Oil for Food--Duelfer Report

ROSETT:

There is information on Saddam's illicit oil-funded contracts to buy from assorted Russian companies such stuff as barrels for antiaircraft guns, missile components, and missile-guidance electronics. There is an illuminating section that explains, "Most of Iraq's military imports transited Syria by several trading companies, including some headed by high-ranking Syrian government officials" — including the head of Syrian presidential security, Dhu al-Himma Shalish. There are details on Saddam's missile-procurement negotiations with North Korea. And there is background on Saddam's deals with Chinese companies that helped Iraq improve its indigenous-missile capabilities, despite the history, as the report notes, that "China stated publicly on multiple occasions its position that Iraq should fully comply with all UN Security Council resolutions."

Claudia Rosett has been investigating the Oil For Food Programs for quite a while (see the link at the right.) Now she is commenting on the Duelfer Report, which lets us know the volumes to tackle first--for those who are going to try reading it.

Thank you: Antimedia

Also, see Antimedia’s comments on the equipment for the troops. He’s irritated that this is coming up . . . again; and, takes the time to explain his views.

ABC MEMO ***RUMOR***

Drudge has the supposed ABC memo at this link:

Halperin Memo (Drudge)

Consider it **RUMOR**. It may go the way of the "pen." (into nothingness)

HILARIOUS

JIBJAB has done it again.

The latest cartoon is as funny as "This Land is Your Land" with Kerry and Bush singing. Hillary gets to let Willie have it. Edwards in a bikini.

Politics can be funny.

Next project: Christmas.
(They may have to stick to politics. We'll see.)

Foolish Again, Mr. Kerry.

REDHUNTER is discussing Mr. Pretty's latest buffoonery (which prompted my commentary below:)

Kerry had planned to provide Iran with NUCLEAR fuel rods? Guess he wants to help Iran become technologically adept. Another dumb idea from KERRY KORP.

The Iranians are smarter than Kerry:

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

"Irrational", now there is a fine word. Kerry believes the problems of the world can be solved with a handshake . . . unless Kerry is doing the handshake.

Another Failure for the un-elected candidate. It was a foolish mistake. Were you "foolish again, Mr. Kerry? Oh Yes!

REDHUNTER has more information and discussion on the Iran/Nuclear.

PEACENIK WARRIOR

Kerry was an anti-war activist. Not only was he against the Vietnam War, he was busy working against the interest of the US, meeting with representatives of the enemy, voicing the sentiments of the enemy. He was a “peacenik” voice, during a war.

Kerry was a “peacenik” voter. Apparently, Kerry must believe his time in the Senate was not worthy of note, as he promotes his Vietnam service—not his Senate service. Throughout his career in the Senate, he voted against weapons and voted for defense cuts. (With emphasis on his vote for a nuclear freeze before the collapse of the overspending, defense conscious Soviet Union—near the end of the “Cold War.” He was a “peacenik” voter, in the Senate.

Kerry voted against Gulf War I, after Saddam invaded Kuwait—according to the right. If so, I could believe that. Maybe he agreed with Saddam that Kuwait belonged to Iraq. He was content to leave the Kuwaitis in the care of Saddam and Thugs. He could have believe good old honest Tariq Aziz that the US gave a wink to Saddam. (Aziz later confessed that was Iraqi Propaganda.) Some Warrior!

On which side of the Iraq War is John F. Kerry? Do you know? No? Well, Kerry doesn’t know either. We can only conclude that he is for and against; maybe and maybe not; supporting the troops but not supporting the troops; voting for the war, but only as another threat in a very long line of threat; for the war, against the troops; “wrong war, wrong place; unilateral is bad in Iraq (with 30 other countries) but good in North Korea; and, he can do better. He can do better only if he spins out of control and knocks the enemy into oblivion.

Kerry is a “peacenik” who claims he will fight; and a “warrior” who doesn’t know where the war is. Even if he finally finds the right war in the right place, he'd better have a fast military--he'll only be there 4 months and 12 days.

