeditated murder of our brave men and women in uniform without their knowledge and consent ( Feres Doctrine - Catch 22). All medical ethics has broken down in this little group that is pursing their own financial gain and fame. The NIH which should have reigned this in, has been so compromised by the pharma industry they are no longer an effective check. This is nothing less than leaving the fox to guard the hen house (See the LA Times Art I link in this piece above)
[…]
This vaccine issue is a much a due about nothing, as anthrax can be easily controlled by antibiotics if detected. Dr. Ken Alibeck (Former Soviet bioweapons head) has said this is a game of no return. Our vaccine only protects against the 20 or so strains that the Soviet’s developed (likely source for terrorists). Further Alibek’s opinion is that the enemy can mutate/morph pathogens faster than vaccines can be developed to counter. The body can only tolerate so many vaccines before physical damage is done. In short the Bio Shield concept is fatally flawed from the get go. There are other workable solutions to spend our scare money on but may be counter to the interests of the pharma industry.
[…]
The DOD appears to have been playing a successful game of “partial truths,” disinformation, and discrediting civilian researchers that have caught on over the last 15 years. While the actual DOD researchers may be in search of the “golden fleece” a cure/vaccine for AIDS, the ethics suck and they may have been compromised by the pharm industry blowing smoke up their backsides. This is a case of utilitarian ethics run amuck.
There have been a number of Congressional hearings but this hasn’t broke anything loose let. In fact the DOD has been enjoined be a fed court order over the use of this vaccine because of FDA licensing issues. They are now making moves to go around this order by involving provisions in the BioShield Act.
[…]
Here’s a link to a prepared statement that Dr. Robert Parry, a world renown immunologist ( google search on his name), gave to the House Gov’t Reform Committee - subcommittee in Jan of 02. Dr. Parry co-developed the key assay test to detect antibodies for squalene in the blood. Read his statement very carefully and he “outs” the DOD vac shop at every turn. Watch how DOD has had to retract many statements and then go on to discount the significance. Now you decide who’s lying here. This is very fascinating if this was a fictional thriller but this could be very real!
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2085
And good ole Ross Perot showed up and gave his common sense view to the committee. This common spoken ole man who is as sharp as a tack has intuitively sensed what the problem is. As my bloundhound nose has detected too. I smell several large rats in the works. The key is to follow the “money” trail and this will “out” who they players are.
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2102
Could you please help us with our cause in bringing this story forward to the American people so that they can decide what the truth and/or fiction is. The consequences are too great to not vett what Matsumoto’s reporting and the science down by outside researchers no on Uncle Sam’s food chain.
This administration must act quickly to excise this operation if found to be true. This is impairing/impeding us fighting this war (e.g. mission readiness of guard units across the country). HSPIG is in complete agreement that this is a war we can’t afford to lose.
[…]
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.13.05 @ 8:21 am
LaShawn,
I sent you email yesterday re a story that we are tracking involving Gary Matsumoto’s new book, “Vaccine-A.”
DOD’s Anthrax Vaccine is Causal Factor of Gulf War Syndrome.
Tried to post it here but apparently I’m exceeding your space limits.
For those interested please check our forums section on topic “Anthrax.” Go to http://www.hspig.org and click on “Security Forums.”
Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
http://www.hspig.org
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.13.05 @ 8:29 am
Hi Ms. Barber,
Regarding the McDonald’s Senior Coffee discount. Our local McDonalds’ have been offering a Senior Coffee for years. Myopic Zeal readership not required. Good try though…
Dan
Comment by Dan — 01.13.05 @ 9:16 am
“I’m not as big as Michele Malkin yet”
That’s going to be a short-lived Yet! We all knew you “when”.
Comment by sharon — 01.13.05 @ 9:17 am
Whenever Ted Kennedy opens his mouth, the only sounds I can hear are the sounds of Mary Jo Kopechne drowning while he drug his soaked, sauced tail-end back to a party…
Comment by Darth Monkeybone — 01.13.05 @ 9:22 am
How on Earth did it take me so long to discover this site. You are brilliant!
Comment by FromThe Morning — 01.13.05 @ 11:04 am
Thanks. Tell all your friends!
Comment by LB — 01.13.05 @ 11:07 am
For the past few years, I’ve had a lot of time but not a lot of money. Having a lot of time but not much money in modern urban American can be quite isolating, because most people are busy, and the ones with a lot of time are usually well-off and pay lots of bucks to socialize with each other through expensive cultural programs, etc.
Comment by mj — 01.13.05 @ 11:07 am
Hey La Shawn! Great stuff lately, especially the coverage of Armstrong Williams.
Comment by Joe — 01.13.05 @ 11:13 am
Thanks, Joe. I like the new look at Daily NewsBrief. Word Press, I presume?
Comment by LB — 01.13.05 @ 11:22 am
Mark Steyn was on Hugh Hewitt’s show yesterday and said that he thinks that the MSM’s liberal bias helps Conservatives.
The MSM lulls Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Whatever into thinking they’re unquestionably correct and mainstream and never causes them to question themselves. Meanwhile back at the precincts, the Conservatives are connecting with the voters. Interesting thought.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 01.13.05 @ 11:37 am
LaShawn,
You might want to remind folks that the Cassini probe’s Huygens lander is set to hit Titan’s atmosphere tomorrow morning. It’s a very exciting day for science. I have a post here:
http://roborant.info/roller/page/rob/20050113#exciting_times
and the official mission website is here:
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm
This is big stuff!
Comment by rob — 01.13.05 @ 11:56 am
I received this email through the Townhall.com Conservatives meetup group. I found it quite compelling, while there is obvious humor in it, it also sends a very ominous message. That what happened on 9/11 was no coincidence and TRUTH BE TOLD our leaders should have saw it coming….
http://jmcclellan.blogspot.com
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 01.13.05 @ 12:51 pm
Regarding blogs with comments and trackback, blogsome.com’s free service is pretty good functionally as well. I use both that and Blogger and like blogsome a lot better. The only downside I’ve seen is it’s still fairly small in terms of the support staff, so you don’t get the Google level of support if the system ever has trouble.
Comment by Eric — 01.13.05 @ 12:58 pm
mj, I know what you mean. I’ve always found that if I had the time, I lacked the resources, but when I have the resources, I lack the time
Still, I’d rather have the resources for the rare times I can get the time, than the other way round. When I am busy, at least, I am too busy to think much about what I am ‘missing’.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.13.05 @ 1:02 pm
Libs are having a feeding frenzy that Bush has finally put the “search for WMDs” to rest.
But spineless conservatives should not put this issue to rest. After all, the amount of “conventional weapons” and explosives and antiaircraft missiles poses far more danger than “WMDs” - because terrorists have been more willing to use them.
And I believe that these stockpiled “conventional weapons” were illegal according to the UN and International Law.
Where are the Libs complaining about “illegal weapons”?
