Saturday, October 30, 2004
Hispanic Democratic group in Fla. rejects Kerry endorsement, citing moral issues
Oct 29, 2004
By Erin Curry via BPNews
MIAMI (BP)--The Democratic League of Miami-Dade County has announced it does not endorse John Kerry for president, mainly because he is part of the current party leadership that has rejected the moral values and ethical principles of the vast majority of Democrats across the country, according to league chairman Eladio Jose Armesto.
With more than 1,000 members and a reach that expands to 100,000 pro-life, pro-family Democrats in Miami, the Democratic League was chartered by the Miami-Dade Democratic Party in 1989 and is primarily led by Hispanic-American Democrats.
The league released a statement Oct. 27, saying the Democratic presidential candidate stands "at a polar extreme of American public opinion" on certain issues, including same-sex "marriage," partial-birth abortion and human cloning.
"Sen. Kerry's voting record and public statements reveal a candidate who has disqualified himself from receiving the endorsement of pro-faith, pro-freedom, pro-life, pro-family Democrats," the release said. "We believe the Democratic Party is rooted in the values of faith, freedom, family and country. If our party is to once again be a guiding light in America, it must do much, much better than extremists such as John Kerry and John Edwards."
The group listed 10 reasons why they cannot endorse Kerry for president, including:
-- Kerry's stance on the definition of marriage. The Democratic League "supports civil marriage and all its benefits as being reserved exclusively to one man and one woman." Kerry endorses homosexual civil unions, the league noted, and is against "protecting American taxpayers from being legally forced to extend government approval, financial benefits and moral legitimacy to sexual relationships other than civil marriage."
-- Kerry's failure to support the right to life. "He has adamantly voted against the right to life in the U.S. Senate and he has sought and accepted the highly dubious endorsement of every major anti-life and anti-family outfit operating in the United States," the statement said.
-- Kerry's attacks on the dignity of the human person. "He is against any and all ethical regulations stopping the National Institutes of Health from funding research on human dignity-degrading 'human cloning.'"
-- Kerry's support of embryonic stem cell research. "He has voted against banning embryo-destructive stem cell research, thereby placing an anti-life political ideology over ethical principles and the common good," the league said.
-- Kerry's failure to support the partial-birth abortion ban. The Democratic League "supports outlawing the barbaric crime of partial-birth abortion where a child is forced partially out of the mother's womb, then murdered by piercing the back of the skull."
Other reasons the Democratic League cited for opposing Kerry include his stances relating to parental notification laws for abortions, euthanasia, school vouchers, assisting families in developing Third World countries such as Mexico, and the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
"We don't check in our consciences, our moral values or our ethical principles at the party hall door," Armesto told Baptist Press. "We refuse to be censored, silenced or discriminated into submission to a political agenda that has been adopted against our consent and our better judgment. We will not read the current party leadership's script nor will we tow a party line which we may find objectionable or contrary to the best interests of the Democratic Party.
"Within the Democratic Party, the league demands respect for our pro-family, pro-life conscience," he added. "Only by tolerating and respecting Democrats such as ourselves will the current Democratic Party leadership be able to win elections and stand before the public and demonstrate that the party is the 'big tent' that they claim to be."
While the league rejects Kerry, who Armesto said "is not a real Democrat," it does not endorse President Bush.
"As a Democratic Party organization we can only endorse or support Democratic candidates," Sara P. Espinoza, a spokeswoman for the league, said in an e-mail to Baptist Press. "However, just because a candidate is a Democrat does not mean we are obligated, under party rules, to endorse or support them. We do not feel compelled to rubber-stamp party candidates because that would not be in the best interest of the party."
Thinking about Qualms....
Recently read something where people confuse prudential judgement about war with the call to always protect life.
Occasionally, there may be some wiggle room. But the real thing comes down to this:
Who are the most defenseless?
The unborn (and there is no prudential judgement involved in protecting them. We are obligated, if catholic to protect the unborn).
Who will die in greater numbers?
The unborn. One day's worth of abortion in this country is more than our forces have lost in the war - it averages about 4,000 lost children
, I read recently.
- One hundred days of abortion are more dead than even the most outrageous estimates of deaths on all sides in the war.
- One year of this is over three times the death of the war, and four years of it will be more than 12 times the death of the war.
Everything else is quibbling, excuses and refusal to see. Voting pro-choice is voting pro-death, and for a Catholic who is trying to live in the bounds of church teaching, voting pro-choice is to cooperate with evil.
Anything else is making a deal with the darkness.
Someone's been in the mushroom patch again....
Or perhaps needs to share a hospital room with Arafat.
Former CBSNEWS anchorman Walter Cronkite believes Bush adviser Karl Rove is possibly behind the new Bin Laden tape.
Cronkite made the startling comments late Friday during an interview on CNN.
Cronkite said he is "inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."
Interviewer Larry King did not ask Cronkite to elaborate on the provocative election eve accusation.
Does Walter live on the same planet I do? Since when is Rowe able to get Bin Laden to do anything? Or is Rove Darth Vader in the flesh?
Threats to the Bush Family?
Stories circulated today that the new OBL video was much less bipartisan than at first believed, and that unedited versions of the tape included threats against the Bush family and several Cabinet members. This morning Al Jazeera posted what it claimed was a complete transcript of the video which apart from looking too short to be 18 minutes also had nothing that was not already aired. One interesting side note -- the text of the translation was based on the subtitles in the original video. The transcript does not include the final few sentences in which bin Laden mentions John Kerry. Nor does bin Laden anywhere mention Iraq. He does apparently say that this is the fourth year of the war, but everything else he says deals with the causes of the conflict. Is this a new tape or not?
From the Corner
Be nice to be able to separate the rumour from the reality.....But I also wouldn't be surprised if it were true...
What is real vs. the Wannabee Kingmakers
I have just seen something truly heart wrenching.
This is what we have been fighting for and about.
This is what the evilness of man will do when unchecked.
Hey, Mainstream Media! Where were you to show us the heartbreak as they uncovered the thousands and thousands of dead buried in Saddam's Iraq?
You were too busy looking for something to play kingmaker with.
Go to Varifrank's site and see what the real evil is. I leave you with one picture to lead you there:
The pictures that follow aren't Hollywood, they are real. All too real I am afraid. And shame on us all for forgetting the cost they paid before we finally put a stop to it.
I want you to look. Take a deep,long look. These are not cartoons, or Speilbergian Special Effects. These are people. Fellow human beings every bit as deserving of our care as the haunting souls who walked out of the gates of Dachau.
While looking at each of the pictures that follow, for each of the bodies you see, say quietly to yourself, "father, mother, brother, sister, cousin, uncle, aunt". Repeat this process 300,000 times.
Welcome to the horror of Saddams Iraq.
Behold!, Dear reader and despair:
Same ol' same ol'
"We're Gonna Sue!"
By Jennifer King - The American Partisan
The Kerry campaign recently announced a new strategy. Michael Whouley, the DNC’s elections operations operative and a (wink, nudge) Kerry “confidant” has publicly stated that the Kerry campaign has assembled an army of 10,000 lawyers and at least six “SWAT Teams” of lawyers and politicos waiting by fully fueled jets on election eve. When notified of a battleground state battle, the Kerry patrols will swing into action, jetting off immediately to file litigation in order to facilitate a Kerry victory. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter has promised that the Kerry team will “hit the ground running” and she further vows that Kerry will not make the “mistakes” that Al Gore did in the 2000 election.
