Tuesday, June 20, 2006
This will be my last entry for awhile as I am very busy this summer and readership is very low to nonexistent, so why waste my time ranting and venting, right? My passion for my country is still strong as ever, if not stronger, and I hope and pray the future will bring those citizens that hate America to a new understanding.
Maybe in the fall I will try again with renewed vigor - enjoy the summer - The Slickster!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Putting the looney back in the looney left
A judge has told Alec Baldwin that he needs to get a psychological evaluation, something which many of us have believed necessary since he went on television and said
”...if we were in another country… We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families”
This time it is not politics but a custody battle prompting the call for evaluation. The AP reports:
A judge wants a psychologist to evaluate Alec Baldwin to determine whether he is fit to see his 10-year-old daughter more often as part of an ongoing custody battle with former wife Kim Basinger.
Superior Court Commissioner Maren E. Nelson said the question is whether the actor is attempting to turn the couple’s child against Basinger.
“Whether that is taking place or not, I cannot determine,” Nelson said. “Someone, an evaluator, needs to spend time with Ireland and the parents to work on that issue.”
Neither actor attended Friday’s court hearing.
Baldwin was given a week to accept the court-appointed psychologist or the judge said she would select another one.
While there are fine, intelligent, decent human beings in Hollywood, that community has produced a disproportionate share of looney leftists. Why anyone would pay particular attention to the political rantings of actors (as opposed to cops, bakers, or prostitutes, for that matter, remains a mystery.
Hat tip: Joseph Crowley
Thomas Lifson 6 11 06
In reality, they are just pulling the dirt in after themselves every time they try to deceive the people of this great country. We know what they are doing and we won't let them get away with it.
Back dated video?
Press accounts of a graphic video of three Shia militiamen being beheaded indicate that it was made and distributed after the successful airstrike on Zarqawi.
The implication being that his death changes nothing, that the violence will continue. Actually, the tape was made and distributed on June 7, but what's a few days difference when you're propagandizing, not reporting?
Clarice Feldman 6 11 06
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Being at the top of the heap can get to be very boring. Everyone want to touch me. Everyone says how beautiful I am.
Some times I just want to scream, 'don't touch me - just leave me alone'. Being a champion twice over is not easy, and being the first champion of my kind puts a lot of pressure on me. I have to represent an entire breed before the world.
I guess I have to find a way to deal with my loneliness. Maybe I need a change of seen. Maybe a trip to sunny Portugal where I can search for my roots. Ya, that's what I need, get back to basics. Leave this night mare life style to lesser individuals that are hungry for the bright lights and wild cheering of the crowds.
Been there, done that.
What a plan -
Rumsfeld Finds Irony in Zarqawi Death
It's ironic that terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed just as the Iraqi government he tried to derail scored some significant successes, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday.
Rumsfeld announced the Jordanian terrorist mastermind's death during a session of a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels. He expanded on the subject on the flight home.
"This has to be a shock to the al-Qaida system, not just in Iraq but elsewhere. The benefit is enormous for the Iraqi people," Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
I'm looking forward to a nice long bike ride tomorrow along the country roads of rural Wisconsin.
Enjoy the week end and the great weather.
Friday, June 09, 2006
But stop and think about what we see today in our local news outlets. There is no section of the newspaper that doesn't carry some political bias in it's material. It doesn't seem to matter what section the of the paper, bias will show up in it - whether it's local, entertainment or the comics, someone is always ready to put forth their personnel or the managing editor's agenda. Also, is it just me or does it seem the bias is dominated completely by the liberal left's agenda.
This occurs in all newspapers - but in most cases, it the liberal agenda, and it is so perverse, most of the larger papers should register as political marketing agents of the National socialist Democratic Party. That is, the control arm of the National Democratic Party (DNC)
So, when you consider a newspaper as a source of information, and you have an open mind, always remember that what you are reading is designed to change how or what you believe to be the truth. It's called spin.
