Durham County Courthouse - Confederate Statue

More violence and lawlessness and chants against President Trump.

This time, thugs destroyed public property in Durham, North Carolina, pulling down a confederate monument:



When I think of statues being toppled, I think of Saddam Hussein. U.S. Marines helped Iraqis remove that one.



I think of images of ISIS destroying ancient religious artifacts.



I think of the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan valley in Afghanistan.



And of course, I think of the statues of Lenin being ripped down.



Since statues have been erected, statues have been toppled. That's the way things go.

However, what happened in Durham was wrong. Mobs can't be allowed to destroy property.

The racism and deadly violence in Charlottesville is unacceptable but there is a better way to remove these monuments #durham - RC

— Governor Roy Cooper (@NC_Governor) August 15, 2017

Chris Matthews: Ivanka and Jared, Saddam Hussein's Sons

Chris Matthews, MSNBC, always manages to sink to a new low.

Chris Matthews Compares Ivanka Trump & Jared Kushner to Hussein Sons https://t.co/aYKLMvS2qY

— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) March 28, 2017

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, we kid, I kid about everything, but, you know, Uday and Qusay working for Saddam Hussein-- you couldn't go to a restaurant and have eye contact with one of those guys without getting killed. These people are really powerful. Imagine getting into a fight in the office with Jared or Ivanka. They have enormous power. And they're always gonna be there.

From the Daily Wire:

Uday and Qusay Hussein were two of the most evil individuals ever to walk the earth. To compare those two inhuman creatures – even in an oblique fashion – to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner is unconscionable. It's not only shockingly inappropriate, but it dulls the American people's intellectual and emotional senses to the reality of wickedness.

Just as comparing President Donald Trump's policies to those implemented during the Holocaust demeans those who suffered under the Third Reich, comparing Ivanka Trump and Kushner to the Hussein brothers cheapens the agony of all who were tortured, raped, and murdered under the late-Ba'athist regime.

Chris Matthews is truly a disgrace.

Bill O'Reilly apologized for his comment comparing Maxine Waters' wig to James Brown's hair. While insulting, O'Reilly's dig is nothing compared to what Matthews said.

Will Matthews apologize for his horrible remarks about the First Daughter and her husband?

Unlikely.

_____________________


Read about Uday and Qusay's crimes here.

Trump and Saddam Hussein

I am beyond sick of some alleged conservatives aiding and abetting Hillary and Obama and the Leftists.

For months and months, they've been pounding away at Trump.

They spend at least as much energy cutting down Trump as they do Hillary and Democrats. Let's face it. They devote more time to their hatred of Trump than their opposition to Hillary.



Trump says, "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy right? He was a bad guy, really bad guy."

He goes on to say that Saddam Hussein did something well. He was good at killing. He's right. Saddam Hussein knew how to kill. The evil man knew how to get rid of his enemies.

Why must these alleged conservatives rip Trump for that comment?

For the love of God, focus on the atrocity of Hillary's egregious behavior and her gross mishandling of classified information and the absurdity of Jim Comey recommending no charges.

Fact: Saddam was good at killing. Horrific, but true.

Fact: Republicans are great at losing. Pathetic. True.

John McCain refused to hit Obama for his radicalism, and lost.

Mitt Romney refused to hit Obama for the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Benghazi, and lost.

Now, instead of hitting Hillary for her CRIMES, some Republicans, yapping media voices, are slamming the presumptive Republican nominee, not for failing to hit Hillary hard regarding her CRIMES but for calling Saddam Hussein a good killer.



Good job, Republicans/conservatives. Really good job at losing. AGAIN.

I can't stand it.

Bottom line: Trump's "missteps," and there have been many, aren't as bad as Hillary's CRIMES and corruptness. Nonetheless, many Republicans/conservatives are doing their best to elect Hillary.

It sickens me to know that they will succeed.

Why talk anymore?

Let's just give up now. Surrender now.

Obama and Dead Syrian Children

In his address to the nation last night, Obama exploited dead Syrian children to convince Americans to support his proposed "unbelievably small" military attack, not to be confused with a "pinprick."

According to the transcript provided by the White House, Obama mentioned "children" seven times.

OBAMA: The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.

...

The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people — to those children — is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.

...

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

...

Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.

So, Obama argues that there's something about Syrian children killed with chemical weapons that demands action from the United States, even though he says we aren't the world's policeman but then he insists we must act like the world's policeman in this case because that's what makes us different and exceptional.  Contradictory.

Obama didn't talk in graphic terms about all the dead children from conventional weapons in the Syrian conflict. Don't they matter?

Moreover, Obama obviously didn't care about the suffering and deaths of Iraqi and Iranian children due to Saddam Hussein's brutality.

In 2007, when Obama was campaigning in Madison, here's what he said about Iraq:

Obama talked about Iraq. He told of how he spoke out against the war during his Illinois Senate campaign in 2002.

"This is a dumb war, ...and we shouldn't fight it."

Apparently, in Obama's mind, Syrian children must have greater value than other children.

When Christian children are slaughtered, Obama doesn't argue that the United States must stop the atrocities.

In his remarks last night, Obama asked, "What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?"

Obama's record shows that he's very comfortable with looking the other way. He didn't mind Saddam's use of poison gas.

Obama's arguments are so contradictory and empty. They're dripping with hypocrisy. Obama has no credibility. The stances he has taken in the past are coming back to bite him.

I can't stand Obama's exploitation of children to advance his political fortunes. He exploits dead American children as well as dead Syrian children when it benefits him. It's so sleazy to toy with the emotions of Americans for his personal political gain.

Obama uses dead children as weapons. I have a problem with that.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: WMD Charge

As of September 11, 2012, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been a U.S. citizen.

Because he was allowed to pledge his allegiance to our country and become one of us, he has the protection of the Constitution.

From the Washington Post:

Federal prosecutors announced terrorism charges against the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday, outlining a chilling plot in which the man and his brother allegedly used low-grade but deadly explosives timed to detonate a block apart.