According to an AP article, Kerry’s campaign believes that Al Gore made several critical mistakes which allowed George W. Bush to “steal” the election. Gore conceded too early in Florida, according to staffers, and he never declared victory. Furthermore, Bush gained a crucial advantage when he started discussing the transition and his national security picks, making his Presidency appear assured.
Ah, where’s Doris Kearns Goodwin when you need her? Nothing like a spot of historical revisionism. Let us not forget how the 2000 debacle unfolded - first, the MSM - shilling as usual for the left-wing candidate - announced that Gore had swept Florida. This was an hour before the strongly Republican Panhandle polls closed, and it was in direct defiance of a request made by (Florida) Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Tom Brokaw was the first to announce Gore’s win at 7:49 pm, and the other networks quickly followed suit, even though 96 percent of the Florida vote remained uncounted. Lilewise, the polls in the Midwest and West wouldn’t close until later that evening. As the voting proceeded, a clear pattern was revealed. Shortly after the polls closed, if exit polling and initial results looked promising for Gore, the victory was instantly called. If the state was trending Bush, the networks said nothing. The networks triumphantly announced important Gore wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania (making, with Florida, the crucial “trifecta”) within three minutes, while remaining curiously silent on Bush’s victories in Tennessee (Gore’s home state) and Arkansas. While Rather, Brokaw and Jennings yucked it up over the impending Gore victory, a third of all registered voters in the Midwest and Western states had yet to vote. Disheartened voters got out of line and went home, further dampening Republican numbers.
During all this backslapping, the networks neglected to mention a critical development - the slow inexorable turn for Bush in Florida. As early as 8:45 pm, the Associated Press showed Bush ahead by 30,000 votes. By 9:45, Bush was leading by 130,000 votes. The networks completely ignored this turn of events, reliably still adding states to the Gore column while withholding states that Bush had won handily. Florida was not removed from the Gore column until 10:00 pm. Even though Bush was now leading by 150,000 votes, Florida was pronounced “too close to call” by the network chieftains and remained in official limbo. This charade continued for another four hours, while Bush remained heartily in the lead. Finally, at 2:16 am, the networks declared Bush the winner. Vice-President Gore phoned George W. Bush at 2:30 am in order to offer his concession. Meanwhile, the votes continued to pour in for both candidates, and by 3:11 am Bush’s lead in Florida had dropped to a mere 6,000 votes, enough to trigger an automatic recount. At 3:30 am, Gore called Bush to retract his concession. The MSM, with their slanted bias toward Gore and inaccurate reporting, disheartened Republican voters in the Florida Panhandle, the Midwest and the West. Who knows how many millions of votes they may have cost Bush. It also gave Gore a crucial advantage, allowing his winning of the popular vote. Democrat operatives quickly leaped upon this fact, arguing for the abolition of the Electoral College because the “guy with the most votes should win.” The next phase of the strategy was hurriedly implemented. At 6:00 pm on Tuesday, TeleQuest, a telemarketing firm was hired to call Palm Beach County Democrats in order to postulate that they may have been confused by the so-called “butterfly ballot” and may have voted for Patrick Buchanan instead of Al Gore. 5,000 voters were called and several hundred complained to the elections board. Jesse Jackson and the usual suspects immediately jetted down to Palm Beach County in order to protest - with preprinted yellow signs obligingly made up by the AFL/CIO. As the chad counting continued however, something completely novel and unexpected occurred. Republicans actually - for once - fought back.
What Makes a Dead Heat?
Fox/OD Bush 50 - Kerry 45
Gallup Poll Bush 51 - Kerry 46
Battleground Bush 51 - Kerry 46
ABC/WaPost Bush 50 - Kerry 47
Rasmussen Bush 50 - Kerry 48
Newsweek Bush 50 - Kerry 44
What's this about a "dead heat" ???
Korla Pundit wants to share the season with us with her
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Check them out!
You decide: who is REALLY scary? Face it: the so-called "Famous Monsters of Filmland" may have scared us as children, but they were mostly misunderstood creatures who weren't malicious or intentionally monstrous. Now, however, we are forced to confront real-life monsters who will truly make it difficult to get to sleep this Halloween (being so close to Election Day and all)
Wish I had said that...
I find it utterly hilarious that Osama of all people talks about the oppression of freedom and tyranny, having enamored himself with the Taliban for so many years. They were soooooo tolerant of other religions and cultures; I guess that's why all those ancient Buddhist statues were toppled, women were forced to wear burkas and forbidden to go to school, and elections? Forget about them.
-------------The Smarter Cop
Terrorists For Kerry
Patriot Edition via Free Republic
Bin Laden Influencing Election... But in who's favor?
That liberal media...
It's so easy to surf the web and find headlines such as this one:
Bin Laden Tape Seen by World as Attempt to Influence U.S. Election
The hard part is, putting together the specifics. It's sort of like the writers don't want to just come out and say who Bin laden is rooting for, so they reveal the story in codes, kind of.
Here are some quotes from various news stories:
- Montasser el-Zayat, a Cairo-based lawyer who defends Islamic radicals, said the video amounted to an "unprecedented attack on Bush at a very critical time, before the U.S. elections."
- Staunch U.S. ally Australia responded to a new videotaped message from Osama bin Laden by underlining its resolve to "confront and defeat" terrorism, and international experts said the message was a clear attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election.
- “It’s a very crude but sinister attempt to try to influence the presidential election,” said Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland.
- Fugitive al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden emerged yesterday with a dramatic pre-election appeal to Americans, coupled with a stark warning that they face more attacks like that of Sept 11, 2001, unless their leaders stop waging war against the world's Muslims.
I mean, it's amazing... Every single article tells of how Osama is trying to influence the vote, yet, it fails to just come out and tell us the truth.
OSAMA BIN LADEN WANTS KERRY TO WIN.
Just face the music, guys, Osama bin laden is on the same side of the issue with you democrats who hate Bush. Osama bin laden and John Kerry both have very similar resentments towards our President.
Osama wants to influence the election, yes, indeed. These words are true. Now, why not tell us who Osama would like to see win the election? Read all the articles yourselves. It's clear that Osama is threatening more violence against us so as long as our policies on terror stay the same. Osama wants Bush to lose.
Code it all you want. The answer is obvious.
Friday, October 29, 2004
What Will Our Answer Be?
Wretchard at the Belmont Club
does a nice succinct analysis of Bin Ladin's latest tape:
It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
We are at a crossroads here people. When your enemy is asking for breathers, you are in a situation where you are winning. When you appease at this point you normally are asking to have more problems later. This is one of the main questions we face at the polls this time. What will our answer be to him? Wretchard suggests:
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.
Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.
not stirred on shaken on this issue, has some fine comments about Bin Ladan and his POV....and American Patience:
His talk of freedom is spurious nonsense which is clearly aimed at us, as quite different language is used towards his followers. One could try to follow the logic of the statement, but what would be the point? Two things stand out: he takes credit for 9/11 for the first time which one wonders what those who still think the whole thing was a CIA-Mossad plot will do now that their tin-foil hats are spinning round their collective brow, and he also said his patience had run out.
Wow, we exhausted Osama bin Laden’s patience. Apparently over the Palestinians and Lebanon for which you should read our support for Israel.
Well newsflash Jihad-boy - you don’t know what patience is. You don’t know the patience of a people who endured its embassy to be seized, its marines blown up, its elderly shot and thrown overboard, its planes hijacked, its terroritory attacked, its soldiers dragged through the streets, its embassies blown up, its ships blown up. But you started this fight weak horse, and whether it’s Kerry or Bush next week, the American people will finish it.