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.13.05 @ 1:07 pm
Frank and LaShawn,
See my post at the head of this thread. I posted an anthology of essays on our site (www.hspig.org) re the WOT at Roger Simon’s site on Norman Podhoretz’s new essay, “The War Against World War IV.”
See my comment at #102 under the thread at Roger L. Simon’s site (www.rogerlsimon.com). There is about ten links to sig pieces that are hot linked.
Re the WMD issue this is a shell game and there was a sig game afoot that the MSM has conveniently ignored or have been so “bent” they can’t see the forest for the trees.
Two things, first there is no doubt that what Saddam was holding “WMD” wise went to Syria within weeks before the war. The Russians were probably the big players here to get anything out of the country that would incriminate them.
It was from these stocks that the the load of chems were from that intercepted enroute to make one heck of a toxic chem explosion by terrorists of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in downtown Amman, Jordan.
Secondly, what makes everyone think that Saddam would work on his nukes in Iraq when all eyes were on him. Even here in the Inland Empire the meth capital of the world, the cooks will not use places monitored by the police.
I just don’t get the MSM challenge against Pres. Bush about, “Where’s the beef?” Check all this nuclear intrigue that was going on by sig players in the region all under the noses of the IAEA:
See our WMD section for:
Iraq, Libya, and N. Korea almost built Islamic Nuke
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=979
[…]
Even some of those who say Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power, now argue that the Iraq war simply wasn’t worth the cost. But getting rid of Saddam was not just an act of charity toward the Iraqi people, as new evidence emerges of a nuclear weapons program in Libya.
With the fall of Saddam, Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi suddenly began dismantling his $100 million nuclear weapons program under our watchful eye. He has provided a wealth of information, which, when combined with evidence found in Iraq and information provided by the busted Pakistani nuclear black market salesman, A.Q. Kahn, reveal a sophisticated nuclear weapons development program. It pulled together Libyan money, North Korean uranium and, according to former federal prosecutor John Loftus, about 300 Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers based in Libya.
[…]
Ron Wright
http://www.hspig.org
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.13.05 @ 2:43 pm
With the fall of Saddam, Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi suddenly began dismantling his $100 million nuclear weapons program under our watchful eye.
Ron Wright
This is just incorerct. Britian’s Telegprah reported over a year ago:
“Libya’s promise to surrender its weapons of mass destruction was forced by Britain and America’s seizure of physical evidence of Col Muammar Gaddafi’s illegal weapons programme, the Telegraph can reveal.”
The fall of Saddam and the war in Iraq had nothing to do with it. I won’t link the article, as requested.
This wasn’t reported here because the press is liberal, I guess. This is just another example of the conservative CV being swindled by the Noise Machine.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.13.05 @ 4:39 pm
Not to speak of Armstrong Williams because we are so tired of it, I thought I should point you to this article at Back of the Envelope that shows the proper way to do a paid endorsement: http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1105550414.shtml.
I’m mentioning this post purely as a public service and the fact that the post happens to be endorsing Doc Rampage has virtually nothing to do with it.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 01.13.05 @ 5:43 pm
Russell,
If I understand correctly you’re saying the American presence in Iraq, had nothing to do with Col Muammar Gaddafi’s suddenly getting a new case of religion and started squealing like a stuck pig when Saddam was drug out of his rat hole.
You may have a point. LaShawn says it’s OK to post URL link but no HTML tags. Here’s your article you reference:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/21/wgad21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/21/ixportaltop.html
I think it’s more a combination of things like a full court press in the ME with a fundamental shift in American strategic foreign policy in the region.
The North Koreans were “shitt–g bricks” when it became apparent the Americans were going to plant a strategic foot in the ME. This all led to the downfall and “outing” of Dr. A.Q@. Kahns little shoppe of nuclear tech and supplies to do an end around on the IAEA.
This was from one of stability in the region to ensure the continued flow of reasonably priced oil even it required us to prop up repressive regimes. This was the policy that many administrations over the last 50 yrs have followed that to some degree influenced the problems we are now facing.
As I see this shift we will no longer prop up repressive regimes slowing on the development of oil resources in the region. This has the House of Saud very nervous. The House of Saud had cut a deal with the Islamofascists to leave the Royal House of Saud alone in exchange for funding radical madrases all over the world.
These are the factories turning out the terrorist recruits that OBL and others can recruit to the Jihad. The only problem is that we have at least a generation and a half of programmed cult members ready to replace the ones we are attriting in Iraq. The Sauds are not our friends.
For more on this read the threads I linked to at RLS site above.
Ron Wright
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.13.05 @ 6:10 pm
Regarding the “Rush correction” -
I too heard Rush’s announcement that he was an unpaid consultant to the Bush campaign. “In the interest of full disclosure,” he said. I heard no caveats, although, half the time, it is hard to tell if Rush is being tongue-in-cheek or not. I wondered if he was serious and I am still not sure now.
Comment by Jeff Blogworthy — 01.13.05 @ 8:15 pm
Same with me, Jeff. I heard him say that. In fact I thought about it for a while afterwards. But I don’t know if he was being tongue-in-cheek.
Perhaps I should make like a journalist and inquire.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.13.05 @ 8:18 pm
Ron -
I wholeheartedly agree that American Foriegn policy over the last 50 years has played a large part in our problems in the ME - if that’s what you’re saying.
That’s why the drumbeat of War in Iraq rings so tinny in my ears. It’s just an extension of that kind of ham-handed “it all about US” foriegn policy.
Prior to the 1953 CIA-backed overthrow of the “decmoratically” elected Iranian government, the Iranian government had “nationalized” their oil industry in 1951. The British didn’t like this so we sponsered a coup to overthrown the government and installed the Shaw.
As you remember, that worked out pretty well….not for the people the Shaw tortured and killed…but we did put him in there after all.
After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, during the Reagan Years we started backing this guy in Iraq…I forget his name.
When we could no longer control him, we got rid of him. Oh, not before he could also torture and kill a bunch of his people too.
Now we have Allawi. That’s of course after Chalabi turned out to be a liar.
Now what happens if al Sadr or al Sistani gain a large minorty block of power after these “elections” or worse yet, a majority.
With no WMD and a radical “Islamofacist” governemnt in Iraq - what have we possibly gained?
Worse yet - what if Iraq falls into civil war and the oil stops all together?
I don’t know about you…but I was promised candy and flowers. And when someone promises something to me and doesn’t deliver…well you know what they are.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.13.05 @ 8:56 pm
‘Where are the Libs complaining about “illegal weapons”? ‘
The libs dismissed when they complained about them being lost.
Comment by actus — 01.13.05 @ 9:28 pm
Supporters of the Revote are “Facists”
Via Michelle Malkin Hey, atleast Fascists know how to spell it. Linked to Wizbang’s Ten Spot Linked to Outside the Beltway’s Traffic Jam Linked to La Shawn Barber’s Link Fest…
Trackback by The Political Teen — 01.13.05 @ 10:14 pm
Ron,
While there may or may not be a “shell game” going on with WMDs, that’s not really the worst of it. The Democrats have successfully managed to put words into the mouth of our President.
