SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34919)6/29/2005 5:04:44 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Why we must fight the Global War on Terror, keep persevering in Iraq and keep the terrorists in prisons, to help us get information, which may prevent devastating attacks.

Quietly, WMD units prepare for the worst
MSNBC ^ / June 28, 2005 / Michael Moran

Since 1999, Furey and the Massachusetts National Guard team he commands have been dedicated to responding to potential domestic attacks involving chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the Boston area.

Such planning may surprise the public, but since 9/11, police and fire departments increasingly regard such preparations as routine. And agencies in the Boston area have had a lot of practice in the past calendar year, beginning with the Democratic National Convention, the Fourth of July, the Boston Marathon, baseball playoffs and a World Series for the Red Sox, and a successful NFL championship by the New England Patriots.

"Every one of these are events we have to worry about," Furey said. "We're there, and mostly the public doesn't see it, but that's as it should be."

We're not really preventive; we are a worst-case operation," he said. "But we can't survive on wishful thinking. There are other people whose job it is to prevent attacks. Ours is to make sure that if there ever is one, we know just what it is and how to react to save as many lives as possible."

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...

Another small tip of another iceberg in the War on Terror, where most things that happen are thing we are not ever aware of.
This is why we have to continue to fight the Global War on Terror, keep persevering in Iraq and keep the terrorists in prisons, to help us get information, which may prevent devastating attacks.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34919)6/29/2005 5:10:15 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Bearing Questions, 4 New Iraqi Leaders Pay Hussein a Visit
NY Times ^ | 12/15/03 | Ian Fisher

AGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 14 — The wild gray beard was gone, and he sat on a metal army cot, just awake from a nap, in socks and black slippers. He was not handcuffed. He did not recognize all his visitors, but they recognized him. That was the purpose of the visit: to help confirm that he was, in fact, Saddam Hussein.

What came next in the Sunday afternoon meeting, according to people in the room, was an extraordinary 30 minutes, in which four new leaders of Iraq pointedly questioned the nation's deposed and now captured leader about his tyrannical rule. Mr. Hussein, they said, was defiant and unrepentant but very much defeated.

"The world is crazy," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Governing Council member in the room on Sunday after Mr. Hussein was captured near his hometown, Tikrit. "I was in his torture chamber in 1979, and now he was sitting there, powerless in front of me without anybody stopping me from doing anything to him. Just imagine. We were arguing, and he was using very foul language."

The carefully managed event gave the four men who had spent decades opposing the ruler they regard as an oppressor of their country a rare chance to confront him. Though he spoke forcefully, the haggard Mr. Hussein was now the prisoner, and his opponents seemed to gain some legitimacy as leaders through the meeting in which they said they had called him to task on behalf of their nation.

Ahmad Chalabi, a council member and head of the Iraqi National Congress who was also in the room, said: "He was quite lucid. He had command of his faculties. He would not apologize to the Iraqi people. He did not deny any of the crimes he was confronted with having done. He tried to justify them."

After Mr. Hussein's capture in an eight-foot-deep hole that one council member said was filled with "rats and mice," the four leaders were taken by helicopter on Sunday afternoon to a military base, at a location they would not disclose. In addition to Mr. Rubaie and Mr. Chalabi, two others were aboard: Adnan Pachachi, a council member who was the foreign minister before Mr. Hussein came to power, and Adel Abdel Mahdi, who represents the Shiite religious body, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Two American leaders in Iraq were there too: L. Paul Bremer III, the American civilian administrator of Iraq; and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top military commander in Iraq. The room was small, Mr. Rubaie said, and General Sanchez asked the men if they would like to see him through a window or by camera.

"We said, `No, we want to talk to him,' " Mr. Rubaie said.

Aides to the men differed slightly about what happened next. One said Mr. Hussein, who they said had just woken up, did not recognize any of his visitors. Another said he recognized Mr. Chalabi and asked him to introduce the others.

"Saddam turned to Pachachi and said: `You were the foreign minister of Iraq. What are you doing with these people?' " one aide said.

Mr. Rubaie said he had asked the first question which, he said, was met with a brutal and dismissive joke. He said he had asked why Mr. Hussein had killed two leading Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr in 1980 and Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr in 1999.

The word "sidr" means "chest" in Arabic, and Mr. Hussein replied, "As sidr or ar rijl?" That translates as: "The chest or the foot?"