Today, it is almost impossible to believe anything that you read in the newspaper or what you see on television.
If it's true, and I strongly believe it is, that all major media is controlled by the liberal left mentality and agenda, then we all must believe that the 'free press' no longer exists.
The "M" Word ( American Thinker)
The 17 Muslim terrorists determined to blow up as many Canadians as possible are covered by an anti-war American press that refuses to call them Muslim terrorists. It has been painful to watch the linguistic contortions with which the mainstream media have carefully avoided using the M word Muslim to attach to the suspects.
And nowhere has this cynical disregard for the truth been more apparent then in the front page article in the New York Times (6/4) which painstakingly, almost hilariously avoided the M word in numerous descriptions.
The Times referred to them all these ways, but never as Muslims
"mainly of South Asian descent
"the Canadian subjects
"adherents of a violent ideology inspired by Al Qaeda
"None of them had any known affiliation with Al Qaeda
"Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed.
Everything but what they really and most relevantly are: Muslims.
The painful reality most of the
Press refuses to admit is that the President has been right all along we are in a global war against Muslim extremists who want to kill anyone who isn't Muslim. And no amount of verbal gymnastics to the contrary is going to change that simple fact.
Chris Ward 6 9 06
The main stream media sees the this psychotic killer as only being forced to kill to save his country from the invaders. America.
Who are these people that want to destroy us? Surly they aren't Americans - they have to be hear from some other country and their main purpose is only to try and destroy us from within.
But maybe the worse part of all in this nightmare is that many members of our congress are as bad or worse in this quest to cut the heart out of America with the purpose to remake us in the image of some unworkable philosophy that all other nations have rejected as worthless - Marxist socialism.
What I find as equally bad is the disturbing fact that there are millions of ordinary people that buy into this agenda.
Are they just plain stupid or just afraid to accept the fact that their personnel life style will not suffer from their lack of courage in the face of our loss of national pride and security.
Is it so easy to turn a blind eye to our history and dedication to freedom and democracy just to have a few moments more to enjoy the fruits of that history?
I continue to struggle with these inconsistencies that confront me every day - I want desperately to believe that the American people will see through the rhetoric of America's detractors and rise up to proclaim them as false. But sometimes I find myself starting to believe that we are not strong enough, as a nation, morally, to do the job that could eventually destroy us.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Hillary Clinton Calls Coulter 9/11 Remarks 'Vicious, Mean-Spirited'
Breaking from NewsMax.com Wires
WASHINGTON--New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out at Ann Coulter for a "vicious, mean-spirited attack'' on a group of outspoken 9/11 widows, whom the right-wing television pundit described as "self-obsessed'' and enjoying their husbands' deaths.
Coulter writes in a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism,'' that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.'' [Editor's
She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.''
Clinton, who has felt Coulter's wrath over the years, responded angrily on Wednesday.
"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,''' the senator said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened.''
The New York Democrat and former first lady said she found it "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country.''
The senator spoke after delivering a speech on protecting children from exposure to sex- and violence-saturated media.
Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC's "Today'' show, and reiterated her stance, saying the women used their grief "to make a political point.''
Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick,'' after the town where two of them live.
They have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack, and in the 2004 presidential campaign they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.
The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza of New Jersey.
The women, who are still pushing for changes in how the government guards against future attacks, issued a joint statement after Coulter's television appearance.
"We have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulters statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day,'' the women said.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
The Marxist media and their goons in the senate have already condemned the Marines. They don't care if it's true or not, they just want the spot light to shine on them as they shove the knife into the heart of the American soldiers and give it twist to make sure they get the full effect.
It's hate for America that drives them and it's hate for freedom and democracy that sustains them.
It's no wonder that when something like the Haditha incident hits the news media and the senate elites agenda, and since the American soldier is the very heart of freedom and democracy, that the Marxist left Democrats would use it to try and crush the American spirit.