As he lay seriously injured in a Boston area hospital, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property, counts that could bring him the death penalty. He made his first court appearance in an unusual, non-public proceeding in which a federal judge and several lawyers went to his hospital bed.

The toll from the two blasts, according to court documents and interviews on Monday, could have been far higher. Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, 26, who was killed Friday after a firefight with police, had a homemade arsenal of explosives. Some law enforcement officials said they think the brothers were planning more attacks.

"Weapon of mass destruction"?

One can't help but be struck by that term.

For years, Democrats/Leftists insisted there were no "weapons of mass destruction" found in Iraq. Saddam Hussein supposedly had no "weapons of mass destruction."

If a pressure cooker bomb is considered a "weapon of mass destruction," then it's impossible to continue that narrative.

When it comes to the terrorist being charged in our criminal justice system rather than treated as an enemy combatant, I never had any doubt that would happen. Remember, we're dealing with Obama. He wanted Osama bin Laden to stand trial in a civilian court.

Both terrorist brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan, applied to be U.S. citizens. Tamerlan's application was on hold, and with good reason. Dzhokhar was accepted to become an American, to join this nation of immigrants.

I wonder how many other Islamists are playing that game. It's a scary thought, especially given the incompetence of authorities in identifying terrorists and monitoring them.

It's so important that we don't let political correctness cloud reality.

From AP:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother appear to have been motivated by a radical brand of Islam but do not seem connected to any Muslim terrorist groups, said the U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

We can't be afraid to address the reality of the killers' actions and intentions.

We can't ignore the religious element here. It appears Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's adherence to radical Islam led him to employ a "weapon of mass destruction" against his fellow citizens.

Obama, the Fiscal Cliff, and Saddam Hussein

As Obama makes his lame remarks about the fiscal cliff, he's using middle class families as props, standing behind him, smiling and laughing and adoring him.

Oh, come let us adore him!

It reminds me of Saddam Hussein surrounding himself with children. What a great guy!

I am so disgusted by the Obama cult of personality. I'm sick of his class warfare and his outright lies.

Obama's staged pep rally is nauseating.

It's painful witnessing the downfall of my country.

2013 - oh, goody.

Common and Obama: Poetry Night

Tonight at the White House, the Obamas will be celebrating American poetry.

From the Washington Examiner:

[The Obamas will celebrate] American poetry and prose by hosting a gathering of poets, musicians and artists.

Those slated to attend include Elizabeth Alexander, Billy Collins, Common, Rita Dove, Kenneth Goldsmith, Alison Knowles, Aimee Mann and Jill Scott. The performers, using music and verse, will highlight poetry's influence on American culture, according to the Associated Press.

As per usual, Michelle Obama will use the event to teach young ones. The first lady will host an afternoon workshop connecting students from all across the country to the evening's performers.

"An Evening of Poetry" is part of White House's music series, which began in 2009 with a jazz studio. Since then, Michelle Obama has hosted a celebration of country music, classical music, Motown music, Latin music, a salute to Broadway, music of the civil rights movement and a dance tribute to Judith Jamison.

"An Evening of Poetry" doesn't sound very controversial, but it is.

The source of the controversy is the White House invitation for Common, aka Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr., a poet and rapper from Chicago, to participate in the event.

Common and the Obamas go way back.

They were all members of the very controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ.

Watch Common freestyle the sermon, and campaign for Obama, at the Church's 2008 New Year celebration.



Common defended his pastor when Wright came under fire back in 2008. Obama, of course, eventually threw Wright under the bus.

Here's another performance by Common, "Can a Black Man be a President."



Clearly, Common is politically active and a longtime Obama supporter. He's done plenty of campaigning for Obama. Watch "Vote Hope: Common for Barack Obama."



Given their history, it's no surprise that the Obamas would want Common to attend their celebration of American poetry.

The issue is some of Common's "poetry."

One of his "poems" speaks of killing police and burning President George W. Bush.

That violent imagery is a problem, especially since Michelle intends to use the event as a teaching moment for kids.

As per usual, Michelle Obama will use the event to teach young ones. The first lady will host an afternoon workshop connecting students from all across the country to the evening's performers.

I don't know that it's a good thing to connect American students with Common.

Common writes some rough, hateful stuff. I don't think that's a good message to send to kids.

Video of Common reciting "A Letter to the Law."



Transcript, from The Daily Caller.

A Letter to the Law

Dem boy wanna talk… [indistinguishable]

Whatcha gon do if ya got one gun?

I sing a song for the hero unsung

with faces on the mural of the revolution

No looking back cos’ in back is what’s done

Tell the preacher, God got more than one son

Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton

I walk like a warrior,

from them I won’t run

On the streets, they try to beat us like a drum

In Cincinnati, another brother hung

A guinea won’t see the sun

with his family stung

They want us to hold justice

but you handed me none

The same they did to Kobe and Michael Jackson

make them the main attraction

Turn around and attack them

Black gem in the rough

You’re rugged enough

Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch

Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun

I got the black strap to make the cops run

They watching me, I’m watching them

Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them

My people on the block got a lot of Pac in them

and when we roll together

we be rocking them to sleep

No time for that, because there’s things to be done

Stay true to what I do so the youth dream come

from project building

Seeing a fiend being hung

With that happening, why they messing with Saddam?

Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button

Killing over oil and grease

no weapons of destruction

How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one

The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people

Black people In the urban area one

I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.

Peace, ya’ll.

I have no problem whatsoever with Common expressing himself through his art.

However, because some of his work contains very violent imagery and inflammatory rhetoric like calling to "Burn a Bush," I don't think it's appropriate for the Obamas to highlight him at their poetry soiree.

Where's that new tone of civility?

Common's "A Letter to the Law" isn't vague. It's very specific about President Bush and police being the enemy, and dealing with them violently.

Would the Leftists mind if a Republican president invited a performer to the White House who called for Obama to be burned?

I think they'd completely flip out.

Condoleezza Rice and Lawrence O'Donnell

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell is a horrible interviewer. HORRIBLE.