The men then asked Mr. Hussein about events in his nearly 35 years in power that officials in the United States and elsewhere cite in accusing the former ruler. They cited these examples:

¶Asked about the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988, in which an estimated 5,000 people were killed, Mr. Hussein said, according to his visitors, that this was the work of Iran, at war with Iraq at the time.

¶Asked about the mass graves of tens of thousands of Iraqis uncovered since Mr. Hussein was toppled from power in the American-led offensive this spring, Mr. Rubaie said Mr. Hussein answered: "Ask their relatives. They were thieves, and they ran away from the battlefields with Iran and from the battlefields of Kuwait."

¶Asked why he invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking the American-led assault on Iraq the next year, he said Kuwait was rightfully a part of Iraq.

"He was not remorseful at all," Mr. Chalabi said. "It was clear he was a complete narcissist who was incapable of showing remorse or sympathy to other human beings."

Mr. Chalabi said Mr. Hussein had also suggested that he was behind the recent wave of attacks against American soldiers in Iraq since his defeat.

"He said, `I gave a speech, and I said the Americans can come to Iraq but they can't occupy it and rule it,' " Mr. Chalabi said. "He said, `I said I would fight them with pistols, and I have.' "

"He didn't say it directly, but he was trying to take credit for it," Mr. Chalabi said.

At a news conference on Sunday evening, Mr. Pachachi said Mr. Hussein had tried to justify himself by saying Iraqis needed a tough ruler.

"He tried to justify his crimes by saying that he was a just but firm ruler," he said. "Of course our answer was he was an unjust ruler responsible for the deaths of thousands of people."

Throughout the meeting, Mr. Hussein was calm but often used foul language. Mr. Pachachi said he looked "tired and haggard." Mr. Bremer and General Sanchez, they said, did not speak, though Mr. Chalabi said Mr. Hussein was "deferential and respectful to the Americans."

"You can conclude from that some aspect that he was reconciled to his situation," he said.

"The most important fact: Had the roles been reversed, he would have torn us apart and cut us into small pieces after torture," Mr. Chalabi said. "This contrast was paramount in my mind, how we treated him and how he would have treated us."

Mr. Rubaie said: "One thing which is very important is that this man had with him underground when they arrested him two AK-47's and did not shoot one bullet. I told him, `You keep on saying that you are a brave man and a proud Arab.' I said, `When they arrested you why didn't you shoot one bullet? You are a coward.' "

"And he started to use very colorful language," he said. "Basically he used all his French."

"I was so angry because this guy has caused so much damage," Mr. Rubaie added. "He has ruined the whole country. He has ruined 25 million people."

"And I have to confess that the last word was for me," he continued. "I was the last to leave the room and I said, `May God curse you. Tell me, when are you going to be accountable to God and the day of judgment? What are you going to tell him about Halabja and the mass graves, the Iran-Iraq war, thousands and thousands executed? What are you going to tell God?' He was exercising his French language."



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34919)6/29/2005 5:14:19 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Kerry ready for war
with Iraq in 1997
Clinton didn't need U.N. authorization, he said, for move for Mideast 'stability'
March 14, 2004
By Joseph Farah
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry, who approved the use of force against Saddam Hussein by the Bush administration, but now, as a presidential candidate, claims he cast that vote only because he was deceived, was ready for war on Iraq in November 1997, according to statements he made on a CNN debate show.

Kerry sparred with CNN "Crossfire" co-host John Sununu Nov. 12, 1997, using language that sounded remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration six years later – criticizing the United Nations and allies France and Russia for not standing tougher against Iraq.

"Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked," said Kerry. "I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term 'serious consequences will flow.' On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the Security Council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern – where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity? But in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."

Audio tapes of the remarkable debate will be played today on Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated daily radio program broadcast live from the nation's capital. They were obtained from Monica Crowley, host of a radio show on WABC in New York.

Kerry, who now blames Bush for not achieving a broader international alliance in the war, said in 1997 nothing other nations had to say would stop the U.S. and Clinton from acting in defense of America's security interests.

"There's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country," said Kerry. "And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge."

Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq.

"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."

Kerry blamed France's objections to force against Iraq on monetary interests.

"The fact is that over a period of time France and Russia have indicated a monetary interest," he said. "They on their own have indicated the desire to do business. That's what's driving this. I mean, as (The New York Times') Tom Friedman said in a great article the other day, France Inc. wants to do business with oil and they are moving in the exact sort of opposite direction on their own from the very cause of the initial conflict, which was oil."