IRAQ SURVEY GROUP REPORT

CIA--Duelfer Report

Who is CAREFULLY POLISHED?

Kerry said, “. . .not carefully polished arguments” in an attack on Bush.

You mean the “carefully polished arguments” during the debates; or, the “carefully polished arguments during some of the Bush speeches?”

Bush seems to speak plainly, directly, doesn’t waffle, and doesn’t seem to dance frequently. If the American people do not need “carefully polished arguments, as Kerry said, why does he give us “carefully polished arguments” on both sides of the issue to the point of becoming a whirling dervish as we watch him spin?

Kerry is trying to sell us a 30-year old USED CAR. It looks all shiny and new; but it is an old van with no motor. Inside the van is an old toy. Kerry (used car salesman) tells us you can go so fast the speed will make you sick.

If you inspect the inside of the vehicle, you will see the truth. It’s a polished empty vehicle except for the shiny TOY:

Anyone remember the SIT AND SPIN?

LOWELL, MA--NO KERRY

According to Mary Ann Parker:

”Kerry's Home Town Newspaper Endorses Bush

Below is an endorsement of President Bush by the Lowell Sun in Lowell, Massachusetts.
This is the same congressional district where John Kerry first ran
for Congress in 1972.
Endorsement: George W. Bush for president
Sunday, October 03, 2004 - It's about national security.
That's the key issue on the minds of Americans planning
to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election.
They must decide whether Republican President George W. Bush
or Sen. John F. Kerry, a Democrat, can provide the leadership to safeguard America from foreign terrorism. “

(…)We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of
politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.

In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero,
hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues.

First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he
opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it.

First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs.

First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.

Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a
consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder,
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed.

They want us brought down to their level.

And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said
America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country,
but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Americans should think back three years ago to the
smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center.

There among the mist lay the images and memories of
fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters.

President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents.

Yet some of us are forgetting.

President Bush told us the attacks must never happen again.

Yet some of us are wavering because of the brave
sacrifice of soldiers that our nation's security demands.

Well, President Bush hasn't forgotten.
Nor has he lost the courage and
conviction to do what is right for America.

We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else,
it is that George Bush's iron will is stronger than his iron won't.

[Blank lines for ease of reading.]

Perpetual Motion--spin

Rebuttable Preseumption

How many qualifiers can we fit onto the head of a pin?

Charles Duefler, the new US weapons inspector says that Saddam "may have been" developing a capacity to develop WMD on short notice.

Whether or not we should have gone to war with Iraq is not something I want to discuss right now (especially since I'm ostensibly in Torts class). But "may have been developing a capacity to develop"??

I might think about ways to possibly comment on this probable overuse of qualifications in this tentative utterance. Maybe.

Daily Kos

Quotes Powerline:
"Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders."
Daily Kos comments:

“We also need to find out the background of Scott Wheeler the author who is on Malzberg now and who was on the Hannity radio show earlier.”

Since no one seems to know exactly what happened, I’m waiting for the text of the Duefler Report. Dr. David Kay said no stockpiles; we’ve known that since January. Kay said that Iraq was more dangerous. Duefler is saying there were no stockpiles; what else was he saying that is unreported.

Yes, it’s difficult to give up the WMD theory. If you can’t believe some of the information, what can you believe? He had them before and during Gulf War I. Didn’t have them by Gulf War II. Everyone thought he had them. Saddam (apparently) wanted everyone to believe he had them. The WMD are not in Iraq, in vast quantities, not under every rock and behind every tree. What happened?

The media covered the Report with Duefler sound bites. Possibly the text will be covered by someone, somewhere. (Until then, I will continue to feel spun—in several directions . . . And, they say there is no perpetual motion machine.)

WMD, Terror Ties

CNS NEWS


Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

Possibly there is something in this. If true, it refutes claims that there was no connection. The article is worthwile reading. Papers appearing the same week as Charles Duefler's Report; the information isn't the same; and, we can't be sure of the trail, or the veracity . . . but, as usual, it's interesting. I read it and posted it to keep track of the site. Maybe there will be more information...or, it might be another of those items which just fades to nothing.