Oh, and as for freedom, just ask the Afghans and the Iraqis. They are free because of the war you started. But not because you were on their side
The reality is is that America is a country that was taught about how to deal with implacable enemies before we were a nation...and we have never forgotten those lessons. You want to make the Americans draw together and kick butt? Do something to bring in those old instincts. We will forget about the negotiating table and revert back to the ways of Wetzel and Mansker and Boone and Zane and all those others who knew how to thrive even while under threat. And we didn't do it by appeasement. Those who tried it died.
Wish I had said that!
Daly puts it perfectly, speaking about the Bin Ladin tape:
I look at it as very good news for America.
Al Qaeda wanted to influence the Spanish elections, and did so by bombing and mass murder.
Now they want to influence our elections. They did so by releasing a tape.
They would have hit us if they could.
From Daly Thoughts
Culture of life
President George W. Bush has often urged Americans to embrace a "culture of life." In the future, this heartfelt call may well be viewed as the hallmark of the Bush presidency — even though George W. Bush has also led this country during a time of war. Many Americans may not fully appreciate how central the president's culture-of-life values are to his policies in the war on terror, both in Afghanistan and Iraq — but I have no doubt.
Today, like most Americans, I take for granted living in a democratic society where the individual is valued, and no one — including the government — is above the law. But I also know how unique and precious such societies are. I grew up in the Soviet Union, where the individual's interests were always subordinated to the whims of the state, and where the government was the law. Even so, my parents and grandparents endured much worse. They lived in Stalin's Russia, and they knew real fear — not just occasionally, but every day — fear of the state and its agents. Indeed, many people during that era did not sleep well at night, waiting for the knock at the door, announcing that the security police had come to pick them up and cart them off to the Gulag, or be shot.
Before America and its allies toppled Saddam Hussein, this was also the world in which all of Iraq lived. Only one life mattered in that tortured country, and that was the life of Saddam Hussein — a man who modeled his regime on Stalin's. The entire apparatus of Iraqi government was organized and operated to ensure Saddam's continued rule. His opponents, real and imagined, were killed or driven into exile. The Iraqi army was trained and deployed to defend Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people. Indeed, he used that army, and its chemical weapons, against them. The chemical-, biological-, and nuclear-weapons programs, which brought international sanctions and ultimately war on Iraq, were Saddam's programs, designed to serve his purpose of self-aggrandizement.
In finally deciding to depose Saddam Hussein by force, President Bush did not "rush to war," as Senator Kerry claims. Rather, he made a reasoned and cautious assessment of the situation in Iraq where, after more than ten years of sanctions, Saddam Hussein continued to rule more absolutely than any of the Caesars. He also made a reasoned assessment of the danger this man posed to the United States. That danger was real. While Senator Kerry has tried to spin a recent — and subsequently discredited — New York Times story about a few tons of high explosives that U.S. troops allegedly failed to secure, he does not seem to be troubled by the fact that Saddam's regime had stockpiled hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions and ordnance, which he could freely share with numerous terrorist organizations. (Saddam's Iraq also had a long history of supporting various terrorist groups.) Since the preferred mode of operations by such terrorist organizations is to attack innocent civilians, allowing Saddam to remain in power posed a grave and continuing threat to the United States and our friends and allies.
At the most fundamental level, Saddam hated America because America stood between him and his dreams of dominating the Middle East as a new Saladin — the medieval leader who had briefly united the Arab world against the Crusaders. As he had proven over and again, anyone who got in Saddam's way — man, woman, or child — was a legitimate target. Indeed, Saddam's regime was the first government in history to institutionalize rape as an instrument of political control. President Bush decided not to wait for the blow — and someday a peaceful, free, and democratic Iraq will thank us for it.
Source: National Review
U.S. Team Took 250 Tons of Iraqi Munitions
WASHINGTON — A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.
Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for.
The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.
"We've described what we know, and as we know more we'll describe that," said DiRita. From Fox News
Captain's Quarters is running a story about IAEA seals...
IAEA Seals In ABC Report Don't Match Missing Explosives
Alert CQ reader Boaz B. noticed a detail in the ABC video that apparently has escaped the notice of their reporters and editors. According to the shot shown here, the IAEA seal on the cache found by the soldiers and filmed by the embedded crew did not match the inventory for HMX and RDX stored at Al Qaqaa
He also has found these are the sequence numbers that the explosive had on their seals:
None of these numbers are even close in sequence to the number shown in the ABC report.
Go read the rest!
Economic Good Stuff
Blogs for Bush notices:
GDP = 3.7%; What Was Bill Clinton's at Same Point in '96? 3.4%
Robust growth in the economy continues despite media spin, Wall Street estimates, and John Kerry talking down anything that is good in America today. And don't forget that for the last few months ALL revisons to reported numbers have been substantial improvements in economic performance.
Wall Street seems to initailly agree as markets are up as of 10:08am (and that is far more telling than any "futures" speculation -- Maybe we can get Hillary to give us some tips on the futures markets! lol)
Photos Point to the Removal of Weapons
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
From the Nation/Politics section
U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday.
The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, "documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border."
The official said the convoys are believed to include shipments of sensitive armaments, including equipment used in making plastic explosives and nuclear weapons.
About 380 tons of RDX and HMX, used in making such arms, were reported missing from the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility, though the Pentagon and an embedded NBC News correspondent said the facility appeared to have been emptied by the time U.S. forces got there.
The photographs bolster the claims of Pentagon official John A. Shaw, who told The Washington Times on Wednesday that recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq.
Thomas Sowell on the media in this election:
As if to prove that the Dan Rather forged document scandal was not just an isolated incident, CBS News was ready to run another bogus story against President Bush on "60 Minutes" -- right before the election -- until an old NBC report surfaced, showing that the great amounts of high explosives supposedly "missing" from an ammunition dump in Iraq were not there when American troops arrived on the scene more than a year ago.
Hundred of tons of these high explosives were known to have been at that ammunition dump before the war started but an NBC reporter who was with the American troops when they arrived at the dump in April 2003 saw no sign of them then. Since it was known in the spring of 2003 that these high explosives were not at that ammunition dump, why was it suddenly front page news in the New York Times on the eve of an election?
Much of the rest of the media joined in publicizing what has turned out to be a bogus story. John Kerry seized on this story and began loudly denouncing President Bush on TV for not adequately guarding high explosives that we never had.
How much can we trust anything reported by a biased media with its own political axes to grind? Thank heaven there are some alternative sources of news, such as talk radio, Fox News and the Internet.
Evan Thomas of Newsweek has estimated that media bias may add as much as 15 points to Kerry's vote. If so, Senator Kerry wouldn't even be in this race without the media's own spinning of news, even when that means using forged documents and old stale stories whose falsity was known more than a year ago.
Life, Abortion and Viewpoints
By Paul Kengor
It is the quiet issue of the 2004 presidential election, but it remains etched in the minds of liberals and conservatives, of the most devout secularist and most pious believer: abortion. It is especially salient in Pennsylvania, a battleground state that may have more pro-life Democrats than any other state.
Among the left, a John F. Kerry victory would be viewed as not just a win for Democrats but a huge victory for legalized abortion, just as a Bush re-election would be a continuing triumph for forces allied against legalized abortion. Consider what President Bush has done to slow abortion's long march: Before his inauguration in 2001, Bush spoke privately with Colin Powell. He told the pro-choice Powell that as secretary ofstate he would be expected to purge any vestiges of the Clinton State Department's program to promote global abortion rights. Powell agreed to follow Bush's lead.