Watch former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suffer the disrespect and stupidity of the crazed Leftist propagandist Lawrence O'Donnell.

Video.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Condoleezza Rice showed incredible restraint and patience with the disgraceful, classless O'Donnell.

Rice's brilliance overpowers O'Donnell, a rude and ill-informed hack.

Malik Zulu Shabazz and Saddam Hussein

We've all seen or heard Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, praise Osama bin Laden as a "Muslim that is standing up." Shabazz gives bin Laden his respects. He considers the American government the enemy and bin Laden his friend.

Sickening.

Video here.

Today, we see Shabazz honor Saddam Hussein, painting George W. Bush as the evil one.

Video, from a New Black Panthers private meeting, March 2002.

MALIK ZULU SHABAZZ: You would think that [the Bush administration] would be humbled after September 11th. You'd think they would try to reexamine what is going on and try to make peace on the Earth and equitable relationships on the Earth....

Yes, I disagree with Mr. Hussein. I know some of you all disagree with Mr. Hussein.... Your disagreement is with (Holds up a large photo of President George W. Bush).

How many of you have problems with Mr. Hussein versus your problem with Mr. Bush?

(Pointing to a large photo of Saddam Hussein) I don't see him bowing today. I don't see him coming out kissing America's ring. I don't see him kissing Bush's ring today....

I want to remind you of Hiroshima. I want to remind you of who is at the origin of weapons of mass destruction. I want you to speak this truth wherever you will go from this day forward: 80,000 killed instantly. The United States of America, white America dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima - 80,000 killed instantly. I want to ask you who has the weapons of mass destruction. They dropped the bomb on Nagasaki - eighty more thousand killed instantly, 160,000 total. I want to ask you who possesses the weapons of mass destruction. Who is the real threat to peace and stability on the Earth?

...Yet Saddam Hussein is accused of harboring weapons of mass destruction. I want you to see the racism in this.

...If I was Saddam Hussein, I'd get me some chemical weapons. If I was facing the enemy that he's facing, I would get everything I could put my hands on.

...This is the same [U.S.] government that created AIDS, biological weapons, that created AIDS in a labratory in Ft. Detrick, Maryland; and spread that AIDS with the authorization of the government, with biological weapons programs spread that AIDS through the Small Pox vaccine....

They're saying only Caucasian white people can safely use, or only Caucasian white people can have nuclear weapons. They're saying that our Arab brothers and sisters, black brothers and sisters, you cannot have what is really not a weapon of mass destruction, a weapon of deterrence.

Shabazz is really a twisted individual. He's a subversive, a homegrown terrorist, a racist. He preaches anti-Americanism.

It's stunning to me that Tea Party activists are deemed to be dangerous while Shabazz and his group are virtually ignored by Obama, his administration, elected Democrats, and their followers. No comment.

It's really disgusting when you think about it.
_________________

On May 29, 2010, at the New Black Panther Party National Convention in Atlanta, Malik Zulu Shabazz and King Samir Shabazz talked about their strategy to take on the Tea Party movement and "cracker police."

MALIK ZULU SHABAZZ: I told you last night the Tea Party is arming. The white man already been armed. He's just arming even more. I don't even see how we got a discussion or debate in the black community on whether or not we should be armed.

KING SAMIR SHABAZZ: If you're tired of police brutality, raise your black hands. Now, how many of you all want to know the quickest way to get rid of police brutality? How many really want to know? The quickest way to get rid of the police brutality is to get rid of police.

...How do you get rid of the police in your community? How many of you all know about the Deacons for Defense? We need Deacons for Defense in each and every black community. Is that right?

It makes no damn sense why cracker police come in your neighborhood and militarize your neighborhood. They go home to they stinking wife and children and they don't have to police their neighborhood.... I love fighting me some crackers. Straight up....

Police shake in they boots when they see me. Why? 'Cause I defend my hood. I don't allow nothin' to go on in my hood that I don't know about. You gotta have the heart to step to these bastards, man.

Video, from Naked Emperor News.

Jim McDermott, David Bonior, and Mike Thompson

Jim McDermott, David Bonior, and Mike Thompson acted as dupes for Saddam Hussein. That's a proud legacy, isn't it?

WASHINGTON -- Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam's regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary.

At the time, the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq.

The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators "have no information whatsoever" any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.

"Obviously, we didn't know it at the time," McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. "The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That's the only reason we went."

(Really? See the article below by Stephen Hayes.)

Both McDermott and Thompson are popular among liberal voters in their reliably Democratic districts for their anti-war views. Bonior is no longer in Congress.

Thompson released a statement Wednesday saying the trip was approved by the State Department.

"Obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated," he said.

...Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, the second-ranking Senate Republican at the time, said the Democrats "sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government." Seattle-are[a] conservatives dubbed McDermott "Baghdad Jim" for the Iraq trip.

Al-Hanooti was arrested Tuesday night while returning to the U.S. from the Middle East, where he was looking for a job, his attorney, James Thomas, said. Al-Hanooti pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges of conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, illegally purchasing Iraqi oil and lying to authorities. He was being held on $100,000 bail.

Between 1999 and 2006, he worked on and off as a public relations coordinator for Life for Relief and Development, a charity group formed after the first Gulf War to fund humanitarian work in Iraq. FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents raided the charity's headquarters in 2006 but charged nobody and allowed the agency to continue operating.

McDermott identified that charity as the group financing the Iraq trip. In House disclosure forms, he put the cost at $5,510. Thompson also understood the charity to be financing the trip, spokeswoman Anne Warden said.

Prosecutors said Al-Hanooti was responsible for monitoring Congress for the Iraqi Intelligence Service. From 1999 to 2002, he allegedly provided Saddam's government with a list of U.S. lawmakers he believed favored lifting economic sanctions against Iraq.

In exchange for coordinating the congressional trip, Al-Hanooti allegedly received 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil, prosecutors said.

None of this should come as a surprise. It's sickening but not surprising.

In the October 14, 2002 issue of The Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes wrote an interesting, albeit nauseating, piece, "The Baghdad Democrats."