I expected no less from these butchers of democracy and they didn't let me down. Their treachery is only surpassed by their ignorance and boundless greed for power. Traitors all.
A startling perspective on Haditha
Andrew Walden on FrontPageMag.com has a detailed discussion of the mores in Iraq about testimony in trials and the role of blood money in Iraqi culture. He uses as an example a murder trial against several British troops that simply fell apart in court as witness after witness admitted tomaking up their story for blood money payments. Blood money sounds like a violent term, but it is a conflict resolution device in the tribal cultures in the Middle East. The practice is discussed in the Hadith, which is the record of the acts of the Prophet. From the article:
The British Ministry of Defense spent the equivalent of about $18 million on the investigation and the trial which collapsed in November, 2005—29 months after the initial incident. The Haditha charges could also collapse, but not until the media and politicians have enjoyed months of free reign to slander US combat troops’ conduct in Iraq. This could be very demoralizing to US troops who may feel their combat operations will be dissected under a microscope by investigators who do not share their risk. If the British case is a model then the investigation will be followed by a trial which could drag out until early 2008. Investigators must to dig out the truth so the sacrifices made by our troops in Iraq are not swept away in a sea of lies.
This is a detailed and well-documented article that provides a great deal of information and perspective. Read the whole thing.
Greg Richards 6 6 06
By PETER WEHNER
Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations -- the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so -- and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:
The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war. "There is no question misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq," according to Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter charged that on Iraq, "President Bush has not been honest with the American people." And Al Gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." These charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. Most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.
Let's review what we know. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Thanks to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE" (my emphasis). We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress.
This helps explains why John Kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." It's why Sen. Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And it's why Hillary Clinton said in 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."
Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."
In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.
The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments. Earlier this year, Mr. Gore charged that "CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House . . . found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases." Sen. Kennedy charged that the administration "put pressure on intelligence officers to produce the desired intelligence and analysis."
This myth is shattered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. Among the findings: "The committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so." Silberman-Robb concluded the same, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . [A\]Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." What the report did find is that intelligence assessments on Iraq were "riddled with errors"; "most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policy makers well before the now-infamous NIE of
October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war."
Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren't found, Saddam posed no threat. Howard Dean declared Iraq "was not a danger to the United States." John Murtha asserted, "There was no threat to our national security." Max Cleland put it this way: "Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs." Yet while we did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, what we did find was enough to alarm any sober-minded individual.
Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told the Senate: "I actually think this may be one of those cases where [Iraq under Saddam Hussein] was even more dangerous than we thought." His statement when issuing the ISG progress report said: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities" that were part of "deliberate concealment efforts" that should have been declared to the U.N. And, he concluded, "Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
Among the key findings of the September 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Mr. Kay as ISG head, are that Saddam was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the Oil for Food Program and to bring down U.N. sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes; and that Saddam intended to resume WMD efforts once U.N. sanctions were eliminated. According to Mr. Duelfer, "the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible. . . . Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution."
Beyond this, Saddam's regime was one of the most sadistic and aggressive in modern history. It started a war against Iran and used mustard gas and nerve gas. A decade later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was a massively destabilizing force in the Middle East; so long as Saddam was in power, rivers of blood were sure to follow.
Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization. "The president now says that the war is really about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was so sadly lacking in fact," according to Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. To take just one example, he said in a speech on Feb. 26, 2003: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."
The following day the New York Times editorialized: "President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. . . . The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."
These, then, are the urban legends we must counter, else falsehoods become conventional wisdom. And what a strange world it is: For many antiwar critics, the president is faulted for the war, and he, not the former dictator of Iraq, inspires rage. The liberator rather than the oppressor provokes hatred. It is as if we have stepped through the political looking glass, into a world turned upside down and inside out.
Mr. Wehner is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Sunday, June 04, 2006
It was a perfect day with the temperature in the mid seventies and the wind blowing out of the northwest at about ten miles an hour. In other words, we had a cool breeze and a warm sun for this fantastic ride in the country side.