On his first day in office, Bush authorized a ban on all U.S. funding of international abortion rights groups, reversing President Clinton's executive order. He appointed pro-lifers to key Cabinet posts, such as John Ashcroft as attorney general and Tommy Thompson as secretary of health and human services.
In August 2002, he signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which provides for the protection of a child who survives an abortion. Now, that child must be protected rather than destroyed by a doctor or nurse, regardless of whether his or her birth was desired. For decades, infants who survived abortions were left to die.
In January 2003, Bush signed the "Sanctity of Life" bill. Especially significant, he did not veto the Republican Senate's March 2003 ban on partial-birth abortion, which President Clinton had repeatedly blocked. For the two years prior to that ban, the Bush Justice Department had lent support to local efforts to prohibit partial-birth abortion at the state level. Eventually, in November 2003, he signed the partial-birth abortion ban passed by Congress.
It was telling when a few months later at the Solemn Mass for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. -- the largest Catholic chapel in the United States -- a packed throng of anguished Catholic faithful, kneeling in prayer after taking holy communion, listened intently while the presiding bishop closed the mass with a surprise message from the Protestant president. When the Bush letter acknowledged the ban on partial-birth abortion, the solemnity was interrupted with a burst of applause. The most recent polls show that pro-life Catholics will vote overwhelmingly against the Catholic Kerry and for the Protestant Bush.
Indeed, a telling difference between Kerry and Bush is how their faith relates to their positions on abortion. Bush believes that a life in the womb is a gift from God that should be protected. Kerry's position is more complicated. In the final presidential debate on Oct. 13, he said, "My faith affects everything I do, in truth. ... And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people." He explained that this credo explains "why I fight against poverty," "why I fight to clean up the environment," and "why I fight for equality and justice," all of which he as a legislator transfers in an official way to other people. The only area where Kerry seems to not allow his faith to influence his public life is abortion.
A President John F. Kerry would shape the direction of the court, starting with the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the courts with pro-choice appointments, and rejecting pro-life judges. Kerry would be the most staunchly pro-choice president ever. At the 2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, where he described pro-lifers as "the forces of intolerance," Kerry boasted that his maiden speech as a freshman senator had been in support of Roe vs. Wade. On Aug. 2, 1994, on the Senate floor, he stated: "The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure.... [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice."
In April 2004, Kerry took a rare timeout from the presidential campaign to appear on the Senate floor to vote against a bill that would make it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on the mother. Kerry also joined a Senate minority in voting against a ban on partial-birth abortion.
The pro-life constituency that would be most crushed by a Kerry victory is Catholics. No other group has so doggedly led the fight to halt abortion, and a potential Catholic president stands poised to undermine that progress. What Pope John Paul II has described as the "culture of life" could be hindered by no less than a practicing Catholic in the Oval Office.
Pennsylvania is a kind of poster child for the pro-life Democrat, for the Bob Casey Democrat. For each one of those, there is an adamantly pro-choice Democrat in Philadelphia or on the campus of University of Pittsburgh or University of Pennsylvania. And make no mistake: Both sides know what is at stake on Tuesday.
This is what we are fighting against
Appeasement and paying off kidnappers just gets more people kidnapped!
source: Ireland Online
Kidnappers holding a seven-year-old Lebanese boy have threatened to behead him if they do not receive £38,000 (€54,592) by Saturday, his father said today.
“We’re a poor family and I love Iraq,” said Abdel-Ghani Hamad. “I’m now selling the stuff in my house just to get by.”
Earlier this month, gunmen abducted his son Mohammed on his way home from school in Diyala province, east of the Iraqi capital, and initially demanded £82,000 (€117,833) for his release, the father said.
Lebanese Foreign Ministry officials have said its embassy in Baghdad was working with Iraqis to secure the boy’s release.
The father said the kidnappers also asked him to sell his belongings and leave Iraq. He refused to say how he learned of their demands, fearing for his son’s life.
He said Mohammed was a smart boy, who loved chess and computers.
The senior Hamad said he has been living in Iraq for 32 years. He owns an orchard and raises chicken, he said, adding his business wasn’t doing well. “I ask the kind people to call on the kidnappers to release my son,” Hamad said.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Why The Internet Arose to the News Challenge
In an interview last week
Tom Brokaw said CBS News had clearly made mistakes. But, he said, "I think there were people just lying in the Internet bushes, waiting to strike, and I think that particular episode gave them a big opportunity
But Mr. Brocaw,
IF your fellow journalists were doing what journalistic ethics said to do, which is to present the news fair and unbiased, and not to be so obviously pro or against things to the point where people doctor evidence to prove their point, then there wouldn't be people lying in wait.
I spent the Gulf War as immersed in the news as was possible in those days. That meant evenings with CNN and daytime with news radio and Newsweek and Time and whatever else I could scrape up.
Now, this time, during the Iraq war, there has been such a growth of news sources and availabilty and the internet that news services can't play the old games that they used to control us any more.
I raged when I heard that CNN had tolerated torture they knew about to keep a bureau open in Iraq, and then pretended that all was ok. My heart was broken when I saw the flagrant bias in the BBC coverage.
Then the election cycle came around, and CBS's games played with doctored evidence was the last straw, and I began to be a political blogger.
We have come to find out that the news services we trusted were manned by people out of touch with the reality we live. After all, we live in "flyover country" and don't really have the saavy that people like the newsies think they have.
We have come to find that the news services that thought they were crusading for the right, forgot one of the basics: that the means cannot justify the ends, for in doing so, you are changed and become part of the problem you were fighting against.
The line between editorializing and news became so blurred that we cannot know which is happening.
The major news outlets began to act like PACs for the candidate of their choice.
Is it no wonder we began finding, and in fact creating a network of alternative news sources. With the whole internet at our fingertips, and a distributed network of sources, researchers, writers, we can work around you, Mr. Brocaw. Your bottleneck has broken. The information dam you and your fellows created has crumbled, and the way people learn and decide will never be the same again.
Tommy Franks on Bush and Kerry
Well, what a treat it is to be in northern Ohio. (Applause.) Indeed, it's an honor to be standing here today with you. You know, I'm not a politician, but I know what a Commander-in-Chief looks like, and there's only one on this ballot -- that's George Bush. (Applause.)
You know, I would guess by the enthusiasm that I see represented here today that victory is headed our way in just about five days. (Applause.) If you think about character, if you think about courage, if you think about consistency, if you think about honesty, you think about George W. Bush. (Applause.) If you talk about a leader who knows something about the global war on terrorism, it would be George W. Bush, and he knows it's global. (Applause.)
You're talking about a leader who knows that terrorism has been more than a nuisance for more than two decades. (Applause.) You're talking about a leader who does not want to roll back terrorism to the times of Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in the mid-1990s, East Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in the year 2000, and doesn't want to roll it back to 9/11/01. Terrorism is not a nuisance. (Applause.)
George W. Bush is a leader who knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and to the United States of America, and removed him from power. (Applause.) George W. Bush is a leader who knows that our troops, as of right now, have cleared 10,000 ammunition and weapons sites in Iraq. He knows that they have destroyed 240,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. He knows that they have under control -- (applause) -- he knows that they have under control another 162,000 tons of munitions in Iraq. We're talking about George W. Bush who knows, who understands that we do not yet have all the facts about 380 tons of munitions in Iraq. And he is a President who will look at you and say, we don't yet have the facts, but we will get the facts. George W. Bush. (Applause.)
In George W. Bush, you're talking about a leader who does not step out every day of his life and make more wild accusations. You're talking about a leader who actually cares about our troops, about their families, and about our veterans. You're talking about a leader who actually respects all those who serve our country with dignity and with honor. You're talking about George W. Bush. (Applause.)