IT'S A RARE POLITICAL MOMENT when Terry McAuliffe says no comment. Yet McAuliffe, the garrulous chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said just that last Wednesday at the Brookings Institution after a speech by Al Gore. Asked about the trip to Baghdad taken by three of his fellow partisans--Representatives David Bonior, Jim McDermott, and Mike Thompson--McAuliffe was nonplussed.

"Have we issued anything on that?" he asked DNC spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, who shook her head.

"I don't think we have," he said with a shrug of his shoulders.

"We handle the politics, and leave those comments to elected officials," Palmieri explained. "But nice try."

Problem is, the elected officials aren't saying much either. Bonior was until recently the second-ranking Democrat in the House, and yet it's nearly impossible to get Democrats to say anything about his and the others' trip to Baghdad.

But if other Democrats aren't talking about the Baghdad tour, Bonior and McDermott themselves won't shut up. And the more they talk, the more scrutiny they invite.

The controversy ignited on September 29 when Bonior and McDermott appeared from Baghdad on ABC's "This Week." Host George Stephanopoulos asked McDermott about his recent comment that "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war."

McDermott didn't backpedal at all: "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation. . . . It would not surprise me if they came out with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it. First they said it was al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back to and saying it's al Qaeda again." When Stephanopoulos pressed McDermott about whether he had any evidence that Bush had lied, the congressman replied, "I think the president would mislead the American people."

An American official floating unsubstantiated allegations against an American president during a visit to Baghdad would be troubling enough. But McDermott compounded his problem by insisting, despite its twelve years of verifiable prevarication, that the Iraqi regime should be given the benefit of the doubt on inspections and disarmament. Said McDermott on "This Week": "I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value."

But McDermott and Bonior only accept Iraq's more conciliatory statements at face value. They selectively ignore those statements by Iraqi officials defying the international community's demand for unfettered inspections. Even after Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan made clear that inspectors would not be allowed into presidential sites--some 12 square miles of Iraqi territory--McDermott claimed the Iraqi regime really wanted to be accommodating. "They have given us assurances that there will be unfettered inspections," McDermott said at an October 2 press conference he held with Bonior after returning from Iraq. "In the United States, we have a tradition, we have a Constitution that says if there's a bad person there, we give them due process and inspections is the due process in this example."

At the same press conference, McDermott and Bonior retrospectively revised the primary goal of their trip. (Thompson, who wasn't at that appearance, kept a relatively low profile both on the trip and after his return. He was the only one of the three to emphasize that Saddam Hussein, and not the U.S. government, bears responsibility for conditions in Iraq.) "First of all," said Bonior, explaining the objectives of the trip, "we wanted to impress upon the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq how important it was for them to allow unconditional, unfettered, unrestricted access to the inspectors." It was such an important point that he revisited it later.

"The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we--the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern--that and looking at the humanitarian situation."

But if the return of inspectors was the "first" and "primary" purpose of the trip on October 2, it wasn't quite as important on September 25. In the joint press release all three congressmen issued before their trip, posted on each of their websites, there were many stated goals, and plenty of criticism of U.S. saber rattling and pounding of war drums. But there was no mention of inspections at all.

Instead there was much talk of "gaining insight into the humanitarian challenges another war on Iraq would have on innocent Iraqis and the dangerous implications of a unilateral, preemptive strike on U.S. national security."

It's reassuring to know that these congressmen were concerned about our national security, even if the source of their concern was our president rather than the brutal dictator with weapons of mass destruction the United States is trying to stop. What apparently didn't concern the congressmen was the damage their trip might do abroad to any U.S.-led effort to deal with Saddam. Or any difficulties they may have created for U.S. efforts to fashion a friendly post-Saddam Iraq.

EVEN BEFORE the Baghdad boys left Iraq, media outlets throughout the Middle East gleefully highlighted divisions in the U.S. government and the travels by the "antiwar" congressmen. The Iraq Daily, for example, published by Saddam's Ministry of Information, printed daily updates of the trip and posted them in English on their website.

For example, a September 30 report says, "the members of the U.S. Congress delegation has underlined that this visit aims to get acquainted with the truth of Iraq's people sufferings due to ongoing embargo which caused shortage in food and medicine for all Iraqi people." (That article appeared next to a report on Saddam's continuing financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers or, to use the paper's formulation, "intrepid Palestinian uprising martyrs." Also in that issue is an article by American white supremacist Matthew Hale, "Truth About 9-11: How Jewish Manipulation Killed Thousands.")

Hayes details how the three Congressmen were used as propaganda tools by the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.

On September 27, viewers of Iraqi Satellite Channel Television learned the following (this translation comes from U.S. government sources):

"Three U.S. Congressmen arrived in Baghdad this morning on a visit lasting several days. The delegation will hold several meetings with Iraqi officials and members of the Foreign Relations Committee at the National Assembly. They will also visit hospitals to see the suffering caused by the unjust embargo and the shortage of medicines and medical supplies. Congressman Jim McDermott told reporters upon arrival at Saddam International Airport that the delegation members reject the policy of aggression dominating the U.S. administration."

The video then showed McDermott talking, with a voiceover translation in Arabic. Here is what Arabic-speaking audiences heard from McDermott:

"We are three veterans of the Vietnam War who came over here because we don't want war. We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries. As members of Congress, we would like diplomatic efforts to continue so as not to launch any aggression. We will visit children's hospitals to see the negative impact of the sanctions imposed on Iraq. We hope that peace will prevail throughout the world."

So how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool against your own country? McDermott, who was asked that question by CNN's Jane Arraf when he was still in Baghdad, said it feels fine. "If being used means that we're highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then, yes, we don't mind being used."

The adventures of McDermott, Bonior, and Thompson in Iraq were truly stunning.

In October 2002, George Will commented on "Baghdad Bonior."

Hitler found ``Lord Haw Haw''--William Joyce, who broadcast German propaganda to Britain during the Second World War--in the dregs of British extremism. But Saddam Hussein finds American collaborators among senior congressional Democrats.