I went back to transcripts of the State of the Union speeches before the war and found that the case made by the President is not what his critics are claiming it was. Senator Kennedy and others keep saying the President lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. But the President’s case was that Hussein had not been sufficiently forthcoming in providing proof that he had disarmed. This is totally different from saying, “He’s got WMDs, let’s go get him!” There were other reasons provided as well, of course, but on the issue of WMDs, the President has not been proven wrong.
At one point in a speech, he even addressed the objection that Saddam was not an imminent threat. He said that while Saddam was not an imminent threat, we must not wait for him to become one. But Senator Kennedy declared loudly that the President had mislead everyone by stating that Saddam was an imminent threat.
Folks, the Administration and most of its defenders have been roped into defending an argument that bears nothing in common to the stated reasons for war. We have gradually been “finessed” away from our solid arguments into defending a straw man and it needs to stop.
Comment by PlacidPundit — 01.13.05 @ 11:20 pm
In your blogsphere roundup, somewhere between Battle-Star Galatica and Mexifornia you left out us — Black Bloggers Association.
Comment by Ricky Land — 01.14.05 @ 9:13 am
PlacidPundit -
“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
“Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
• President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
Are you arguing that the president used the terms “real”, “grave” and “unique urgency” because he didn’t think Saddam’s threat was “imminent” or are you arguing that two WH Press Secs, a WH Com Director and the SecDef (who all use the word “imminent”) don’t speak for the President of the United States?
I guess this liberal “finesse” you speak of has something to do with the ability to use Google.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 10:42 am
Bloggers on Dean Payroll Part of Long Dem History
In a deal reminiscent of Armstrong Williams’ arrangement with the Bush administration, Howard Dean’s presidential campaign has admitted that it paid two pro-Democrat Internet bloggers to keep them from supporting other candidates.
The two bloggers hired by the former Vermont governor were Jerome Armstrong, who publishes the blog MyDD, and Markos Zuniga, who publishes the popular DailyKos, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. They were paid $3,000 a month for four months. During the presidential campaign, the DailyKos received as many as 1 million hits daily.
The deal was revealed earlier this week by Zephyr Teachout, the former head of Internet outreach for the Dean campaign, on her own Web log, Zonkette.
While Armstrong and Zuniga never expressly committed to support Dean in exchange for the cash, Teachout explained that favorable coverage “was very clearly, internally, our goal.”
While Mr. Williams’ arrangement was relatively unparalleled in GOP circles, the Democratic Party has a long history of cozying up to journalists, trading favors and bankrolling media operations in the expectation of positive media coverage.
As NewsMax recounted yesterday, celebrated liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz confessed to the “Today” show last January that his network was bankrolled by $2 million in donations from Democrats.
Al Franken’s Air America radio network has a similar financial arrangement with party fat cats.
Liberal Democrat donor Sheldon Drobny founded Franken’s network, sold it and then helped raise money when the original management was ousted.
Sometimes the cozy relationship has gotten Democrat-leaning media outlets into trouble.
In July 1999, for instance, Boston’s taxpayer-funded TV station, WGBH, was caught red-handed sharing its donor lists with the Democratic National Committee. “The practice of swapping names was discovered when The Boston Globe reported that Sam Black, a 4-year-old boy who watches public TV’s ‘Barney,’ had been receiving mail from the DNC,” the Associated Press reported at the time.
The scandal metastasized, implicating dozens of PBS outlets in the illicit arrangement - including at least one instance of a direct cash payment.
“In February, [1999] the DNC asked [WGBH] for an additional 20,000 names in exchange for the names of 9,800 Democratic donors and $900,” the AP said.
In a 1994 case that received far less attention, two Republican congressmen complained that senior Clinton administration official Susan Brophy had promised that the Boston Globe’s Thomas Oliphant would write favorable columns about them if they voted for Clinton’s crime bill.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 2:22 pm
Russell,
I’ve seen that site that lists this junk. It’s dishonest because…..
The president never called Iraq an imminent threat. Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Tony Snow etc. keep saying that. So this web site pops up trying to prove that’s what the president has says and then YOU COPY AND PASTE from the web site.
Guess what…. None of the quotes on the web site that you copy and pasted from has PRESIDENT Bush saying that Iraq was an imminent threat although KERRY and Ted Kennedy kept accusing the President of saying such.
The one from Ari Fliesher is dishonest because it has Ari saying “Absolutely” in answer to a question and yet Ari has since then tried to correct the answer.
The one that says Scott McClellan is incorrect because he wasn’t even in that position on that date yet.
The only thing that liberals can do is act like Kerry, Clinton, Albright, and President Bush didn’t say the same things (about removing Saddam and having WMD’s) but they did say the same things.
The only thing else that liberals can do is act like the other intelligence agencies around the world (Russian, German, British and French) and the U.S. intelligence wasn’t saying the same thing (that Saddam had WMD’s) and on top of that they’ve been saying it before Bush got into office.
So act away…..
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 2:24 pm
Baklava, good work
Comment by Andy — 01.14.05 @ 3:00 pm
Firstly - your obsession with the word “imminent” reminds me of a certain Democrat’s obsession with the word “is” not too long ago.
But, be that as it may, let’s deconstruct your logic.
When asked a quesiton, “Is Iraq an imminent threat?” Ari responds “Absolutly.”
Since then everyone and their mother on the Right tries to parse that statement. Come on! It was a direct question and Ari was/is an adult who’s job (at the time) was White House Press Sec - the voice of the Administration - who gave a direct answer.
If Joe Lockhard or Dee Dee Myers had made a similar statement, you’d hold them too it - and so would I.
Secondly, regarding Scott McClellan’s “imaginary” press conference on 2/10/03. If you go to the ultra-liberal White House Website and view:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
You’ll see an actual transcription of this “fabricated press gaggle.” And I quote:
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what’s important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McLellan was talking about NATO’s responsibility to support US Actions against Iraq because of Iraq’s imminent threat.
Will you, now that I have debunked your notion that such a press gaggle never occured, debate the context of the quote which transpired in your fictional press gaggle? Talk about changing horses in mid-argument….
Thirdly, your argument that “everybody was saying it” is a bit dishonest. Either you arguing that the Bush and Rumsfeld and the rest of the Kool Aid Crew in the WH “did not” make statements which illustrated their belief that Iraq was an “imminent threat”, or are you arguing that Clinton, Kerry, Albright and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man also beleived Iraq was an “imminent” threat - just like Bush and his WH.
You can’t have it both ways.
For arguments sake, let’s assume Clinton and Kerry believed Iraq was an imminent threat - just like Bush…Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. Neither did John Kerry. And no matter how often you bring up that old Boogeyman, you can’t pin the quagmire in Iraq on Bill Clinton. And you can’t blame what’s going on in Iraq on the vote of a single US Senator.