The past three years have been hard years for America. The past three years have been a tough time for our country. I've looked into the eyes of our President, my Commander-in-Chief, and I have seen that character, that courage, that consistency that I just described. It's the courage that it takes to win a war, not tie one. And we have to win the war against terrorism in this country. (Applause.)
Now, I'll tell you, I don't know Senator Kerry's plan for victory. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is, but I do know -- but I do know that his criticism of military conduct of our global war on terrorism denigrates, disrespects our troops. (Applause.) And, ladies and gentlemen, I also know that he cannot lead troops to victory in a war when he has made it perfectly clear that he does not support the cause. (Applause.)
America at a crossroads
by Matthew Manweller via Free Republic
This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.
First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.
Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.
It is said that America's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America" as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."
Politicians To America: Shut-up
Via News Central
Two hundred and thirteen years ago, a brand new America ratified the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These amendments guaranteed certain rights to the people.
The very first amendment included the free speech clause, protecting us from government censorship or worse. Until the First Amendment was written, people usually ended up dead or in prison for criticizing their government anywhere else at the time.
Now, a controversy has put supporters of censorship of political speech firmly in the spotlight. Based on a flawed article by Elizabeth Jensen of the Los Angeles Times where the motto ought to be "we'd rather get it first than get it right" dozens of Senators and Congressmen made a transparent threat. Run a 60-minute news program that we have neither seen nor have any knowledge of and we'll seek revenge. Their goal? That 13 Vietnam veterans including two Medal of Honor winners - who collectively suffered nearly 84 years of horrific abuse and unspeakable torture, who ended 31 years of self-imposed silence and who - more than anyone else have earned the right to speak out on their Vietnam experience should be silenced.
That's right. They want to silence those who suffered more than any other living veterans because they are afraid of what these brave men have to say. You have to ask yourself? Why did the John Kerry campaign pull out all of the stops, enlist his supporters at the Washington Post, the New York Times, the major broadcast networks and elsewhere to silence men for whom the U.S. owes a huge unpaid debt? Their initial statements implying that these men are liars back-fired. Imagine that, challenging 60 and 70-year old tortured Vietnam POWs. I suppose the Angry Left thinks the POWs had a picnic at the beach.
But let's get back to these censorship advocates in Congress. Their view is simple: say what I want you to say or I will silence you. It should send shivers up your spine.
Click here to see the most recent list of those advocating censorship of media stories with which they disagree. They won't stop as long as they're in political office. The election is next Tuesday.
And that's the Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
Making Jihad Video
Gretchen Peters with the CSM
The tape, delivered to ABC in Islamabad last Sunday by a courier who was paid a $500 transport fee, contains a lengthy Q&A session between "Mr. Amriki" and an off-camera interviewer. It ends with his warning, which cuts off abruptly when the tape runs out.
Analysts at Pakistan's spy agency, the ISI, say the tape is genuine, explaining the material bears the same "signature" as previous As-Sahab video releases, which are unique in the world of jihadi video for their sophisticated editing techniques.
It features the same gold logo that appeared, among other places, in a 2003 statement from Mr. bin Laden.
There's also simultaneous Arabic subtitling - a complicated and time consuming process to put together - and a scrolling message across the bottom of the screen (similar to the news tickers on CNN and Fox) that was featured on a recent statement from al-Zawahiri.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, as-Sahab has consistently pushed the frontiers of jihad media, publishing everything from "Nineteen Martyrs" (the story of the 9/11 hijackers) to live action terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia captured on video, says terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann, who saw a portion of the material. "For someone to put that amount of advanced effort into fabricating an as-Sahab video sounds a little far-fetched," he says.
Ahmad Muffaq Zaidan, Pakistan's bureau chief for the Arab-language network Al Jazeera and the recipient of past As-Sahab material here, also rated the material genuine. "We have seen this style before - the translation, the logo, the scroll," he says.
The US intelligence official agrees that "there's a production value" to the tape.
"The tape itself was edited and portions were spliced together," he says. "It probably was worked on for a period of time - probably done fairly recently, as recently as late summer."
The tape's speaker references the conflict in Darfur, the 9/11 commission, Massachusetts same sex legislation, and the upcoming US presidential election.
Nevertheless, it's become easier and cheaper to produce a relatively sophisticated video. With about $3,500, one can purchase a small digital video camera and a laptop with video editing software, and create output, which as Kohlmann puts it, is worthy of "a half-decent Hollywood studio."
"Terrorist wannabes [have] manufactured an encyclopedia full of fraudulent threats and communiques on the Internet," says Kohlmann. "It is now getting easy enough that similar wannabes can produce their own jihad videos too."
Al Amriki issues several bursts of Arabic, mainly from the Koran, speaking the language well, but not as a native, say Arabic speakers who've heard the tape. And he's clearly a sophisticated news consumer - quoting sources ranging from BBC's Arabic language radio to US comedian Bill Maher.
His rhetoric - both in English and Arabic - closely mirrors past statements by Al Qaeda: calling US leaders crusaders and weaving a picture of America as a corrupt empire about to expire.
The courier who delivered the tape would reveal nothing about Al Amriki's identity, saying only that he received the material last Friday in Peshawar. He insisted it had been filmed in Pakistan's tribal belt, where militants are battling the Pakistani military.
ISI analysts believe dozens of US and European passport holders of Muslim descent have joined jihadi groups there, and say this man is probably one of them. Others believe he may be a new John Walker Lindh, the California native caught fighting with the Taliban in 2001.
US law enforcement agents have suggested it could be Adam Yahiye Gadahn, an Orange County native, suspected by the FBI to be working with Al Qaeda, possibly as a translator. Mr. Gadahn, who was born Adam Pearlman, also goes by the nom de guerre Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki.
"In the realm of psychological warfare, which is calculated to ratchet up the fear level, if it is a sworn enemy making those threats it's one thing, if it's someone speaking our language, living among us, it does heighten the sense of fear," says Mr. Hoffman of RAND. "That's what terrorism tries to do - raise the level of fear."
An Open Letter to the American People
ago, on the day that began as a beautiful September morning, 19 men and their sponsors carried out a brutal and devastating attack on our country, leaving 3,000 innocent men, women and children dead, including our loved ones. In those first agonizing hours, and for weeks and months afterward as we searched for word of their fate, we were aware that the shock and horror of that day was not ours alone. With a gratitude we could not yet express, we felt the strong and steady embrace of our fellow Americans. The words, “Never forget,” defiantly written in dust or humbly penned on makeshift memorials, were also permanently etched in our hearts. We will never forget your strength, your courage and your endless generosity.
We speak to you now in the same spirit that you spoke to us then, as Americans, united on behalf of our country. Like many of you, we feel that our nation is poised at a critical moment in history. Like our parents and grandparents before us, we know that the choices we make today will affect our children tomorrow. But we face a new challenge, a new kind of war and an enemy who is different from the enemies faced by earlier generations. This is not an adversary who can be reasoned with or appeased, this is an adversary who has repeatedly demonstrated that its means and ends are one and the same: the wanton slaughter of innocents.
After the attack, President Bush articulated the primary lesson of September 11, that simply reacting to danger after lives are lost is a weak and unacceptable national defense. He believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to ensure that the enemy will not bring death to our doorstep here at home.
Under the President‘s strong leadership in the war on terror and through the heroic efforts of our military forces, we are a safer country today. Two-thirds of al Qaeda leadership is dead, incarcerated, or on the run, its financing disrupted. The Taliban has been removed from power and training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq have been eliminated. On the domestic front, our dedicated law enforcement agencies are finally able to fight terror the same way they go after drug cartels; terrorists and terrorist cells have been thwarted in upstate New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Florida.