Not since Jane Fonda posed for photographers at a Hanoi antiaircraft gun has there been anything like Rep. Jim McDermott, speaking to ABC's ``This Week'' from Baghdad, saying Americans should take Saddam Hussein at his word, but should not take President Bush at his. McDermott, in his seventh term representing Seattle, said Iraqi officials promised him and his traveling companion, Rep. David Bonior, a 13-term Michigan Democrat, that weapons inspectors would be ``allowed to look anywhere.''

Bonior, until recently second-ranking in the House Democratic leadership, said sources no less reliable than Saddam's minions told them that inspectors will have an ``unrestricted ability to go where they want.'' McDermott said: ``I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value--at their face value.'' And: ``I think the president would mislead the American people.''

McDermott and Bonior are two specimens of what Lenin, referring to Westerners who denied the existence of Lenin's police-state terror, called ``useful idiots.'' Perhaps Iraqi officials, knowing fathomless gullibility when they see it--they have dealt with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan--actually said such things. Or perhaps McDermott and Bonior heard what they wished to hear.

...McDermott's accusation that the president--presumably with Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice and others as accomplices--would use deceit to satisfy his craving to send young Americans into an unnecessary war is a slander licensed six days earlier by Al Gore. With transparent Nixonian trickiness--being transparent, it tricks no one--Gore all but said the president is orchestrating war policy for political gain in November.

Gore and many other Democrats who supported the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, with which the Clinton administration endorsed regime change, are now engaged in moral infantilism--willing the end but refusing to will any realistic means to that end. Such evasions define today's Democrats, even in domestic policy, as when Tom Daschle and others say Bush's tax cuts are calamitous, but flinch from saying the cuts should be rescinded.

McDermott's and Bonior's espousal of Saddam's line, and of Gore's subtext (and Barbra Streisand's libretto), signals the recrudescence of the dogmatic distrust of U.S. power that virtually disqualified the Democratic Party from presidential politics for a generation. It gives the benefits of all doubts to America's enemies and reduces policy debates to accusations about the motives of Americans who would project U.S. power in the world.

Conservative isolationism--America is too good for the world--is long dead. Liberal isolationism--the world is too good for America--is flourishing.

Also in October of 2002, Joseph Farah provided some fascinating information on David Bonior.

Rep. David Bonior, a 13-term Michigan Democrat – and until recently second-ranking in House Democratic leadership – worked tirelessly for years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, for rules ensuring Middle Easterners would not receive any unusual scrutiny at the nation's airports.

He was successful – even at getting President Bush to sign a new law to that effect, one that might have contributed directly to the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

Bonior also championed the case of Dr. Mazen Al-Najjar, jailed before Sept. 11 because the FBI and Immigration officials suspected the Gaza native was a mid-level terrorist operative, and because he had violated the terms of his visa.

He was unsuccessful in this endeavor. Al-Najjar was ultimately deported to the United Arab Emirates.

Bonior, who lost a bid to become Michigan's governor, also took campaign contributions from Dr. Sami Al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor said to be Islamic Jihad's front-man in the United States. Al-Arian and his wife, Nahla, donated at least $3,450 to Bonior's campaigns. Al-Arian also raised funds for Islamic Jihad – an ally of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.

What did such campaign contributions buy for Al-Arian? We got a clue in June 2001, just three months before the terror attacks on the U.S. During a White House meeting on President Bush's "faith-based initiatives" that month, a uniformed Secret Service officer felt compelled to remove a 20-year-old Muslim intern working for Bonior. Apparently the young man was seen as a security threat – and understandably so. The intern's name was Abdallah Al-Arian – the son of Sami Al-Arian.

And if all this isn't incestuous enough, it turns out Al-Najjar is Al-Arian's brother-in-law.

In a speech to the American Muslim Alliance in 1998, Bonior urged lifting the sanctions on Iraq, claiming they had killed some 700,000 children. More recently, since returning from Baghdad this week, Bonior has revised that estimate downward to 500,000 – even though four years have transpired since his earlier estimate and even while claiming 50,000 children a year continue to die as a result of U.S. actions.

It's hard to believe, with a record of achievement like this, that anyone would take anything Bonior says as credible. It's hard to believe he is still permitted to serve in the House of Representatives. It's hard to believe that he was so high in leadership within his party for so long.

Hard to believe, but true.

Al-Hanooti certainly delivered for Saddam Hussein when he pegged Jim McDermott, David Bonior, and Mike Thompson as "useful idiots."

As stated in the New York Times:

The Justice Department said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein’s principal foreign intelligence agency and an Iraqi-American man had organized and paid for a 2002 visit to Iraq by three House Democrats whose trip was harshly criticized by colleagues at the time.

The arrangements for the trip were described in the indictment of an Iraq-born former employee of a Detroit-area charity group who was charged Wednesday with accepting millions of dollars’ worth of Iraqi oil contracts in exchange for assisting the Iraqi spy agency in projects in the United States.

The indictment did not claim any wrongdoing by the three lawmakers, whose five-day trip to Iraq occurred in October 2002, five months before the American invasion.

Two continue to serve in the House: Jim McDermott of Washington State and Mike Thompson of California. The other, David E. Bonior of Michigan, has since retired from Congress.

“None of the Congressional representatives are accused of any wrongdoing, and we have no information whatsoever that any of them were aware of the involvement of the Iraqi Intelligence Service,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice spokesman.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the Congressmen's wrongdoing in terms of the trip's funding and their wrongdoing in terms of how they behaved and the things they said while in Iraq.

In my view, there definitely was wrongdoing.

New Video of Dead Saddam

Here.

Foss High School Shooting

Is this the first school shooting of the year?

As far as I know, it is.

TACOMA, Wash. -- A student was shot to death at his high school as classes about to start Wednesday morning, and police were searching for the gunman, officials said.

The student's age and details of the 7:30 a.m. shooting at Foss High School were not immediately released, but police spokesman Mark Fulghum said no one else was believed to be injured. He said police were trying to determine what prompted the attack.