Please review the “junk” I gleaned from the Bush White House website, so we can further discuss how far offbase I am.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 3:15 pm
Hey Placidpundit, I too listened live to the speach. It’s they say in the military, “Mission Creep.”
It would be well to keep folks focussed on what was actually said and not what others have said over, and over, and over again. By the end of the chain the lazy or perhaps biased MSM fails to go back to the original text.
Yes, we are defending against a “straw man.”
We should form a truth squad and whenever this “misinformation/disinformation” shows up, we should post a comment and “out” it for what it is.
Also looks like your into doing fact checking work. We could use some good researchers who can think outside the box in helping us to fact check what Matsumoto has reported in his book, “Vaccine-A” - DOD anthrax vaccine is causal factor of Gulf War Syndrome.
HSPIG is trying to break this into the Blogos for fact checking and to force the MSM to cover the story.
See my comment at Dean’s World:
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1105381838.shtml
See our HSPIG Forums Section for anthrax topic at:
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/index.php
and for this piece:
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2103
We need everyone’s help on this because the DOD is ramping up to force svs personnel to take this vaccine again to go around a fed court order on the basis of the Bio Shield Act and national security.
Something is not right here as first the Bio Shield concept may be fatally flawed, and secondly the risk of anthrax from a surprise attack and the consequences have been greatly exagerated, third are serious questions being raised by independent researchers that it has seriours/fatal complications, and lastly since the risk is relatively low why force the vaccine now? The air nat’l guard wings are losing pilots by the droves because they are refusing to involuntarily take this vaccine. Bottom line is this is affecting mission readiness regardless if the vaccine is flawed or not.
Ron Wright
http://www.hspig.org
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.14.05 @ 3:18 pm
Baklava -
Quick aside: No matter what you think of the “context” of the McClellan quote, whomever told you that Scotty-boy wasn’t “in position” on the date when he made that statement outiright lied to you.
That alone should cause you to question that source from here on out.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 3:25 pm
My obsession lies within the fact that the Democrat leaders and this website are accusing Bush of lying about Iraq being an imminent threat. If you take away the word’s meaning then words mean nothing. You made an accusation with a word and then can’t back it up so you call it an obsession. Stop accusing and then you won’t get rebuffed.
Second. Ari is not Bush so Kennedy/Kerry lied and the site doesn’t show that Bush said what Kennedy/Kerry accuse him of.
Third. You can read also. Scott wasn’t Whitehouse spokeman on that date that that site claims. The press “gaggle” shows a discussion aboard Air Force One. Slam Dunk.
Forth. I’m not having anything both ways. It is Kerry/Kennedy/that website/you that are wanting to accuse Bush of something when it has been Kerry/Kennedy that has actually said worse of Saddam. Bush said grave threat. Kennedy/Kerry has said worse. Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry all said that Iraq has weapons and they want regime change. Bush says the same thing but yet he lied to you guys. YOU GUYS CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. And…. you can’t accuse others of wanting to have it both ways when we defend ourselves from YOUR ACCUSATION. You are wrong and so was Kerry/Kennedy. They are lying and you are lying in your accusation. You are now clinging to Scott when he WASN’T a spokesman saying the word imminent to prove your accusation that Bush said it was a correct accusation.
You also wrote, “For arguments sake, let’s assume Clinton and Kerry believed Iraq was an imminent threat - just like Bush…Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. Neither did John Kerry.” My repsone: Kerry DID VOTE for the War in Iraq after Kerry had called for the war and spoke in favor of the war. Kerry has subsequently changed his position to say the didn’t support actually going to war but his words are on paper that he thought we should remove Saddam.
I’m not pinning the war on Iraq on Clinton. I’m pinning you and your Democrat leaders for accusing Bush of calling something imminent when Bush didn’t say it and Clinton has said the same thing as Bush. If you don’t like the record being set straight then don’t make the accusation in the first place.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:28 pm
Third. You can read also. Scott wasn’t Whitehouse spokeman on that date that that site claims. The press “gaggle” shows a discussion aboard Air Force One. Slam Dunk.
1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan - The James S. Brady Briefing Room…is the briefing room on Air Force One?
2. Someone speaking for the President is NOT a WHITEHOUSE SPOKESMAN? What is he then? A ballet dancer?
Pleae provide the source that back ups either of your arguments…btw be sure to view the video of the press conference available on the WH site which CLEARLY SHOWS Scott in the WHITEHOUSE.
Please…is that the best ya got?
Who’s lying now?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 3:38 pm
Your original post included:
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Your second post included a link to White House Website which had the following words:
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
Aboard Air Force One
The context was:
“MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it’s important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.”
This means that in our week before invasion that Turkey considered Iraq an imminent threat to them and requested security from NATO. You turn that into Bush thinking that Iraq was more than a grave threat (which Bush said repeatedly and even corrected reporters who tried to pin him with imminent). In the hours before the invasion of Iraq, Turky thought that they were an imminent threat to them. That still doesn’t prove that McClellan replaced Ari yet as YOUR ORIGINAL POST HAS this date and time of Ari speaking as spokesman:
“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
So who was spokesman before May 7th 2003? Ari. Not Scott. Maybe a small point so I included the above slam dunk of your accusation also.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:39 pm
You
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:40 pm
In your mind can you possibly understand how Turkey thought Iraq was an imminent threat to them and the White House supported the request to NATO because of Turkey’s concerns in the week or two before the invasion?
You know the result of the first Iraq war. Iraq lobbed weapons at Kuwait and Israel and other places. People thought they knew the invasion was going to provoke Saddam into attacking others AGAIN. You turn and so does this website that whole line of thinking into whatever you want.
Your argument is done.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:43 pm
Bush said grave threat.
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
urgency
n 1: the state of being urgent; an earnest and insistent necessity 2: pressing importance requiring speedy action; “the urgency of his need” 3: an urgent situation calling for prompt action
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 3:45 pm
This link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040211-3.html
has the following text:
Q You’ve spoken today about the threat that this country faces. Last month, in referring to the threat posed by Iraq, you said, “I think some in the media have chosen to use the word, ‘imminent.’ Those were not words we used.”
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s correct.
Q When, in fact, a year ago, you said, in referring to the threat posed by Iraq, “This is about imminent threat.” So which is it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Russell, did you not read that transcript?
Q I actually have it in front of me.
MR. McCLELLAN: What does it refer to?
Q Well, here we go. You were talking about Turkey requesting aid from NATO.
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s right.
Q And you were talking about the threat —
MR. McCLELLAN: In the lead-up to a decision that — in the immediate lead up to a decision that was made to go to war.
Q Well, I’m just reading —
MR. McCLELLAN: It wasn’t talking about the threat posed by Iraq to the world and to the international community overall. We said it was a grave and gathering threat.
Q You said — we have the transcript, I have it. Can I read it?
MR. McCLELLAN: You may. Go ahead, read the whole thing.