I am always looking for the perfect riding weather and today I found it - we rode 60 miles and climbed about every hill in western Dane County. Still, it was fun and the people that were on the ride were all in high spirits, which accounts for the fast start and I got dropped after the first half hour. My ride with four guys with abilities close to mine, lasted a little less than four hours.
A beautiful and delightful experience.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
More from the Worst President in History
Dinocrat spots another example of the mind-blowing arrogance and obstudeness of James Earl Carter:
Jimmy Carter, as featured in, of all places, the leftist magazine Mother Jones:
MotherJones: In your book, you talk about the intersection in recent years of religious and political fundamentalism. What is the origin of this merger?
Jimmy Carter:, I think it was in 1979, when future fundamentalists took control of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is a very important religious and political factor in this country. After that, the Southern Baptist Convention had almost diametrically opposite basic principles than it had previously followed, and there’s been an evolution within the Convention toward a more and more rigid and strict creed that embodies the fundamentalist principles that I mention in the book.
Now, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the elementary principle of fundamentalism has existed for ages…*.The danger comes when those kinds of principles are applied on the international scene.
Golly gee, Mr. Carter, when we think of 1979, we have many thoughts about religious fundamentailsm too and the danger when those principles are “applied on the international scene.” It’s a pity that in 27 years you focus on hogwash, and still haven’t been able to understand the truly important important events of 1979, all of which happened on your watch.
The message is clear - shut the boarder first and do it now. Deal with those that are here already later and treat them like they broke the law. NO AMNESTY!!
The dirt bags in the Senate are part of a royal family that has risen above the sweat and blood that made this country what it is, and now they think they don't have to listen to the people when they don't want to.
Remember the Ports Deal a few months back when the "people" demanded that we control our own ports, the Senate was johnny on the spot and voted to restrict owner ship and control because that is what the "people" wanted. In my view the people were wrong on the ports control issue, but that's another story entirely.
But Whooa! What happened with immigration? The "people" have been shouting to shut the door on the boarder and take a firm stand on those that came here illegally. The polls show nearly 80% want congress to move and move fast but congress doesn't hear you - we the people don't know what's best for the nation like our elected officials do. Obviously they have very selective hearing.
Maybe they will hear us better in November!!!
( excerpt from NewsMax )
The Minuteman Border Fence Project has begun! A new day is dawning in America.
PALOMINAS, Arizona - Over 350 volunteers gathered Saturday morning over Memorial Day weekend at John Ladd's ranch, as they marked the Ground Breaking of the Minuteman Border Fence effort. The morning was dedicated to speeches from right thinking politicians and Minuteman leaders, celebrating the generous donations the Minutemen group has been receiving.
Are we so lacking in moral character that we will allow this kind of thing to rule our sense of right and wrong?
I know these questions plague most of us every day and I, for one, know what should be done, but have the over whelming feeling of powerlessness that grids in my stomach leaving we tired and irritable by night fall. It seems that every day brings new nonsense stories that only make my sense of frustration worse.
Where will all end up is anyone's guess -
( the following little story comes from an e-mail )
Tom O'Brien wrote:
This past weekend FEMA and the City of Austin , along with the Texas Workforce Commission setup a job
training/hiring/interview/job fair forall the Katrina FEMA evacuees in the Austin area tobe held at the ACC campus on Webberville Road in East Austin . Several of the evacuees said they had no transportation to get from the apartmentcomplexes. So the city of Austin/FEMA/TWC set up transportation for each of them to ensure they would be able to partake of the benefitof job searching. The transportation consisted of nine buses and vans, to
run from four locations in Round Rock, and five locations in
Austin, in continuing shuttles back and forth to the campus to ensure thatthe hundreds of people looking for jobs would be transported incomfort. The vehicles were brought to their residences; drivers knockedon thedoors; and every effort was made.At the end of the day, the nine vans and busestransported a total of one person. Not one person per bus - one person total.