The suspect was believed to be another student, and school district spokeswoman Peggy Holmgren said there were witnesses to the attack.

According to Holmgren, the student was shot just outside a school door, though several students told televisions stations that the shooting was actually in a hallway.

"I thought it was fireworks, but it was probably three shots," Jacki Phongsavath, a junior at Foss, told KOMO-TV of Seattle. "I looked around the corner and saw someone laying on the ground and blood on the lockers."

...The school was locked down after the shooting. By about 8:30, police had secured the building and students were being sent home, Tacoma School District spokeswoman Pam Thompson said. Classes were canceled for the rest of the day.

What's worse?

An Iraqi official taunting the Butcher of Baghdad Saddam Hussein before his execution

OR

A Tacoma high school student being executed on school grounds before classes

Where's the outrage over these shootings???

The fact that Saddam had to endure a taunt before his death is a big deal. The lib media can't stop drooling over the shame of it.

Will this shooting get as much attention?

I guess it's just another day at an American high school. No big deal. Right?

WRONG!

The Cellphone Video of Saddam's Execution

Courtesy of Google Video, we can all watch Saddam Hussein die.

The hooded executioners place the noose around the Butcher of Baghdad's neck. The final chapter of Saddam's reign of terror is at hand.

Saddam remains defiant. He prays.

There are many accounts of Saddam's final moments -- the bitter exchanges, the taunts, the last words.

(Here and here and here are a few.)

The trapdoor beneath him opens, like the entrance to Hell, and he dies.

The video shows his body swinging. The movement isn't a sign of life, just physics.

Yes, it's gruesome; sort of. It has a surreal quality. I've seen far more disturbing scenes in movies. I know this is different. It's real.

Still, it's not particularly shocking to me. It's a rather quiet demise for this monster.

Should I be troubled by my "so what?" reaction?

Should I care that he was executed and that's against my personal beliefs about capital punishment?

I suppose I should.

I don't.

Video of Saddam Hussein being executed

Originally posted as a link on the Something Awful forums, I saved and uploaded it to google video before the it died.

Spare Saddam!

I think today's editorial in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Death penalty still wrong," was prepared well in advance of Saddam Hussein's execution.

The Editorial Board may have had it ready for print as soon as Saddam was captured in December of 2003.

We all knew this was coming. The board knew that the death of Saddam would provide a perfect opportunity to slam the Bush administration and supporters of the death penalty.

(Unlike the Editorial Board, let's not forget that some Dems are pro-death penalty. For example, Oscar shoo-in, superstar Al Gore is FOR the death penalty. He believes in killing criminals. Just don't melt the polar ice caps.)

I'm not endorsing the death penalty here. I'm pointing out that the Editorial Board's reasoning is weak.

Saddam Hussein was a monster. His execution by the Iraqis he cruelly governed will understandably be cause for celebration in many quarters and perhaps cause for more insurgency in others. And, yes, the world is better off with one fewer tyrant.

But this in no way changes one central truth: Capital punishment remains a bad idea even for really bad people. People like Hussein, for instance. The problem is not so much that such people don't deserve to die as it is that a nation debases itself by stooping to the level of a killer.

The execution of Saddam was not an eye for an eye.

For that to be the case, Saddam would need hundreds of thousands of eyes.

Furthermore, does a nation debase itself when it excuses atrocities and disrespects life by coddling monsters?

...The virgin Iraqi government, designed to be a shining example of democracy in the largely autocratic Middle East, went astray by adopting capital punishment, a practice democracies have shed worldwide as unbefitting them.

"Virgin Iraqi government"?

What does that mean?

Unfortunately, Iraq got no good guidance on the issue from its mentor, the United States, one of the last holdouts against this trend. The Bush administration backs capital punishment enthusiastically.

Remember, Dems enthusiastically back capital punishment, too.

That helped them win control of the House and Senate, acting like conservatives to appeal to mainstream American voters.

I knew a lib media outlet like The JS would blame Bush for Saddam's execution.

The buck always stops with Bush. I wonder if The JS blames Bush for its declining readership as well.

Iraq's use of the death penalty has already drawn criticism from world bodies such as the United Nations, the Vatican and Amnesty International, which considers the punishment a human rights violation. But these organizations are doubly critical of the penalty in Hussein's case because they say his trial failed to meet standards of fairness. The groups cite interference in the judicial proceedings from the executive branch and other problems.

Criticism from the corrupt, genocide-ignoring UN and the politically driven AI is a joke.

Criticism from the Vatican is valid because it's based in teaching that is morally consistent. The Vatican is against the death penalty, but it doesn't trumpet the murder of millions of babies via abortion.

However, to suggest that the trial was unfair is ridiculous. Whatever minor problems there may have been, the evidence against Saddam is clear and overwhelming. How many thousands of people need to be exhumed from mass graves?

His execution also robs the Kurds of some modicum of justice. They first wanted a second trial for Hussein to conclude. The deposed dictator is charged with genocide against the Kurds in the 1980s.

Huh?

Saddam is dead.

Do you think the Kurds feel cheated that they couldn't put him on trial and sentence him to death, too?

Is The JS arguing that the Kurds should have had that opportunity?

That's a pretty stupid argument, considering the board is against the death penalty.

The gallows have seen a step-up in traffic in Iraq this year. Some 53 people took the one-way trip there in 2006. Yes, Iraq has horrible problems with lawlessness. But the executions only add to the cycle of violence.

Fifty-three?

How does that compare to decades of atrocities and death under Saddam?

It's not in the same league, not even close.

The government has a tough time teaching the lesson that the people must stop settling scores with beheadings and other violence if the government itself is settling scores with hangings.

How stupid!

An alleged criminal being put on trial, found guilty, and being sentenced to die is not the same as an innocent person being taken hostage, tortured, and beheaded.

The Editorial Board's inability to distinguish the differences are an embarrassment to The JS.

Hussein said he prefers to die at the end of a rope rather than to waste away in prison. Will his execution make him a martyr?