The 9/11 Commission has provided this nation with a solid blueprint for going forward in the war on terror. It described the threat that killed our loved ones as a “gathering storm” which went unrecognized and unchecked for too many years and characterized the inability to predict the attack itself as a “failure of imagination.” Looking forward, the Commission offered this pointed warning, “Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier--but it then may be too late.”
Through the prism of 9/11 and presaging the Commission’s conclusion, President Bush looked at Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s history, his willingness to use chemical weapons in the mass murder of his own citizens, his notorious attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, his record of giving financial aid and sanctuary to global terrorists--including members of al Qaeda--and his repeated refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. He determined that this repressive regime was an intolerable danger to our country. Rather than waiting until it was too late to prevent a fully materialized threat, the President acted. We believe history will support the President’s decision.
We speak to you from the heart, as citizens from all across the country and every political stripe. We are Republicans and Democrats, “liberals” and “conservatives,” young and old. We are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and friends. We speak out from a profound sense of obligation to those we have lost and to the country that we love. Guided by core principles, President Bush has steadfastly told us who he is, what he believes and what he will fight for. He is a caring and decisive leader who is not afraid to make hard choices to keep this nation safe, by keeping it strong. He has sent a clear message to America’s friends and foes that he will not waver in his resolve as the winds of political fortune change. He will not revert to the failed policies of the past which only served to whet the appetite of those who would destroy us. He will stand firm against our adversaries.
As Americans who have keenly felt the scourge of terrorism, we are inspired and energized to follow the President’s lead, to rise to the occasion and get the job done. We are deeply grateful to President Bush, who rallied this nation on that dark September day, who has earned our respect and confidence, and whose leadership we trust to steer this country on the right path.
Three years ago, George W. Bush stood with us and vowed that he would “Never forget.”
We stand with him now
ABC WITHHELD PORTIONS FROM CIA
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 28, 2004 17:02:35 ET XXXXX
TERROR TAPE WARN OF BUSH, CHENEY CONSEQUENCE; ABC WITHHELD PORTIONS FROM CIA
ABCNEWS withheld portions of an alarming new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11 from the CIA when they submitted the video for analysis, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated the tape, federal sources tell DRUDGE. ABCNEWS has been informed of the government's standing.
"What took place on September 11 was but the opening salvo of the global war on America and that our Lord willing, the magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11," the man, whose face is covered by a headdress, warns in the video. "After decades of American tyranny, now it's your turn to die."
ABCNEWS submitted portions of the video threat to the FBI and CIA on Monday for analysis, top government sources tell DRUDGE, after obtaining the tape from a source in Pakistan.
A top goverment source said from Washington that ABC withheld the final 15 minutes of the tape from the CIA -- the portion of the tape where the man warns of retribution for Americans electing Bush and Cheney.
"You are guilty, guilty, guilty. You're as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You're as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell...," the man states.
He goes on to warn of an upcoming horror: "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead.
One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance" before airing any story on the video.
"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained.
reports on the Kerry trips to Paris and how the media wants to make them seem less than they are:
The charges that Kerry traveled to Paris to commiserate with the Communists first surfaced in the Swift Boat Veteran's television ad campaign. The Swiftees said that Kerry traveled to Paris to "secretly" meet with the enemy. The New York Times and the Washington Post quickly jumped to Kerry's defense ... saying that he informed the congress immediately of his visit. Later these newspapers found out that Kerry's visit was in 1970, not '71, and that he didn't tell the congress until almost a year later. That makes the meeting a secret indeed.
Funny how a person who did something as anti-American as meeting with the enemy while still in the military and who consistantly has a track record of belittling, underfinancing, and dissing the same military should be running to be the military's commander in chief.
The media also reported that Kerry was actually on his vacation in Paris at the time, so the trip was not made for the explicit purpose of meeting with the communists. That turns out to be false also. His honeymoon was in the Caribbean. It seems that he did, indeed, travel to Paris just to meet with communists ... to meet with the communists negotiating with the United States for a settlement to the Vietnam war.
Wait! There's more! There was another Kerry trip to meet with the communists, this one in 1971! And according to Joshua Muravchik in The Weekly Standard, a third trip was planned.
Perhaps you've heard somewhere along the way that when Kerry went to Parris he actually met with both sides, not just the communists. That would certainly put him in better light, wouldn't it? You probably got that from The New York Times.
The Times was quite upset that the Swiftees said that Kerry had gone to Paris to meet with the enemy. Not so, said the Times. Kerry actually testified that he met with "both sides." Well .. the Times then found out that by "both sides" Kerry meant that he had visited with both communist delegations to the peace talks. In fact, "both delegations" was the phrase Kerry used in describing his visit. The next week the Times ran a small correction saying that it had "misidentified" the parties Kerry went to visit.
America was at war. We were at war against the communist enemy in Vietnam. Tens of thousands of Americans soldiers were dying. John Kerry, while still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy, makes several trips abroad to visit with the enemy. That's right, the enemy. He waits almost a year before he bothers to inform the congress of his visit. He then makes a second trip, and is planning a third that was cancelled. The media is giving him a pass. They're giving him a pass because they know that if Kerry's actions are highlighted for the voters it would cost him votes.
Statement From RNC Senior Advisor on Civil Rights Groups False Allegations
Contact: Press Office
Washington, DC-RNC Senior Advisor Robert Traynham made the following statement today:
“Under President Bush’s leadership and with the assistance of the RNC, we are proud of our historic effort in registering 3.4 million new voters in diverse areas such as Philadelphia, Miami, Cleveland and in rural areas all across the United States.
“Today we are seeing these left leaning groups follow the instructions on page 51 of the 66 page Kerry-Edwards/DNC voting manual which instructs Democrat operatives to allege intimidation when none exists.
“This press conference today comes to no surprise as these left leaning groups follow the detailed instructions of their minority intimidation playbook to launch ‘pre-emptive strikes’ and to spread falsehoods even when the facts tell a different story.”
Results of PC Thinking
from Asia News:
....Today’s Europe, that preaches its tolerance and openness to dialogue and input, has shown itself to be profoundly intolerant towards a minister who was appointed to the European Commission. For what reason? Because he is Catholic and his ideas on marriage and homosexuality do not coincide with the "political correctness" that is so much in vogue these days. Minister Rocco Buttiglione's clarifications on the difference between personal "Morality" and obedience to the "Laws" of the European Union were made in vain. For all intents and purposes, he has been outcast for his "Catholic morality".
The manipulative and deceitful media campaign conducted against Minister Buttiglione was just the latest in a series of incidents. The European Union's intolerance toward the Christian vision has been expressed in many other ways: birth control campaigns in Asia, Africa and South America involving Northern European politicians who propound abortion, contraception and lessons against John Paul II, singling him out as the "enemy" of the peoples in question; attempts at labelling as "anti-feminist racism" Cardinal Ratzinger’s document on the collaboration between men and women; the censuring of the monks of Mount Athos because they do not allow women to visit their monastery; the proposal to outlaw veils worn by nuns in Germany, the iconoclastic and pacifist fury of Zapatero in Spain.
All such attitudes of intolerance and delusions of limitless power are but the latest results in a plan to rip Europe from its Christian roots. And since, in point of fact, Christianity also provided Europe with a synthesis of values deriving from Judaism and Greco-Roman culture, this attempt to suffocate these roots amounts to simply wiping out Europe’s history and identity.