Q “And I think it’s important,” — this is about the threat Iraq poses to Turkey — “And I think it’s important to note that the request from a country —
MR. McCLELLAN: It’s about a NATO request. Let’s just sum this up right now. It wasn’t relating to —
Q No, it’s about —
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you’re trying to take things out of context now. I appreciate it —
Q No, this is exactly the transcript.. It’s not out of context, it’s the transcript. You’re talking about the threat Iraq posed to Turkey — isn’t that right?
MR. McCLELLAN: In the immediate lead-up to the war in Iraq.
Q And you said, “imminent threat.”
MR. McCLELLAN: And you’re taking everything out of context here. I think everybody in this room has seen that transcript.
—–
As I said, Done.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:48 pm
Russell quoted Bush, ““The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.””
No where in there is the word imminent. Kennedy, You, Kerry want to make an incorrect accusation. What if others did it about you?
—–
You can stop now.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:50 pm
Nowhere in your definition was the word imminent
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:52 pm
Your accusation is incorrect
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:52 pm
As I said, Done.
Comment by Baklava
HA! I thougt Scott didn’t speak for the WH! Please parse all you want. Scott McClellan was a WH SPOKESMAN when he spoke in the Briefing Room and on Air Force One. At the time, Ari’s job title was WH Press Sec.
Unless you are saying that a person who stands up in front of the press in the WH Briefing Room, in front of a BIG SIGN that says WHITE HOUSE, flys on AIR FORCE ONE and addresses the press in both instances on the same day is not a WH spokesman.
Is that what you’re saying?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 3:53 pm
Again. Everybody said that Saddam had WMD’s. Only 12 Senators voted against it. Kerry was one who voted for the war.
It wasn’t a RUSH to war.
It was an 18 month long debate that you are stuck in. 2 years later even. You are trying to capitalize off of everybody being OFF THE MARK when they said Saddam had stockpiles of WMD’s. Because WMD’s were found here and there just not in the quantity of stockpiles.
When everyone is off the mark there isn’t a way that you and Kennedy and Kerry can have it both ways and try to pin it on Bush only.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:55 pm
Baklava - Bush never said the exact word “imminent”.
Bill Clinton: I did not have “sexual relations” with that woman.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 3:57 pm
1. Ted Kennedy? Is he still around?:)
2. Armstrong Williams? I feel for the guy and hope he learns and recovers. I live in a glass house and I try not to throw stones.
3. Time or money? Yes
4. Military personnel on trial during a war? Demoralizing to the troops still on the front line. They should be arraigned and then held on some level of bond or recognizance (depending on the pending charges and a judges decision), given administrative duties if the charges may not seem to hold up and then tried after the war is declared over. Sentenced if guilty or released if not. Not a perfect system, but we have to be concerned for those still on the front lines.
Comment by PJLR — 01.14.05 @ 3:58 pm
You wrote, “HA! I thougt Scott didn’t speak for the WH!”
I didn’t say that. Please learn to read.
He didn’t have Ari’s job yet. Your original post acts like he had Ari’s job already.
What I’m saying is that the original post of yours makes a claim that isn’t true. If someone responds and points out it isn’t true you can only change your position and say, “well he was speaking for the white house and he was in the white house”. Nobody disputed that buddy.
Now please get back to the substance. What Scott said.
It was even tried by a reporter to attack him and I posted that conversation for you and you don’t refer to it.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 3:58 pm
Baklava -
Read your Constitution. “Everybody” doesn’t send US troops to war. It’s called accountability. It’s called “where the buck stops.”
Uh, and do you get a news paper? What WMDs were found inf Iraq? Please fill me in…I musta missed that episode of Hannity and Colmes.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:01 pm
You wrote, “Bill Clinton: I did not have “sexual relations” with that woman.”
Why bring up the fact that Bill lied? It doesn’t help you because Bill was accused of having sex with Monica. Bill subsequently lied about it and perjured himself over it.
What’s your original accusation. Go back to it. You assert (just like Kerry and Kennedy) that Bush called Iraq an imminent threat.
He didn’t.
You lied.
So did Kerry and Kennedy.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:01 pm
You wrote, “Read your Constitution. “Everybody” doesn’t send US troops to war.”
I didn’t assert that everybody does send US troops to war. I asserted that Kerry voted for it and spoke in favor of it and so did Kerry and Clinton and Gore and Albright. They all wanted regime change. Kerry even voted for it.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:03 pm
You wrote, “Uh, and do you get a news paper? What WMDs were found inf Iraq?”
I won’t go down that road with you because you are uncivil and have asserted things that aren’t true. Suffice to say that weapons have been found and catalogued.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:05 pm
Baklava -
I’m not changing my position. WHAT WAS SCOTT MCLELLAN’S JOB TITLE on 2/10/2003?
Scott McClellan (born 1968) is the White House Press Secretary for President George W. Bush. Until he replaced Ari Fleischer on July 15, 2003, he served as deputy press secretary.
Job Description:
The deputy press secretary works in conjunction with the rest of the staff of the press secretary. He occasionally fills in for the press secretary at a briefing, but is more likely to conduct a more informal press gaggle.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:08 pm
You posted, “Until he replaced Ari Fleischer on July 15, 2003, he served as deputy press secretary.”
Your original post makes believe that he was White House spokesman in Feb of 2003. Now you’ve finally (unwittingly) posted that he didn’t take that job until July 15, 2003. And then even more unwittingly you post that he served as “deputy press secretary”. Your original post should’ve stated then that he was deputy press secretary and not the White House spokesman.
Somebody who speaks for Rumsfeld is not Secretary of Defense. Somebody who speaks for Powell is not Secretary of State. Someone who speaks in place of Ari is not White House spokesman. He was deputy press secretary.
AND….
The substance of your assertion is debunked with Scott’s words that follow:
Q You’ve spoken today about the threat that this country faces. Last month, in referring to the threat posed by Iraq, you said, “I think some in the media have chosen to use the word, ‘imminent.’ Those were not words we used.”
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s correct.
Q When, in fact, a year ago, you said, in referring to the threat posed by Iraq, “This is about imminent threat.” So which is it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Russell, did you not read that transcript?
Q I actually have it in front of me.
MR. McCLELLAN: What does it refer to?
Q Well, here we go. You were talking about Turkey requesting aid from NATO.
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s right.
Q And you were talking about the threat –
MR. McCLELLAN: In the lead-up to a decision that – in the immediate lead up to a decision that was made to go to war.
Q Well, I’m just reading –
MR. McCLELLAN: It wasn’t talking about the threat posed by Iraq to the world and to the international community overall. We said it was a grave and gathering threat.
Q You said – we have the transcript, I have it. Can I read it?
MR. McCLELLAN: You may. Go ahead, read the whole thing.