One thing is certain. An execution diminishes those who enable it.

What's certain is that the Editorial Board prefers to bash Bush rather than highlight the tyrant Saddam's crimes against humanity.

I think the Editorial Board is more comfortable with the mindset of these protesters:



Activists from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) hold a burning doll symbolizing U.S. President George Bush during a protest against the execution of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, in Srinagar December 30, 2006. REUTERS/Yawar Nazir (INDIAN ADMINISTERED KASHMIR)


A demonstrator condemns the hanging of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in Bangalore. (AFP/Dibyangshu Sarkar)


An activist from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) writes on a doll symbolizing U.S. President George Bush during a protest against the execution of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, in Srinagar December 30, 2006. REUTERS/Yawar Nazir (INDIAN ADMINISTERED KASHMIR)

Saddam Super Sunday?

How will the world usher out 2006 and ring in 2007?

Perhaps with the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Creepy.

DUBAI (Reuters) -- Saddam Hussein has been handed over by U.S forces to Iraqi government custody, his lawyers said on Friday, in an apparent step toward his execution.

"I understand they have handed him over," said one defense lawyer who declined to give his name.

This defense lawyer makes it sound like Jesus is being handed over for crucifixion.

Another lawyer said that U.S. officials had asked him to pick up the personal effects of the former Iraqi president who has been sentenced to death.

"The American side called me and asked me to pick up the personal effects of the president and Barzan al-Tikriti," said Khalil al-Dulaimi, referring to Saddam's half brother, who has also been sentenced to death.

I wonder what sort of personal effects Saddam has.

Hair dye?

A Koran?

Look at this, from Reuters/Hollywood Reporter:

"TV plans tasteful coverage of Saddam execution"

Television networks face a killer of a conundrum with the impending execution of Saddam Hussein, whose hanging could be videotaped and perhaps aired on Iraqi TV.

The timing of Saddam's date with the gallows was unclear, but late Thursday CBS, NBC and Fox News Channel reported that the former dictator, convicted this year in the deaths of 148 people in 1982, would be turned over by the American military to the Iraqi government within 36 hours and hanged before the start of a Muslim holiday on Sunday.

Several sources said Saddam's execution would be videotaped by the Iraqi government, though it wasn't clear whether it would be released to the public or broadcast.

"We will video everything," Iraqi National Security adviser Mouffak al Rubaie told CBS News.

Judging by the Iraqi government's release Tuesday of videotape of the hanging of 13 convicts, it could be a gruesome affair. Meetings were held Thursday in at least two network headquarters over how to handle the potentially graphic images.

ABC and CBS said they wouldn't air the full execution if the video became available.

...The operative word: taste.

"We have very, very strict guidelines with how to deal with that," said Bob Murphy, senior vp at ABC News. "If there were pictures made available of the execution, they would have to be viewed by senior management before we would put them on the air, and we would make a judgement of taste and propriety of what we would show."

Right.

The operative word is "taste."

If there's one thing that the networks lack, it has to be taste.

It's not like network TV hasn't aired footage of someone being put to death before.

In 1998, 60 Minutes aired a Dr. Kevorkian assisted suicide.

How is it that was touted as a humane act?

Granted, a hanging is more gruesome than a lethal injection, and Saddam isn't choosing to die; but I suspect the executives at the networks are salivating over the potential ratings of Saddam's death sentence being televised.

The entire mess depresses me.

Theoretically, I'm opposed to the death penalty.

If I'm to be morally consistent, even a cold-blooded, murderous monster like Saddam should not be killed for his crimes.

But I know if Saddam had ordered the slaughter of my family members, I'd want him dead.

Why should he be allowed to live after committing such atrocities on such a massive scale? Why should he get to continue to eat and sleep and breathe when he robbed life from so many?

He shouldn't; but yet, I can't support his execution.

So I'm a hypocrite.

It's a moral dilemma for me.

Everything is so ugly -- the mass graves, the hundreds of thousands dead, the war, all the death.

RJay has compiled some reminders of Saddam's lifework:

Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities

NPR Iraq Mass Grave Photo Gallery

Bodies Exhumed from Mass Grave in Iraq

Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves

Human Rights Watch Gallery

Experts: 300,000 in Saddam's Mass Graves

Graves of Mass Evidence

Iraq Mass Graves Field Report – w/Video

How do civilized people respond to such inhumanity?

By giving Saddam good health care, three meals a day, Doritos and Raisin Bran Crunch for the next ten or more years, until he dies of natural causes?

That doesn't seem appropriate at all.

I don't know.

Then there's the idiot media.

The libs in the media claim to care about taste. What a crock of crap!

I bet they wish they could debate about televising footage of President Bush being executed. You know, "Too bad it's Saddam, and not Bush."

Is that unfair? Too harsh?

I don't know anymore.

I hate the war. I hate Saddam more.

I hate all the hate.

So Long, Saddam

Saddam Hussein will not be spending the rest of his days playing golf in Florida while he tirelessly searches for the real murderer of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The verdict is in. His days are numbered.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's High Tribunal found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity on Sunday and sentenced him to die by hanging.

Former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan was found guilty of premeditated murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Three other co-defendants of Saddam Hussein were convicted of murder and torture and sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

A fifth defendant was acquitted for lack of evidence.

Saddam and seven co-defendants were charged with crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in the town of Dujail after a failed assassination attempt on the former leader.

Here's more, from Aljazeera:

Saddam's sentence will be automatically appealed and reviewed by a panel of appeal judges, who will decide whether or not to allow a retrial.

If the judgement stands, however, Saddam must be executed within 30 days of the appeals panel delivering its verdict, the chief prosecutor has said.

Saddam, 69 said that he wants to be executed by firing squad. However Iraqi law states that he will be executed by hanging.

...Before the verdict was announced, Iraq's government imposed a curfew in Baghdad, the mixed Sunni-Shia province of Diyala and Salahuddin, the province containing Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

But despite the curfews, Shias had gathered in Baghdad's Sadr City district to celebrate what they hoped would be a guilty verdict.