Wish I Had Said This
The list of those whose world could be truly rocked on Tuesday is just too long and too rich to be ignored. If you think for a moment about those who would really be upset by a second Bush term, it becomes a lot easier to stomach.
The hordes of the bien-pensant Left in the universities and the media, the sort of liberals who tolerate everything except those who disagree with them. Secularist elites who disdain religiosity except when it comes from Muslim fanatics. Europhile Brits who drip contempt for everything their country has ever done and long for its disappearance into a Greater Europe.Absurd, isolationist conservatives in America and Britain who think the struggles for freedom are always someone else’s fight. Hollywood sybarites and narcissists, self-appointed arbiters of a nation’s morals.
Soft-headed Europeans who think engagement and dialogue with mass murderers is the way to achieve lasting peace. French intellectuals for whom nothing has gone right in the world since 1789.
by Gerald Baker, Times Online
Hat tip to Alamo Nation
On Being Catholic and Pro-Life
Pardon My English
gives us one of the best short summaries on this that I have seen:
In the worldview of Catholicism, to take communion while in flagrant sin (as those who advocate the abomination of abortion are) is to compound a mortal sin with a sin against the Body and Blood of Christ. Redemption becomes that much more difficult, for one’s initial sin is intensified. Even for Protestants, taking communion in unrepentant sin varies from a risky proposition to a forbidden act. Given the Scripture, it is hard to imagine a Christian position that would encourage its members to take communion while in unrepentant sin.
Those who object to the bishops’ position misunderstand the direction of the directive. It does not dictate how the politician must vote or what stance he or she must take on the tricky question of abortion. It only clarifies the consequences of that choice for those who would be Catholic. Advocating the murder of children in the womb is simply something that disqualifies one from being a good Catholic. Some folks think that’s unfair. But nobody ever said that religions and religious organizations had to be fair, within the bounds of their own structures. Indeed, to do such a thing would itself violate the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion.
Religions have rules. Mormons can’t smoke or drink. Neither can Pentecostals. Most Christians are circumscribed in their behavior by the restrictions of their doctrine. Majorities of Protestant groups forbid adultery, fornication, and homosexuality; others add restrictions of dress. Catholicism, as it happens, has a thing about abortion. In some cases, violating these rules renders one ineligible for membership, though usually still welcome in fellowship. And the benefits and obligations of membership vary, as well.
Kerry is welcome to be pro-choice, if that is where his conscience leads him. But if he chooses to elevate his own wisdom over the two-thousand year consistent teaching of the church, he has chosen a religion that is not Catholic, and a Lord that is not the Christ of Catholicism. At that point, his membership is void, and he is barred from the privileges thereof, one of which is taking communion.
It's something like if he chose to go to Catholic services and worship Ganesh. Nothing illegal about it...but it just not what being a Catholic is about.
John Kerry, Champion of Defeatism
Martinipundit says it so beautifully and succinctly:
America has lost but one war - Vietnam. America has changed horses in mid-stream while the country was at war but once - 1968 in the midst of Vietnam which the Left likes to think of as Nixon’s war. Although largely squirreled away down the memory hole, the anti-war Democrats brought down Lyndon Johnson. They hated
Johnson because of the war. They thought they would replace him with Robert Kennedy - and they might have but for Sirhan Sirhan. And then John Kerry came home and testified before Congress. Nixon tried vainly to win something that would allow the US to exit with some shred of dignity, but he failed. The Left likes to tell us that Vietnam was illegal, immoral, and that we never should have been there in the first place. What they don’t like to tell you is that it wasn’t the North Vietnamese but the Left with John Kerry in the front rank holding aloft the bloody shirt of war crimes who defeated America.
They’d like a second crack at it too. I say, let’s deny them this time.
The Insurgency gathers!
I ran across this:
PROTEST ZONES by Jenn Green If Bush Wins--or Steals--This Election, Don't Just Sit There
If Bush gets reelected on November 2--if half of our fellow citizens lose their minds, or if he manages to steal the election again--storming Seattle's federal offices, prisons, and property will let him know that we're not going down without a fight this time. Here's a list of federal sites in Seattle that could be perfect places to protest
What does this imply:
1) that there is no legitimate win for Bush. Even if he is clearly elected, the electors are mad, and therefore it is invalid.
2) if he wins, he probably stole the election. Even if it looks like he is clearly elected, the election is a fraud and therefore invalid.
3)because, no matter how he wins, it's illegitmate, the writer feels it is within her rights to disrupt, protest and if necessary, bring down the duly elected government, just because she cannot believe that it is legitimate.
This is called revolution. Are we willing to have a civil war because one chooses to believe that the other side cannot under any circumstance legitimately win?
CIA, FBI AUTHENTICATE NEW QAEDA TERROR TAPE
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 28, 2004 10:44:01 ET XXXXX
CIA, FBI AUTHENTICATE NEW QAEDA TERROR TAPE; ABCNEWS EXECUTIVES CONSIDER POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AIRING
The CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated a disturbing new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11.
"The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead, a man claims on the video.
Further claims on the video: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.
ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend. The network has withheld airing it, initially citing concerns over its authenticity.
One senior federal official alleged ABCNEWS is now holding back from broadcasting any portion of the video out of fear it will be seen as a political move by the network during election week.
One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance."
"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained.
A second ABC source told DRUDGE: "We continue to report this story aggressively."
The terrorist's face is concealed by a headdress, and he speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual.
The tape appears to be from al-Qaeda's media liaison organization. It has a banner crediting the Sahab Production Committee. The speaker refers to Bin Ladin and Zawahiri as "our leaders" and praises the 11 September attacks.
Intelligence officials believe:
Videotape message likely produced in late summer '04 due to references to current events such as the 9/11 Commission.
Individual is college educated, either American born or raised in the U.S.
The U.S. is actively seeking to identify the individual. Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman of Southern California - remains the chief candidate but another still unknown individual may be possible.
US intelligence officials say the danger is that if this individual is an American citizen, he will be immersed in the culture and customs and have the ability to travel in America freely and unnoticed.
So that explains it....
Neal Boortz on Kerry's Latest Dissing of the US Military
IS THIS ALL HE HAS AT THIS STAGE IN THE GAME?
Finally John Kerry has decided to face up the reality that there were dangerous weapons in Iraq. Here we are, five days before the election, and now Kerry has figured out that Saddam had weapons that posed a threat. Reports that 380 tons of high explosives disappeared from a storage facility have really ignited a fire in the branches of the Haunted Tree.*
Yesterday this was virtually all Kerry could talk about. Here we are five days before the election, and all this leftist could talk about was this bogus story about 380 tons of explosives that can't be found. Now ... get this: If you are a reporter and you call the Kerry campaign office for a definitive statement as to whether or not it is Kerry's position that those explosives were still there when American forces arrived, they will tell you that this is not, in fact, Kerry's position. Than you go listen to Kerry on the stump he will say that those weapons most definitely were there, and that Bush just let them disappear.
A few points:
It's our troops that Kerry is slamming, not Bush. If the explosives were there, it was the job of our troops to secure them. Bush wasn't there.
ABC News has a rather interesting report. ABC has a confidential memo from the IAEA which says that inspectors actually documented about three tons of explosives in that facility, not 380 tons. We'll see if Kerry mentions this discrepancy.
And, as you will read in the next segment, Bill Gertz is reporting that it may well have been the Russians who helped Saddam remove these explosives and move them off to Syria. There is one thing for sure now. Saddam Hussein is not in possession of those weapons.