SIMON SAYS

Roger L. Simon


October 04, 2004: The Subject About Which Kerry Dare Not Ever Speak

No, it's not gay marriage or tax hikes, it is the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program because it is that scandal at the heart of our most prominent international institution, more than anything I can think of, that makes Kerry's continuing mantra of "consulting with our allies" into a complete and utter farce. Even what we know of Oil-for-Food right now... and there's undoubtedly a lot more to come... shows us that these same allies - notably the French, Russians and to a lesser extent the Germans - were, throughout the run-up to the War in Iraq, nothing but profiteers off Saddam. They were and to a great extent still are, as Orwell put it in an only slightly different context,"objectively pro-fascist."

So when I read Kerry's latest apologia pro vita pin-striped suit in which the Senator tries to set the record straight on what he means or meant by a "Global Test," all I could think of was has this man who claims to be a liberal, to be an enemy of fascism, ever read anything about Oil-for-Food, ever investigated it? What does he know about it? Back on March 12, the Washington Times, a paper he no doubt despises, began a two-part series on Oil-for-Food this way, trying to call the Senator's attention to the subject:

Via: Mudville Gazette

SMARMINESS IS A POSSIBILITY

NY Post

Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade remained angry at the bloggers' guilt-by-insinuation.

"The right-wing attack machine will say anything to steal a debate do-over," he said.

"We plead guilty to having a pen."

Not “guilt-by-insinuation”; guilt-by-arrogance. Either Kerry didn’t know better, or didn’t care. The big issue is violation of the rules.

But, the pen isn’t the object of notice. What was the slight-of-hand with left-hand/right-pocket . . . . that is the object of notice--the point of discussion.

The issue was: the object from the right breast pocket looked flat and white—not cylindrical and black. If the negative photo is accurate, the object was white. What was in Kerry’s right hand might have been a pen; what was in his left hand as he pulled it out of his right breast from beneath his suit jacket?

Furthermore, I’d like to know which debate rules the Kerry campaign wanted, and which ones the Bush campaign wanted. What was signed, and what was done on trust. We heard about (1) no opening statements; (2) no shots of speaker’s opponent; (3) no tangible items brought to the podium. Kerry caught Bush off-guard with a partial opening statement and there were plenty of shots of Bush’s expressions during Kerry’s turns. Kerry admitted to bringing a pen.

Kerry did unexpectedly well. That’s okay; the race is still on. But, did Kerry cheat? It could have been another deception—like claiming it was “Kerry’s boat” and “Kerry’s crew” on January 29, 1969, when it was Peck’s crew and Peck’s honor. The special word for what Kerry did on his website is “smarmy.” It was a “smarmy” act and made me wonder how many other times it happened. Once smarmy, always smarmy, may not be true; but, once smarmy it’s easier to be smarmy again seems to be true.

Smarminess is a possibility.

A PEN?

Apparently, Kerry’s group says he had a black pen (his own) during the debate last Thursday.. One of the NY newspapers reported that it was a pen. Fox showed a clip with what looked to be a pen. He would have been better off claiming he had Kleenex.

Kerry reached into the right inside portion of his jacket, with his left hand. His back was to the audience. His right hand was below the podium. And, some still photos show a light item or items in Kerry’s left hand. Whatever was in his left hand was not a black pen, or a dark pen, or the shape of a pen. Now, he could have had the extra pen in his right hand.

Nope, doesn’t make sense why the media isn’t checking more thoroughly into this. It’s almost a challenge. Remember Gary Hart and the “Monkey Business” Challenge. Media jumped all over that.

The press has changed drastically. The AP seems to have gone off the left edge of their flat world. Maybe, like mountain climbers, they are tied together; one could drag the other over that left edge.

BTW, the white “pen” seem rectangular and thin; smaller than the size of a breast pocket. Maybe it was a flat pen with invisible ink. There are still people investigating. We could hope for some better answers.