Kerry made clear that the move against Iraq was about more than weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's efforts to back out of its agreements. He also left no doubt he was talking about war.

"This is not just a minor confrontation," said Kerry. "This is a very significant issue about the balance of power, about the future stability of the Middle East, about all of what we have thus far invested in the prior war and what may happen in the future."

Kerry, who now boasts about the support he has from other nations around the world, was particularly tough on France in his comments urging force in Iraq. He said the Clinton administration did all it could behind the scenes to pull France into agreement.

"It's not the first time France has been very difficult. ... " he said. "I think a lot of us are very disappointed that the French haven't joined us in a number of other efforts with respect to China, with respect to other issues in Asia and elsewhere and also in Europe. These are, this is a disappointment. But the fact is this. The president has, in effect, put military action on the table. Secretary (Richard) Cohen canceled his trip, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled a trip, troops are deployed, the aircraft carriers are being brandished. There's no misunderstanding here about where the United States is prepared to go and I think that people need to just sort of back off. It's funny how in Washington inevitably there are always distinctions to be found, even if they're only at the margins here, and I would suggest that if all we're doing is suggesting that the president needs to be doing some diplomacy behind-the-scenes, that's not a bad criticism because he's obviously doing that behind the scenes."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34919)6/29/2005 10:00:27 AM
From: AuBug  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law

108nd Congress H.Res.XX

1st Session

Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

_______________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January __, 2003

Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

________________________________________________

A RESOLUTION

Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE II

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of citizens. Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE III

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE IV

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children. This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE V

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President approached Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress meaningless. The President has not received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S. Constitution has declared that he will go to war regardless of the views of the American people. In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE VI

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez - R.I.P. - and H. Res. 86, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 1991.)

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of
Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34919)6/29/2005 11:50:01 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Explicitly branding themselves as the "terrorists' rights" party is unlikely to improve the Democrats chances for 2006.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34919)6/29/2005 11:55:46 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
KOSOVO: THE WAR DEMOCRATS LOVED............................
DON FEDER.COM ^ | OCTOBER 26, 2004 |

The Democrats have been characterized as a party of peace marchers and flag-burners -- a Neville Chamberlain cadre chattering away on cable TV, knee-jerk internationalists who’ve mistaken the United Nations for the United States Marines.

I must protest this calumny.

Under the right circumstances, the Democrats can be Sgt. York and Audie Murphy times Rambo. There was a little war of which Democrats are exceedingly fond – so much so that they’re still bragging about it five years later.

It’s a conflict that didn’t involve allegations of weapons of mass destruction. The nation we subjugated wasn’t a sponsor of international terrorism. (This time, we fought for the terrorists.)

It wasn’t remotely related to national security. And the justification for our intervention turned out to be a complete fabrication.

For 78 days in 1999, we bombed Christian Yugoslavia (our ally in two World Wars) to aid Moslem separatists who were tight with Osama bin Laden. Ever since, NATO has occupied its sovereign territory – with disastrous results.

Appearing on CNN’s “Late Edition” in August, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her husband’s 1999 adventure, over the ancient province of Kosovo, as evidence that Democrats are better at fighting wars than Republicans. (I would have thought Korea and Vietnam proved that conclusively.)

We smashed the Serb war-machine, and “we didn’t lose a single American military person,” Hillary boasted of the conflict her draft-dodger hubby dragged us into. She neglected to mention that it was a war we fought from 30,000 feet.

The party of McGovern and Dean is so proud of this notable feat of arms, that it invited Hashim Thaci, chieftain of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Clinton’s erstwhile ally, to attend the Democratic National Convention. (You’d think the Party in a Perpetual Fog would be at least a little curious about how Thaci got the nickname “Snake.” Hint: It’s not because he’s a patron of the arts.)

On his return to Kosovo, Snake Thaci – head of a terrorist gang that finances its operations through drug-running and prostitution – proclaimed, “It was confirmed once again that a Democratic administration would recognize and respect the will of the people of Kosovo for self-determination.”

Self-determination is code for independence from Yugoslavia – the creation of another Republic of Jihad (Balkanistan) on the periphery of Europe.

The Clinton gang that ran the war – including Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark (then Supreme Commander of NATO forces) -- are slated for key posts in a Kerry administration. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Clinton, Holbrooke (who once called the Serbs “murderous assholes”) could be Kerry’s Secretary of State.

The War Hero and his running-mate both voted for the Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Kosovo. A war resolution died in the Republican House.