Kerry calls it a growing scandal. The true growing scandal here is that Kerry has nothing else to talk about at this late stage in the election.
Women and the GOP
at the Captain's Quarters notices, discussing a WaPo article about people's views on which candidate we want to pick the next supreme court justices:
Traditionally, women have supported Democratic presidential candidates over the GOP, usually by wide margins; Gore topped Bush among women by eleven points in 2000. That gap usually gets explained by Republican policy stands on reproductive rights, especially abortion. However, in this election, Bush has essentially tied Kerry among women (some polls put Bush in a narrow lead).
Speculation about the cause of the shift usually centers on "security moms" -- those who consider national security a more pressing issue than abortion. However, that doesn't apply to a specific question about appointing Supreme Court justices, while abortion rights impact directly on it. Seeing no change among women supporting Bush tends to imply that abortion no longer carries the same strong backing it previously has with women. In fact, the gap between Bush and Kerry on this question is actually narrower than it is on general support overall for election. Having almost half of all women trust such an explicit right-to-life candidate more with judicial nominations is a paradigm shift of stunning scope.
Kerry has assured voters that he will not nominate any justice who does not support abortion rights, an explicit litmus test that was designed to bolster his sagging numbers with women. However, if the Post poll is any indicator, Kerry may be doing more damage than good among female voters with his pandering position on abortion.
In fact, at least some of us female voters are voting for Bush at least in part because we trust him on this issue.
The Myth of the Missing Explosives
By Ralph Peters via NYP
October 28, 2004 -- SHOULD the United Nations decide who be comes our president? Sen. John Kerry wouldn't mind. He's shamelessly promoting the lies that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is telling about Iraq.
A devious IAEA report suggests that 400 tons of explosives were spirited away by our enemies under the noses of our Keystone-Cops troops after the fall of Baghdad. The document just happened to be released in the closing days of our presidential election. Purely a coincidence, of course. Brought to you by those selfless U.N. bureaucrats who failed in Iraq and are now failing in Iran.
Since Kerry's willing to blame our troops for a scandal invented by America-haters, let's look at the story the military way, by the numbers.
One: The IAEA claims its inspectors visited the ammo dump at Al-Qaqaa on March 9, 2003, and found the agency's seals intact on bunkers containing sensitive munitions. Unverifiable, but let's assume that much is true.
Two: Faced with an impending invasion, Saddam's forces did what any military would do. They began dispersing ammunition stocks from every storage site that might be a Coalition bombing target. If the Iraqis valued it, they tried to move it. Before the war.
Three: Members of our 3rd Infantry Division — the heroes who led the march to Baghdad — reached the site in question in early April. Despite the pressures of combat, they combed the dump. Nothing was found. Al-Qaqaa was a vast junkyard.
Four: Our 101st Airborne Division assumed responsibility for the sector as the 3ID closed on Baghdad. None of the Screaming Eagles found any IAEA markers — even one would have been a red flag to be reported immediately.
Five: At the end of May, military teams searching for key Iraqi weapons scoured Al-Qaqaa. They found plenty of odds and ends — the detritus of war — but no IAEA seals. And no major stockpiles.
Six: Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA, a discredited organization embarrassed by the Bush administration's decision to call it on the carpet, suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.
Seven: Even if repeated inspections by U.S. troops had somehow missed this deadly elephant on the front porch, and even if the otherwise-incompetent Iraqis had been so skilled and organized they were able to sneak into Al-Qaqaa and load up 400 tons of Saddam's love-powder, it would have taken a Teamsters' convention to get the job done.
Eight: If the Iraqis had used military transport vehicles of five-ton capacity, it would have required 80 trucks for one big lift, or, say, 20 trucks each making four trips. They would have needed special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts and skilled drivers (explosives aren't groceries). This operation could not have happened either during or after the war, while the Al-Qaqaa area was flooded with U.S. troops.
Nine: We owned the skies. And when you own the skies, you own the roads. We were watching for any sign of organized movement. A gaggle of non-Coalition vehicles driving in and out of an ammo dump would have attracted the attention of our surveillance systems immediately.
Ten: And you don't just drive high explosives cross-country, unless you want to hear a very loud bang. Besides, the Iraqis would have needed to hide those 400 tons of explosives somewhere else. Unless the uploaded trucks are still driving around Iraq.
Eleven: Even if the IAEA told the truth and the Iraqis were stealth-logistics geniuses who emptied the site's ammo bunkers under our noses, the entire issue misses a greater point: 400 tons of explosives amounted to a miniscule fraction of the stocks Saddam had built up. Coalition demolition experts spent months destroying more than 400,000 tons of Iraqi war-making materiel.
Our soldiers eliminated more than a thousand tons of packaged death for every ton the United Nations claims they missed. Does that sound like incompetence? Why hasn't our success been mentioned? Can't our troops get credit for anything?
Twelve: The bottom line is that, if the explosives were ever there, the Iraqis moved them before our troops arrived. There is no other plausible scenario.
Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.
Iraqi Weapons in Syria?
A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:
click for images of Iraq's WMD location in Syria :
-1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.
-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.
-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.
Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.
In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation. Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Talking Points – Oct. 27, 2004 – Al-Qaqaa Weapons Facility
Came to me via Free Republic
US Department of Defense
Talking Points – Oct. 27, 2004 – Al-Qaqaa Weapons Facility
Following are talking points on the 2003 timeline regarding U.S. and Iraqi military activities in the vicinity of the former Al-Qaqaa military facility.
According to the Duelfer report, as of mid-September 2004 Coalition forces have reviewed and cleared more than 10,000 caches of weapons.
- This includes 240,000 tons of munitions that have been destroyed and another 160,000 tons secured and awaiting destruction.
- The 377 tons of munitions from the Al-Qaqaa facility is less than 1/10th of one percent of the 400,000 tons of total munitions Coalition forces have destroyed or have lined up to destroy.
On March 19, Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.
- Shortly before that date the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had left Iraq.
- The initial goal of Coalition forces was to collapse Saddam’s regime and go after its command and control elements. This was done with an emphasis on speed in order to minimize the loss of life.
The 3-15th Infantry Battalion, 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division arrived as part of the Coalition push to Baghdad on April 3-4.
- Their mission was to secure the bridge crossing site so follow-on troops from the 3rd ID could continue to cross the bridge and move into Baghdad.
The Al-Qaqaa facility is one of dozens of ammunition storage points the 3rd Infantry Division encountered on its march toward Baghdad from the Iraq-Kuwait border.
- Former chief weapons inspector David Kay noted on Oct. 26, 2004, “The Iraqi behavior when they believed they were going to be attacked would be to empty the bunkers and scatter the material around the site.”
- U.S. troops reported hundreds of caches of weapons from Kuwait to Baghdad.
- U.S. forces discovered dispersed weapons in countless locations, including schools, mosques and hospitals and even zoos.
When the U.S. forces arrived, the Al-Qaqaa facility was not secure.
- Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units were at the facility defending it.
- These enemies were firing from inside the facility. The 3-15th engaged them and found that the gates to the facility were open.
IAEA acknowledged in January 2003 that it could not account for 32 tons of HMX.
- The IAEA apparently accepted Saddam’s contention that the missing explosives were used for industrial purposes.
ABC reports discrepancy in amount of explosives claimed missing
ABC News reports
The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.
But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over 3 tons of RDX was stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the start of the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
Explosive moved before the Invasion - possible Russian involvement
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloguing the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.
The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.
According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.
It is not known if the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.
A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not convince Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.
However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.
The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.
Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.
The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.
Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.
Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.
"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.
Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.