At the end of the day, none of the Katrina Evacuee applied for any of the jobs.
Not one person took employment - NONE total.
The bill to FEMA was $7800.
And yet they still get on TV claiming that the UnitedStates Government "OWES THEM", I say we don't owe them anything and if anything, they OWE us - the Tax Payers that are"WORKING PEOPLE",they owe what they have been mooching off of the TaxPayers for almost a year now. It is obvious that they don't
intend to work as long as they can sponge off of the system.
It is time to cut them loose and tell them the free ride is over !
Friday, June 02, 2006
The speeches that he gives reveals his true colors. He takes great delight in tearing down America on all occasions whether here in the United States or in foreign countries. If you recall this is the same thing that his former boss Bill Clinton has been up to.
Gore is part and parcel a liberal left socialist. To describe him otherwise would be doing this country a disservice. The media will cover for Al Gore in this run for President as they did the last time.
The media and Al Gore have a lot in common - they both know no limits on sacrificing others for their own ambitions.
( excerpt from AT )
Al Gore and the Limits of Recycling.
Have you noticed the drive-by media’s blossoming love affair with Al Gore? Like so many springtime infatuations, this one is likely to end badly.
Faced with polls indicating Hillary’s un-electability in 2008, and fearful of her energizing effects on the Republican base, the dive-by media is scrambling to find a viable Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. And in desperation, they have set their sights on Gore.
Interspersed with salting the wound of Haditha, the antique media is trotting out pictures of Al Gore in turtlenecks. It is pushing him as a wise, thoughtful statesman. Footage of Gore speaking calmly—instead of screeching to MoveOn zealots—now floods the Sunday talk shows.
Old Media enthusiastically praises his alarmist, agitprop film on global warming, and that issue commands the cover of Time Magazine and the pages of the New York Times.
Yes, the drive by media is deeply, desperately in love with Albert Gore Jr.
Kofi and the rest of his cut-throat Marxist mass murdering friends have a choke hold on that institution. It is high time that we shut them down and make a new plan to turn it around.
Or, if that fails, shut the doors and throw them all into the street.
(a very good article from NewsMax)
Bolton: 'Put Up or Shut Up' Time for Iran
Three possibilities loom regarding Iran's nuclear program, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Neil Cavuto on Fox News' "Your World" program.
"There is the possibility of diplomatic negotiations with Iran, if they show they're serious . . . we have the Security Council, with potential economic sanctions, and we have the activity that we can engage in without Security Council approval - the president's ?proliferation Security Initiative' to deny Iran sensitive materials and technology, the financial pressure that we can apply, and the support for the democracy movement in Iran."Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that the U.S. is willing to join in face-to-face talks with Iran over its nuclear program.
Bolton made it clear that President Bush wants to find a diplomatic solution to the Iran situation, but that we are nearing the end game. "I think it's important that [Iran] take a very careful look at what Secretary Rice laid out . . . because it really is their last chance, in many respects," Bolton told Cavuto.
Additionally, America's new offer to talk directly with Iran if they stop enriching uranium is, in Bolton's words, "a major effort on our part to avoid this being a discussion about what the United States [is] doing wrong, and get it back to the real point which is what Iran's doing wrong."
Cavuto asked, "They're claiming it's propaganda . . . is it?" Bolton replied, "No. This is very serious . . . The Iranians have been making the point that if we don't sit down and talk then this isn't a serious effort," so the new offer of talk after cessation of enrichment will "take that excuse away from them and focus on what really the problem is, which is their pursuit of nuclear weapons."
What if they say they'll stop enrichment as soon as the talks start, asked Cavuto?
"This is a precondition on which we're not going to compromise, and it's a precondition consistent with what the five permanent members of the Security Council, the Security Council itself, and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] have already said.