Q “And I think it’s important,” – this is about the threat Iraq poses to Turkey – “And I think it’s important to note that the request from a country –
MR. McCLELLAN: It’s about a NATO request. Let’s just sum this up right now. It wasn’t relating to –
Q No, it’s about –
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you’re trying to take things out of context now. I appreciate it –
Q No, this is exactly the transcript.. It’s not out of context, it’s the transcript. You’re talking about the threat Iraq posed to Turkey – isn’t that right?
MR. McCLELLAN: In the immediate lead-up to the war in Iraq.
Q And you said, “imminent threat.”
MR. McCLELLAN: And you’re taking everything out of context here. I think everybody in this room has seen that transcript.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:13 pm
The Deputy White House Sec, when either filling in for the Press Sec or doing the “gaggle” is officially a spokesman of the White House and the Adminsitration.
No amout of parsing you do on the word “spokesman” can change that fact.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:19 pm
I won’t go down that road with you because you are uncivil and have asserted things that aren’t true. Suffice to say that weapons have been found and catalogued.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:05 pm
Thanks for not letting me in on the secret stash. And as far as uncivil goes, you were the first one to call someone in this comment thread a liar.
Lastly, I will stand by the entire transcript you posted here, which shows McClellan saying “imminent threat” and then denying it.
I’ll let people read it for themselves.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:22 pm
Now that I’ve run circles around you. Let me say, this is a pattern of liberals that I hope you learn from. Democrat leaders and liberal leaders will accuse conservatives of all kinds of things that aren’t true.
And what for?
So that we vote against conservatives? I am a conservative/centrist because of what I stand for. I am for:
1) No racial discrimination or preferential treatment based on race
2) A much less complicated tax system that doesn’t penalize success and isn’t burdensome on the people.
3) I am for the security of this nation as this is one of the main things the constitution prescribes that the federal government do.
4) I am for the protection of our borders. We allow more legal immigrants than all other countries combined and do not need to allow “illegal” immigrants as well.
5) I am for a freeze of federal expenditures to the current dollar amount (expenditures has grown every year for over 6 decades) while we reprioritize what is spent on.
6) I am for people contributing to their own private accounts (with safegards so that people don’t lose life savings if a fund goes belly-up) so that people have something that can be passed on to a beneficiary. Currently black males lose more of their contributions because they die at an earlier age than white males and contributions to social security is not considered a nest egg or private account. It’s lost.
I could go on. But liberal leadership will demagogue and give you messages that make you believe that conservatives believe something they do not. We can either spend all of our time defending ourselves from the awful accusations or debate the merits of one position or another.
Which will you choose? To take your liberal leaders attacks and try to spear conservatives with them?
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:24 pm
Don’t accuse someone falsely if you don’t like being called a liar.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:24 pm
Yes. they read for theirselves 2 times because I posted it twice that Scott didn’t appreciate liberals like yourself taking his words out of context as it related to Turkey and the NATO request and bringing that full circle back into what Kennedy and Kerry were accusing Bush of.
You keep keeping it up and then don’t like being called to the carpet for it.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:26 pm
Baklava -
Run circles? HA! Your entire argument rests on your belief that a Deputy White House Press Secretary is not a “spokesman” for the White House.
Keep on keepin’ on, though…
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:26 pm
Reminds me of:
You stating that my daddy said, “something”.
And he didn’t say something so I call you a liar.
And then you saying that I started the uncivility.
If something isn’t true it’s about time you do the research and get back to us and apologize. I will definately apologize then for calling you a liar. And I’ll even praise you for your patience with me. Until that time…..
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:29 pm
You wrote, “Run circles? HA! Your entire argument rests on your belief that a Deputy White House Press Secretary is not a “spokesman” for the White House.”
Entire argument? False accusation again.
Here is for the 3rd time the debunking of your and the websites claim concerning the dialog when he was “deputy press secretary”:
Q You’ve spoken today about the threat that this country faces. Last month, in referring to the threat posed by Iraq, you said, “I think some in the media have chosen to use the word, ‘imminent.’ Those were not words we used.”
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s correct.
Q When, in fact, a year ago, you said, in referring to the threat posed by Iraq, “This is about imminent threat.” So which is it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Russell, did you not read that transcript?
Q I actually have it in front of me.
MR. McCLELLAN: What does it refer to?
Q Well, here we go. You were talking about Turkey requesting aid from NATO.
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s right.
Q And you were talking about the threat –
MR. McCLELLAN: In the lead-up to a decision that – in the immediate lead up to a decision that was made to go to war.
Q Well, I’m just reading –
MR. McCLELLAN: It wasn’t talking about the threat posed by Iraq to the world and to the international community overall. We said it was a grave and gathering threat.
Q You said – we have the transcript, I have it. Can I read it?
MR. McCLELLAN: You may. Go ahead, read the whole thing.
Q “And I think it’s important,” – this is about the threat Iraq poses to Turkey – “And I think it’s important to note that the request from a country –
MR. McCLELLAN: It’s about a NATO request. Let’s just sum this up right now. It wasn’t relating to –
Q No, it’s about –
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you’re trying to take things out of context now. I appreciate it –
Q No, this is exactly the transcript.. It’s not out of context, it’s the transcript. You’re talking about the threat Iraq posed to Turkey – isn’t that right?
MR. McCLELLAN: In the immediate lead-up to the war in Iraq.
Q And you said, “imminent threat.”
MR. McCLELLAN: And you’re taking everything out of context here. I think everybody in this room has seen that transcript.
You can’t have it an innaccurate way.
————
What is the definition of entire?
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:32 pm
Baklava -
Try as you might, you can’t drown out the truth.
Your entire defense boils down to this:
Iraq was an “imminent” threat to Turkey, but only a threat of “unique urgency” to the United States.
Pleae define “unique urgency”…
And never, not once in this whole thread, have you addressed what Rumsfeld called “imminent.”
Why?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:36 pm
Scott wasn’t Whitehouse spokeman on that date that that site claims. The press “gaggle” shows a discussion aboard Air Force One. Slam Dunk.
Baklava -
Is or is not the Deputy White House Press Secretary a spokesman for the White House?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:39 pm
OK.
Your post, ““Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.”
He was telling those who said that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent that HE WOULD NOT BE SO CERTAIN.
Yes. Liberals are certain and he wouldn’t be so certain.
For his moderate position he is lambasted by you and others….. and linked to some fantasy that Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat. The diversion to Rumsfeld doesn’t prove that Bush said that Iraq is an imminent threat.
And that accusation is what Kennedy, you, Kerry and others claim. And it isn’t true.
My question is, if it isn’t true or even if it is true. Why make the accusation? Because people like you are trying to point out that Bush lied. You are trying with one accusation to say something.
My point is that Bush said the same thing that everyone else was saying so when you accuse me of having my ENTIRE argument about Scott’s job title you are wrong again. I have already stated that Bush’s position was the same as what was reported by other countries intelligence agencies and Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton and Albright. Then you change the argument that only Bush brought us to war.