What, we went to war without congressional authorization! We also did it without the permission of the United Nations. (Whatever happened to multilateralism?) Still, the French and Germans were on board – always a bad sign.

In a July 23, 2004 letter to Albanian-Americans, Kerry charged the Bush administration was “turning its back on the region” Whenever Bush doesn’t coddle terrorists (the PLO, the KLA) Kerry accuses him of abandoning whole regions.

In said letter, Kerry declared, “The people of Kosovo must be able to determine their own future, including how they want to be governed.” Since “the people of Kosovo” now are overwhelmingly Moslem, thanks in part to Clinton, Kerry is committing himself to Kosovo’s independence.

He wants to finish the job our last Democratic president started in 1999.

Kosovo is the ancient heartland of Serbian Orthodoxy. Until the 1970s, its population was predominately Serb.

Due to illegal immigration from Albania, Moslems became a majority and began agitating for autonomy. Then they started committing atrocities against their Serb neighbors – like beating elderly nuns, raping young girls and attacking monasteries. Then the KLA – which the U.S. State Department listed as a terrorist group as late as 1998 – started assassinating Yugoslav police and government officials.

Slobodan Milosevic, an ex-communist apparatchik who was President of Yugoslavia at the time, overreacted. (It is the Balkans, after all, a region second only to the Middle East for ethnic/religious harmony.)

Casting about for a way to take the nation’s attention off oral sex and impeachment, Bubba determined that we must intervene to save the saintly Albanians from the savage Serbs.

Ethnic cleansing was afoot, President Perjury gravely intoned. Exactly how this was different from the exchange of populations that took place throughout Europe in the aftermath of World War II (think of Poland and Germany, think of India and Pakistan) was never quite explained.

Worse, there were reports of killing fields and mass graves. Milosevic was cast as an architect of genocide – the Heinrich Himmler of the Balkans,

At the Rambouillet conference, the Yugoslav president was presented with an ultimatum: allow a peace-keeping force into Kosovo (as a prelude to detaching the province from Yugoslavia) and permit NATO forces to occupy the entire country, if they choose.

The Serbs refused and the bombing commenced. We killed over 3,000 – mostly civilians, mostly with cluster-bombs -- before Milosevic finally yielded to vastly superior force.

After the Yugoslav Federal Army was driven from Kosovo, forensic experts scoured the countryside, and came up empty-handed.

A December 31, 1999, article in the Wall Street Journal (coincidentally, by Daniel Pearl) reported that allegations of “indiscriminate mass murder, rape camps, crematoriums, mutilation of the dead – haven’t been borne out in the six months since NATO troops entered Kosovo. Ethnic-Albanian militants, humanitarian organizations, NATO and the news media fed off each other to give genocide rumors credibility. Now, a different picture is emerging.”

Following these revelations, there were no cries of “Where are the MGs?” (mass graves). Republicans didn’t begin every speech by accusing Clinton of lying to the nation in his rush to justify an unnecessary war (though they could have).

Michael Moore did not make a documentary on how a Democratic president engineered a conflict to advance his personal agenda. (“Fahrenheit 1999”?) No one in the media asked about Clinton’s exit strategy (5 years later, U.S. forces are still stationed in Kosovo) or demanded to know how he intended to “win the peace.”

Whether or not there was ethnic cleansing before the war, there certainly was afterward.

Albanians, who were handed a victory by Clinton and NATO, drove out 277,000 Serbs. (Hundreds were murdered and thousands brutalized.) As of March 2004, Moslem multiculturalists had destroyed 135 Orthodox churches, monasteries and shrines – all under the watchful eyes of KFOR , as NATO’s Keystone Cop peace-keeping force is called.

The rampage continues. The latest pogrom occurred in March, when (in a planned and coordinated campaign) 28 Serbs were murdered, more than 600 wounded and another 3,600 forced to flee. The Serbs left in Kosovo -- estimated at between 102,000 and 114,000 -- live in a state of siege. Should KFOR be withdrawn, they’d all be dead or exiled in a matter of days.

Yes, Kosovo truly was the Democrats’ finest hour – a prime example of just how tough the party of Jimmy Carter and Ramsey Clark can be, when they’re in a fighting mood.

On the other hand, their Kosovo allies are threatening to give scum-of-the-earth a bad name. Back in ’99, Senator Joe Lieberman, who’s rumored to know something about foreign policy, called the KLA “freedom fighters.” Well, you know what the moral relativists of the left say: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

As it transpires, the KLA is allied with other freedom fighters, -- whose SOP is car bombs and demolishing sky-scrappers. Bin Laden was active in the Balkans as early as 1994.