"If they stop uranium enrichment and plutonium processing, then that's a sign that they're serious about the talks."
If they don't stop enrichment, then "the other alternative is clear, too, and that is that we will move for economic and political sanctions to make it clear to them what their choice is," Bolton added.Ambassador Bolton also made it clear that the U.S. is after a shutdown of Iran's nuclear weapons program, not just an end to uranium enrichment.
"Their program is much more extensive than enrichment . . . there's no way they could have engaged in the breadth and scope of the program that they've undertaken unless they had a weapons purpose in mind," he said.
Cavuto then told Bolton that former Secretary of State Eagleburger told him in an interview, "and I'm paraphrasing, ?While we're whistling, they're building, and the North Koreans played this game with us during the Clinton years - promised one thing and didn't deliver.' Are we going to repeat that?"
"The Iranians don't have an infinite time to respond to this offer," Bolton assured Cavuto. "They need to take time to look at it seriously, but then we expect an answer, and we're not going to be fooled into the pattern that they've followed the past couple of years where they've admitted, quite publicly, that they deceived the Europeans, and that they used the cover of negotiations to perfect their uranium enrichment process. We're not going to permit that again."
Cavuto then asked, "What if none of this works... there is always what some would say is the ?Israeli Option' - they dealt with Iraq with this technology 26 years ago. Is it going to be Israel that settles it?"
Their conversation went like this:
Bolton:The president's made it very clear he wants to resolve the Iranian nuclear weapons program though peaceful and diplomatic means, but he's also said that Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
Cavuto: But unacceptable means that if it keeps going on you're going to do something about it . . .
Bolton: No option is taken off the table.
Cavuto: Military as well?
Cavuto: Unilateral military action?
Bolton: Secretary Rice made that point . . . that's why . . .
Cavuto: That we would act alone if we had to?
Bolton: That's why he says no option is taken off the table. But it's also why the president has reached out to [Russian] President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, "We're making a significant step here" - that will be criticized by many of the president's staunchest supporters here at home, but he's taking this step to show strength and American leadership. He's doing it to say "We gave Iran this last chance to show they are serious when they say ?We don't want nuclear weapons.'" This is "put up or shut up" time for Iran.
Cavuto then said he feels Iran is flouting our demands - that Iran thinks the U.S. is bogged down with other military actions around the world and it can never really get tough.
Bolton responded that the president knows what he means when he said he isn't taking any options off the table. "And I come back to the point that he has said in public and private: ?It's unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.' He is a man of his word."
Thursday, June 01, 2006
But let's wait and see what the truth actual is before we hang the innocent.
Haditha: a question of standing
It appears that there is going to be bad news from Haditha. Since this involves a war zone, we have to be very careful about coming to any conclusions before the fact.
But it appears that women and children may have been killed by our Marines. The question arises, is this a bad thing? More specifically, who would have standing to say it is a bad thing?
Not Hamas – it is dedicated to using terrorism to eliminate the state of Israel. Their idea of warfare is to attack unarmed civilians going about their lives. No standing there.
Not al-Qaeda – Osama bin Laden has issued a fatwa to kill Americans wherever they may be found. No standing there.
Not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – beheading defenseless people is his tactic. No standing there.
Not the British professors’ union – they think that it is beyond comprehension that Israel should defend itself against terrorism against its people. No standing there.
Not the press, at least to the extent that this is treated as anything other than another “incident” in Iraq – another bombing of a market. Yes, those are reported, but simply as part of the passing scene. No moral opprobrium is assessed. No standing there.
The USMC. It has standing. The Marines are a disciplined fighting force that observes the rules of warfare and disciplines those who do not. That is why this incident, if it occurred is so grievous – it is a breach of the values which the Marines represent and for which they are fighting on our behalf. This incident, if it occurred, is so upsetting because it is a breach of the tremendous restraint our Armed Forces have practiced at great cost to themselves.
Greg Richards 6 1 06