Well that wasn’t the accusation. Your accusation dealt with what Bush supposedly said but didn’t say and he was consistent with others until after the invasion and very little weapons were found so Democrats all over including yourself try to make hay over it.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:47 pm
You asked, “Is or is not the Deputy White House Press Secretary a spokesman for the White House?”
That is an irrelevant question. You even posted that Scott didn’t take over as the White House spokesman until July of 2003. Did you post that or not?
That is a job title that was occupied by Ari and then went to Scott at July of 2003.
Your original post said that he was White House spokesman on Feb 2003.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:49 pm
What Scott said on 2/11/04 about what he said a year earlier -
Q When, in fact, a year ago, you said, in referring to the threat posed by Iraq, “This is about imminent threat.” So which is it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Russell, did you not read that transcript?
Q I actually have it in front of me.
MR. McCLELLAN: What does it refer to?
Q Well, here we go. You were talking about Turkey requesting aid from NATO.
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s right.
Q And you were talking about the threat –
MR. McCLELLAN: In the lead-up to a decision that – in the immediate lead up to a decision that was made to go to war.
Q Well, I’m just reading –
MR. McCLELLAN: It wasn’t talking about the threat posed by Iraq to the world and to the international community overall. We said it was a grave and gathering threat.
What Scott actually said on 2/10/2003:
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what’s important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat
——-
Nowhere in the gaggle, does Scott ever use the words “grave” or “gathering”.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:51 pm
I’m done. I’ve got work to do.
You might want to ponder how this makes liberals look. This is the reason for the lost election. You guys keep asserting things that aren’t true.
Then when we defend and point out the assertion isn’t true you get stuck on that and never really argue for anything.
What are you for?
Pulling out of Iraq today?
Having a tribunal on Bush?
Putting Saddam back in power?
Is any of your positions do you think moderate? Are they reasonable? What will be the result of what you want?
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:54 pm
Baklava -
The Office of the White House Press Secretary does not include a postion of “WHTIE HOUSE Spokesman”.
There is a Press Sec and a Deputy Press Sec, both of whom act as SPOKEMEN for the White House.
Stop parsing, please. When the term “spokesman” is used, it is refering, in a general sense, to a person that is speaking for the White House. It’s not a title…hence the reason it was not Capitalized in my original post.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:55 pm
You wrote, “Nowhere in the gaggle, does Scott ever use the words “grave” or “gathering”.”
Your original accusation said Bush said imminent. Bush said grave or gathering.
Scott used the word imminent when the invasion was a week away and he was describing the threat to Turkey and the reason why NATO should approve the request for security.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 4:56 pm
I’m done. I’ve got work to do.
Baklava -
Couldn’t drown me out or make me leave, eh?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 4:58 pm
You are unaware that I set the record straight from your accusation. Job Complete.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 5:02 pm
Your original accusation said Bush said imminent. Bush said grave or gathering.
Sorry - wrong liberal. My original arguement was this:
Are you arguing that the president used the terms “real”, “grave” and “unique urgency” because he didn’t think Saddam’s threat was “imminent” or are you arguing that two WH Press Secs, a WH Com Director and the SecDef (who all use the word “imminent”) don’t speak for the President of the United States?
Nowhere did I say Bush said the magic word “imminent”. Stop reading off your talking points and actually look at my arguments.
I never brought up Kennedy, or Kerry or Clinton. You did. I nevrr brought up what “other liberals” say. You did. I never said Bush said the word. You said I did.
My argument is simple. Bush’s actions, his words and the words of the SPOKESMEN of his administration prove conclusivly that they either thought themselves, or wanted the American people to think, that the threat from Iraq to the United States was “imminent”, “immediate”, “urgent” “around the corner” - whatever.
And now the facts show that this was not the case.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 5:07 pm
Baklava-
Iraq was not an imminent threat. It was not a grave threat. It was not a gathering threat. It was not an urgent threat. It was not a threat to the United States. Period.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 5:14 pm
Tell that to ALL who said it not just Bush. It was said by everybody that Iraq posed whatever kind of threat.
Now. What do you Russell think we should do about the fact that everybody was off the mark when talking about Iraq. Knowing what we know now and knowing everybody was off the mark (except for smarmy liberals who think they knew even though Kerry, Clinton and Gore - you know the drill) what do you do?
You’ve already gone into the country, found out that EVERYBODY was off the mark, and found out that Saddam was trying to obtain weapons via the oil-for-food/weapons program, and you found the mass graves and the horrible infrastructure. What do you do Russell come May 2003 (weeks after the invasion) after you found out we were off the mark? Put Saddam back in power? Leave? Leave the infrastructure in shambles. Leave a POWER VACUUM?
What was your whole point with falsely accusing the president of saying something that he didn’t say but was consistent with everyone else and what they were saying?
What do you finally want to say that we should do now, in May of 2003 or whenever? The world was wrong now and they bow down to Russell. You ACT as if you knew the entire world was wrong (but you pin it on Bush only) and then you never give what you think we should’ve done once the world found out they were OFF THE MARK.
I promise you. I won’t respond to your post. You can once and for all tell us what you would’ve done once we all found out that we were all OFF THE MARK. ALL. Not just Bush. And Bush didn’t lie. Stop with the accusations and tell us all what YOU Russell are for…. We wait with baited breath for a liberal to stop accusing and finally tell us what your moderate/reasonable/prudent solution would be.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 5:29 pm
BTW, The solution can’t be that you never would’ve gone into Iraq because we didn’t find out EVERYBODY was OFF THE MARK until we went into Iraq. Only 12 senators voted against the war. Everybody just about was saying the same thing and even before Bush went into office.
Instead of staying stuck in the past and accusing the President of lying (which is false) for once tell someone what you are for doing once we all found out what we found out after the invasion…..
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 5:37 pm
Baklava -
What was your whole point with falsely accusing the president of saying something that he didn’t say but was consistent with everyone else and what they were saying?
Again, where did I accuse Bush of saying anything but whay he actually said?
And Bush didn’t lie. Stop with the accusations
I’d stop them if I could find them, please point them out.
We wait with baited breath for a liberal to stop accusing and finally tell us what your moderate/reasonable/prudent solution would be.
Not having went to Iraq at all woulda been a good start.
I’ll leave you with this to ponder:
We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.
Whether it’s the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush.
Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you.
Michael Moore, March 23rd 2003
There were liberals agasint this Iraqi Invasion before there was an Invasion.
We said don’t go…we TOLD YOU what to do…you all didn’t listen. Now you want us to solve the incredible mess you created? After how many American Soldiers and Iraqi civilias lie dead.
How vulgar!
There’s a REASON we’re so critical…it’s because we knew it was BS all along. We said in the begining it was going to be a quagmire. Bush I, Schwarzkopf, Scowcroft, Zinni - some real radical liberals themselves - agreed with us.
You drank the kool aid. Not me.