SPACESHIPONE

It’s up; separation was good; thrust good; height looks good. SPACESHIPONE is gliding back down to earth. Waiting for landing.

It looks like paper airplanes made by kids. Has a bit more control. Looking good. One camera shot made it look like the escort plane was too close. Gliding in. Gear down.

Final approach! DOWN . . . Slowing, rolling to stop . . .DONE, SAFE, Great!
And 10 MILLION DOLLARS if they made the height; and, it looks like they did.

NEW RECORD: 360,000 ft.

Mysterious Kerry

Kerry Video Clip

Hugh Hewitt mentioned the video clip situation and does remind all of us in the Pajama Brigade that there is an IF involved here.

Delightful as it might be to catch a skunk in the process of spraying himself, several video experts have to take repeated looks at this to see what is happening. We know what it looks like, but what is the truth?

Free Republic provides enlarge shots and describes any changes made—sharpening, lightening, etc.

INDC JOURNAL is keeping an eye on information about the clip.

Swift Boat Vets also have something on it.

PRECOGNITION. . .?

precognition

IS HOAGLAND PSYCIC?

heraldnet.com

Published: Thursday, September 30, 2004
Kerry may have to 'cheat' to score many points tonight

Jim Hoagland
Washington Post Columnist

(…)The rules constrain Kerry more than Bush. Unless the challenger is prepared to "cheat" Thursday night - to go up to and even across the lines of prescribed and proscribed behavior - the devil in these details will tilt the first debate into an exchange of stump speeches.

I’ll reserve judgement on this one; but, gotta say this is interesting.

WHO IS GAMING?

DRUDGE

DEBATE MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET?

Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states: "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."

So what did Dem presidential contender John Kerry take out of his jacket as he approached the stage [with his back to the auditorium's audience]?

What did Kerry place on the podium?

Hmmmmm! Is this jammies in action? I didn’t see it during the debates and have just watched the video clip a few times. Called in another person to verify what they thought was happening.
It doesn't look good for Kerry. It doesn't look like a video scam. Is it a cheat, or a double twist? Once again, we don't know but someone is on top of it.

Apparently, the Democrat response is that Kerry didn't cheat.

link to video clip

Drudge Mainpage

VERACITY GAMES

Accuracy In Media (AIM)

Partisan Connections of Rathergate By Cliff Kincaid October 1, 2004

The timing of the CBS News assault on Bush using the phony documents also requires comment. It appears that John Kerry supporters knew what was coming. On September 7, for example, Texans for Truth, a so-called 527 group funded by George Soros through Moveon.org, released a TV ad accusing Bush of evading his National Guard service. One day later, on September 8, Rather and CBS 60 Minutes did their program based on the bogus National Guard documents. That's also when Rather interviewed Kerry fundraiser and Texas Democrat Ben Barnes about his alleged knowledge of Bush getting into the National Guard. Newsweek reported that Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill called Barnes to congratulate him on his CBS News appearance. Just six days later, on September 14, the Democratic National Committee announced "Operation Fortunate Son," including a new video hitting Bush on the National Guard issue.

In conduct some have compared to Nixon's Watergate cover-up, CBS News initially stonewalled the charges of forgery. Perhaps Rather thought he could get away with it. After all, Sumner Redstone, chairman and CEO of CBS parent company Viacom, is a major Democratic Party contributor. Redstone contributed to John Kerry for president. He has also contributed to Senators Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, and Patrick Leahy, and Al Gore for president in 2000.

CBS shouldn’t be free to do this again--there should be much less bias in the media. The Main-Stream Media should be looking for the facts, verifying the facts, telling the truth—after the information has been thoroughly checked. MSM is not telling the whole truth about Iraq; they frequently only tell the bad and the bloody.

MSM is playing veracity games with US.

GLIB

If “GLIB” is great and sincerity isn’t; then Kerry creeps up in the polls; but, slick is not a good quality in a President if truth does not accompany the oily rhetoric.

In the after-debate outrage, Kerry would like voters to believe that he was sincere; but, Bush lied about the “Global Test.”