In a Washington Times story published within days of 9/11, defense expert Bill Gertz disclosed: “Islamic radicals, including supporters of bin Laden, have been supporting Albanian rebels fighting in the region (who then were trying to de-stabilize Montenegro), including members of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Intelligence officials have said there are reports that KLA members have been trained at bin Laden camps in Afghanistan.” During the initial fighting there, U.S. units scooped up Kosovar Albanians who were serving with the Taliban’s foreign legion.

Another investigative article (“Al Qaeda’s Balkan Links,” The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2002) noted, “By feeding off the region’s impoverished republics and taking root in the unsettled aftermath of the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts, al Qaeda, along with Iranian Revolutionary Guard-sponsored terrorists, have burrowed their way into Europe’s backyard.”

Also, in the wake of the Democrats’ merry little war, Kosovo became the prime route, after Turkey, for the importation of heroin from Southeast Asia to Europe – just one more way our friends the freedom fighters thanked us for giving them a country.

The foregoing all is courtesy of Bill Clinton, John Kerry and the other Democrats who know what the US military is for – killing Christians to aid Moslem terrorists.

Whatever the shortcomings of President Bush’s plans for Iraq, at least he’s trying to bring democracy to a nation that’s never known it before. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney ousted a brutal dictator, who sponsored international terrorism and (at the very least) was actively acquiring WMD-technology.

In Kosovo, we put the terrorists in power. Kerry helped. He voted for it. He defends it. (Thaci was his honored guest in Boston.) Now he’s pushing independence for the terrorists. In terms of betraying the West, this is easily the best work he’s done since his contribution to undermining the U.S. war effort in Vietnam in 1971.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34919)6/29/2005 4:30:40 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Bin Laden and Iraq (What the Media Said in the 90's)
FrontPage Magazine ^ | July 14, 2003 |
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.
Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.
THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the WestÝ ...
Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.
"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."
The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been whittled down to single figures ...
- - - - -
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."Ý ....
- - - - -
The Observer. December 19, 1999.
Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam
The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour ofÝ fundamentalists.
By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad
... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo him to Iraq.
Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ...
- - - - -
United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...
- - - - -
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION.
BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE By: From Beacon Journal wire services
DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN:
... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.
A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial....
- - - - -
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.
International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries
By Rich Hood
... He (bin Laden)Ýhas a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States....
- - - - -
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition. SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk. HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN
Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a sideshow....
- - - - -
National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999.
THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER
... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.
Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.
SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony....
- - - - -
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999.
Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition
Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday. "If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."
... Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week.....
- - - - -
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle
Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq
DATELINE: Kuwait City
An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.
The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.
Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.
The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq ....
- - - - -
Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999.
Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown
... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.
Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. historyÝ....
- - - - -
San Jose Mercury News (California).Ý February 14, 1999 Sunday MORNING FINAL EDITION
U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS
U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ...
In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is aÝrenowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden.
"It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence AgencyÝ ...
Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.
... (in) late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.
Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...
More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...
"The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official....
- - - - -
Associated Press Worldstream. February 13, 1999; Saturday 14:32 Eastern Time
Bin Laden said to have left Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
... It is very unlikely bin Laden could remain in Afghanistan without Taliban officials knowing his whereabouts.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.
U.S. officials believe bin Laden masterminded the Aug. 7 bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania ...
Bin Laden urged devout Muslims to attack U.S. and British interests in retaliation for their joint assault on Iraq.
U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, who has been indicted in a U.S. court on murder charges in connection with the bombings. But the Taliban had refused.
- - - - -
The Bulletin's Frontrunner. January 4, 1999, Monday.
Defiant Saddam Looks To Provoke U.S.
... Time also reported, "For now, the White House will respond to each provocation by counterattacking the offending battery."
Saddam Reaching Out To bin Laden.
Newsweek (1/11, Contreras) reported, "U.S. sources say (Saddam) is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden." ...
(Osama bin Laden was) calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to hisÝ government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective....
- - - - -
The White House Bulletin. Copyright 1999. Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.
In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective, he....
- - - - -
United Press International. January 3, 1999, Sunday, BC cycle.
UPI Focus: Bin Laden 'instigated' embassy bombings
... (The Taliban) government in Afghanistan says the Saudi does not have the money to finance projects in the country. Newsweek also reported that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been making new overtures to bin Laden in an attempt to rebuild his intelligence network and to create his own terror network....