You wanna blame someone, blame yourselves.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 5:59 pm
I won’t go back very far. I’ll point out your accusation just in your last post….
untruther/liar wrote “We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.”
There is nothing to ponder about what you write. You aren’t very intelligent or well read.
Comment by Baklava — 01.14.05 @ 6:05 pm
Baklava -
Call me all the names you want. Insult me to your hearts content. That’s the best way to win an argument, ain’t it?
Reasons for War:
WMDs
Iraq a Threat
Outcomes of War
No WMD
Iraq was not a threat
Ergo, reasons for war were fictitious.
What don’t you get?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 6:09 pm
I promise you. I won’t respond to your post.
Now I know why you don’t care about the lies of this adminstration. A “promise” to you is just a word.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.14.05 @ 6:11 pm
Any enemy of Howard Dean’s is automatically a friend of mine.
Comment by Bachbone — 01.14.05 @ 9:11 pm
Hey, folks doesn’t anyone ever sleep around here. I’ve already been too bed already and you’re still at it.
Please excuse me but you’re picking at knits. Blessed be for the Net and the Blogos. Don’t believe everything that the MSM throws your way. e.g. Rathergate for they are no longer the trusted source of the news of the day. Go read Healing Iraq and Iraq the Model for a different frame of reference and perspective that the MSM is not reporting here.
If you have a lot of free time on your hands how about putting that energy to work on something that might do some good?
Like follow the thread in the link below about the Mad Mullahs of Iran about to stone to death a 13 year old girl because of a failed ideology’s “unenlightened/not reformed” false religion.
I’m not bashing Islam in general but the fundamentalist extremist cultlike sect that will kill innocents to advance it’s mission. Sorry I for one do not choose to live in the 12th Century!
Bottom line is Saddam was bad dude. We went in and kicked “butt.” Now the debate should be why are we staying? This strategic chess game is still playing out and I would ignore the calls from the bleachers.
We must stay focussed, keep our mind in the game and eyes on the boy, continue to play offense, and go for the ball at every opportunity to win this war!
Iraq and Afgan are only major battlefronts in WWIV, “War Against Islamofascism.” The sooner we as the American people unite both left and right and wipe this Evil from the face of the earth, the less lives we will be lost in the struggle.
And let’s not forget our “old world” allies that our acting in their own self-interest by calling us out for not taking the reasoned diplomacy route of further UN debate to enforce it’s own resolutions.
HELLO? The last time I checked Saddam skimmed off at last count $21B yes “B”. And if you PLEASE who were lined up at his trough but non other than France, Russia, and China in that order. Three votes on the UN Security Council.
Folks get a clue here and look out of the box a little.
Iraq and Afgan are only major battlefronts in WWIV, “The War Against Islamofascism.”
For further see my post at Roger L. Simon site and do scroll up to the main post on a new pivotal essay by Norman Podhoretz, “The War Against World War IV”:
*****
DITTO DITTO AMEN BROTHER PODHORETZ
I totally agree with Mr. Podhoretz but I’m not totally convinced he, VDH, and Krauthammer haven’t been reading my previous rants! Great minds do think alike.
I’ve pieced [together] an anthology of essays on our site that convey the same thoughts and conclusions as Mr. Poheretz has.
In short to win this war we must demonstrate to the world our ideology that values the free will of men and women and certain inalienable rights is superior to that of our enemy’s because of which is still locked and stagnated in the 12th Century.
[…]
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/01/not_just_johns.php#comments
Here’s a list of the titles. They are hotlinked at RLS site:
FREEDOM - Thanks to the Greatest Generation for Perserving It
GEO-POLITICAL STRATEGIC ANALYSIS ON WAR ON TERROR
THE WAR ON TERRORISM - A War of Ideas
The MSM is Rooting for the Enemy!
Iraq, Libya, and N. Korea almost built Islamic Nuke
[Smallpox] A Gap in Local Bioterrorism Response
Rules of war enable terror
The Event Clock is Ticking . . .
The Traditional Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice System Paradigm Is Ill Prepared to Fight this War On Terror
THE POWER AND POLITICS OF BLOGS - Blessed Be for the Internet and the Blogosphere
IRAN - MULLAHS ABOUT TO STONE 13 YEAR-OLD GIRL
All women should read the last one and take action and demand the MSM start covering this story.
If you read nothing else read the “FREEDOM, …” one. And for the WMD folks open your eyes and read the, “Iraq, . . .Islamic Nuke.”
And if you have any spare time how about helping us to fact check Gary Matsumoto’s new book, “Vaccine-A.”
Just go to our website and click into the forums section under the anthrax vaccine heading. The facts in this book suggest the anthrax vaccine is the causal factor in Gulf War Syndrome.
And if you continue to say, “So What only another grand conspiracy theory?”
The great danger here if true is factions in the DOD, the NIH, and the pharma industry have run amuck. The fox was left guarding the hen house.
Just read the once fabled NIH is now cross compromised by the pharma industry (See LA Times investigative report). They are playing with fire they truely don’t understand or worse yet they do, for their own personal glory and financial rewards in a race to find a cure for the “Golden Fleece” HIV/AIDS.
Need I mentioned the ones in the phrama industry are the same ones that squeezed the last drop of blood from the physician provider organizations and hospitals now have jumped into the pharma industry. Some are amoral just like ENRON and are gaming the system for their own self-interests.
Only problem is along the way they will cause the public to lose confidence in the vaccines that the world needs to prevent againt worldwide pandemics of scourges like smallpox.
For those I would recommend a reading the smallpox article and follow the link to the, “The Looming Threat,” which will scare the socks off of your feet.
Now I don’t put us on par with the NAZI physicians running experiments on the inhabitants of the death camps. But in their trials they did point fingers at one of us doing the samething - Dr. Alf Alving. Now conincidently his son, Dr. Charles Alving, is one of the two principal researchers in the DOD’s “Lil Shoppe of Horrors.”
Ron Wright, Moderator
HSIG Forums Site
http://www.hspig.org
Comment by Ron Wright — 01.15.05 @ 1:05 pm
LOL: “So the Detroit Democrat and a handful of other anti-Bush groups across the country are urging others of like mind to withhold their cash and labor on Inauguration Day — from all businesses. They don’t think they’ll inflict a huge economic pain, but they do want to make a point…”
More at the Detroit Free Press; http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw109880_20050111.htm
These Leftwing losers are idiots!!! What they don’t spend on 20 Jan, they will spend another day. Wonder how much the moonbat will spend to enact his campaign? In fact, if he wasn’t so keen on going to DC to “boycott” the inauguration, the cost of trip would still have been transferred to some other purchase. One way or another, he’s gonna give Uncle Sam his due.
If he really wanted to get outraged about something, why not call Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick on the carpet for taking out a 1-year lease on a luxury SUV for his wife to use to the tune of $24K with tax $$? Meanwhile, Detroit is going thru another round of belt-tightening with 10% wage reductions and layoffs.
Methinks some single mom with 2 kids struggling