LEHRER TO KERRY: “What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?”

KERRY: “But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the ***global test*** where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Kerry could waste much time trying to qualify for the "Global Test." Al Qaeda would have an advantage because of it. Al Qaeda shouldn't be gifted with any advantage.

The “test” is to “prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.” However, the legitimacy had taken many years and included:

(1) A non-surrender, “cease fire” subject to restrictions which were not met.

(2) Over a dozen U.N. Resolutions because Iraq was in violation.

(3) Sanctions applied by the U.N. which were thwarted, but not to help the people.

(4) Same Sanctions causing misery and death to the people were not containing regime.

(5) Proscribed weapons in the possession of Iraq, during the Sanctions.

(6) U.N. Inspections for weapons thwarted.

(7) Multiple investigations into the Oil for Food Program uncovering corruption.

(8) Regime Oil Credits coming to light indicate widespread bribery and propaganda payments.

(9) Companies involved appear to have connections with Al Qaeda.

Kerry may claim we must have a global test. Kerry may legitimately claim there were no WMD stockpiles. BUT, Kerry can not claim they were not a threat and we can claim that even though we found no WMD stockpiles; we did find vast evidence of WOOD—WEAPONS OF OUR DESTRUCTION.

The apparent corruption of the U.N. has rendered the organization almost useless. The payment for propaganda has persuaded some to a point of view whereby we were wrong; in the face of all of the above and more. We do not fully know who was paid, and for what reasons/advantage. We know it is not in our favor.

And, we have yet to see an explanation of why the A. Q. Kahn network of nuclear proliferation just happened to skip Saddam Hussein, when it had a sales campaign which included many other enemies of the U.S. and the free world.


The debate was rather low key and somewhat boring. Both Kerry and Bush contributed to the boredom (equally.) But, Kerry, in all his glib rhetoric, gave volumes of information which will not turn out to be in his favor. It’s much more than the error of being in Poland (Triblinka) instead of Russia (Lubyanka) . . .Kerry may have glibly blathered too much. The truth takes time; lies are easy.

IIRC the quote correctly: “A Lie can go halfway around the world, while truth is still putting its boots on.” [probably: Ben Franklin or Will Rogers? Nope, it’s usually attributed to Mark Twain.]

There have been fact-checkers, on the job--in their jammies, since immediately after the debate. What a banquet!

Mr. Perfect

Malkin

Mr. Perfect for PresidentMichelle Malkin (archive)
September 29, 2004

TV cameras are brutally unforgiving -- especially during high-stakes election debates. They amplified the angst on Richard Nixon's brow, the inexperience in Dan Quayle's eyes, and the vulgarity of Al Gore's visage.

How will Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry hold up under the spotlight? What will the cameras reveal? Beneath the Christophe-coifed hair, unnaturally taut skin and artificially enhanced tan, there are some naked attributes Kerry cannot conceal:
His spite. His haughtiness. His condescending core.

John Kerry detests his opponents. He detests his own staff. He detests anybody and anything that interferes with his political ambitions. Since returning from Vietnam, his main contribution to public discourse has been contempt, not courage. He possesses resentment, not hope. He does not inspire. He sulks.

The debate: Mr. Fanci-dancer vs. Mr. Plain & Steady--sums it up for me.

Podhoretz on Debate

NY POST

JUDGING THE DEBATE: A WASTED NIGHT

By JOHN PODHORETZ
October 1, 2004 -- IT'S a mark of how high- toned last night's debate was that the only real howler came when John Kerry called the Moscow headquarters of the KGB "Treblinka," which was a Nazi concentration camp, rather than by its actual name, "Lubyanka."

Kerry was confused. (Small mistake, unless you are from Poland, or Russia.)

Summiteers

Some good points:

Lileks.com

(…)Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most?

A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century

B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer

(…)Who does Zarkowi fear the most - France, summiteers, or Marines? If the rightness of a cause is measured by the number of one’s allies, would Britain have been right if the US had stayed neutral in World War Two?

It's an interesting article. Read more at the above link.