Meanwhile in and around Tikrit small groups of Saddam's supporters held protests and denounced the court's judgement.

Sheikh Al-Nadawi, the head of the Baigat group of tribes to which Saddam belongs, said: "Saddam lived a hero and will die as a hero. The court was set up by his rivals... It is a historical farce."

On Saturday Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, said that he hoped Saddam would be found guilty, but also asked Iraqis to react calmly to the verdict.

"We hope the sentence matches what this man deserves for what he has done against the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people will express happiness in the way they find appropriate," al-Maliki said.

"We call upon the Iraqi people to be calm, to be disciplined and to express themselves in ways that take into consideration the security challenge and the need to protect the lives of citizens," he added.

Speaking before the verdict was announced, Iran also said that it hoped Saddam would be executed.

"Execution is the very least sentence they can hand down to Saddam Hussein," Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, said.

Saddam wasn't happy when he heard that there's a noose with his name on it.

AP now has a more detailed report of the courtroom scene when the verdict was announced:

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein and two other men were convicted and sentenced Sunday to death by hanging for war crimes in the 1982 killings of 148 people in the town of Dujail, as the former leader, trembling, shouted "God is great!"

After the verdict was read, Saddam yelled out, "Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"

Once again, we hear the Islamic extremists' "God is great!" rallying cry.

Saddam initially refused the chief judge's order to rise; two bailiffs lifted the ousted ruler to his feet and he remained standing through the sentencing.

Before the hearing began, one of Saddam's lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a memorandum in which he called the trial a travesty.

Chief Judge Raouf Abdul-Rahman pointed to Clark and said in English, "Get out."

What is with Ramsey Clark?

I think he's as nuts as Saddam.

He has disgraced himself as a former U.S. Attorney General, and as an American, and as a human being.

Clark should cut the dramatic outbursts. It's over.

Saddam's days of Doritos and Raisin Bran Crunch are coming to an end.

I wonder if he has any regrets.

More of the Saddam Files

Finally, the public is getting to access the documents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Here are other documents that have been released.

There is so much material.

Browsing through it is at once fascinating and frightening.

ABC has devoted some time to reporting on a few of the revelations.

MSNBC also sucked it up and finally acknowledged the existence of the documents, with an AP report on its website.

The report explains:

The release of the documents, which is expected to continue for months, is designed to allow U.S. lawmakers and the public to investigate issues such as what Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime said about weapons of mass destruction.

Why aren't more media outlets carefully sifting through these documents and reporting details?

Why aren't they being splashed?

NewsMax has a report from the Associated Press that covers a news conference held by Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, announcing the release of the information.

It's a blogger's dream come true: Millions of pre-Iraq war intelligence documents are now being posted online and two Republican congressmen are asking for their assistance in digesting them.

They can thank Sen. Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., for helping to make it happen.

The two said during a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday that they lobbied the White House and intelligence leaders to release millions of pages of documents and audio recordings captured during current and previous U.S. military operations in Iraq.

The first dump started Wednesday night via a Pentagon Web site at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, and the release is expected to continue for months. "We are hoping to unleash the power of the Internet, unleash the power of the blogosphere to get through these documents and give us a better understanding of exactly what was going on in Iraq prior to the war," Hoekstra said.

This is more than a blogger's dream come true. It should be a dream come true for the members of the press as well.

Access to the Saddam Files, literally millions of pages, have to shed some light on the status of Iraq's arsenal before the war and its plans for it.

Perhaps the enormity of the document dump is overwhelming and it will take time to report on the information.

Perhaps the lib media are afraid to discover evidence that might prove Bush right.

Perhaps they prefer to stick with the "Bush lied" template.

It's probably easier to ignore the material than having to refute facts contained in the documents that might run counter to their set in stone opinion that Bush misled the country into an unnecessary war.

I really don't get it. Some of the lamest non-story stories, like Plamegate, are elevated to incredible heights and considered of critical importance to the functioning of our democracy.

The Saddam files, on the other hand, don't seem to be causing much of a stir.

It's pathetic when you think about it.

Update: The Saddam Files

It looks like the release of the Saddam Files is imminent.

Finally, after months of waiting, the America people will soon have access to more of the 3,000 hours of audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and 48,000 boxes of records from the regime's activities.

According to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, John Negroponte has loosened his grip and the Administration has agreed to release the documents.

Hayes writes:
The Bush administration has decided to release most of the documents captured in post-war Afghanistan and Iraq. The details of the document release are still being worked out, according to officials with knowledge of the discussions. Those details are critical. At issue are things like the timeframe for releasing the documents, the mechanism for scrubbing documents for sensitive information, and most important, the criteria for withholding documents from the public. But some of the captured files should be available to the public and journalists within weeks if not days.

...Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who has been steadfast in his resolve to see these documents released, said today that "this is a bold decision in favor of openness that will go a long way towards improving our understanding of prewar Iraq . . . By placing these documents online and allowing the public the opportunity to review them, we can cut years off the time it will take to gain knowledge from this potential treasure trove of information."

Hadley and John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), informed House Intelligence Committee chairman Pete Hoekstra on Saturday. The three men all attended the white-tie Gridiron Club dinner, a mainstay of the Washington establishment in which journalists and politicians poke fun at one another and themselves in a series of songs and skits.

..."Saddam Hussein and his henchmen systematically destroyed much of the good stuff," says Hoekstra. "We want to see what he missed." Indeed, in one memo found in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), the director of Iraqi Intelligence commands recipients to burn their offices. Paul Bremer, in his book My Year in Iraq, describes reading a similar memo. He writes: "Operatives were to engage in sabotage and looting."

Michael Tanji worked for four years on media exploitation for the DIA, rising to division chief. He believes that with proper resources devoted to digital media exploitation, even some of the information the Iraqis intended to destroy can be recovered.

"It is the release of captured digital media, more than paper documents, that will likely provide the most comprehensive view on what was going on in Iraq; the state of any WMD programs as well as the true nature of what was on the mind of Saddam's trusted class," says Tanji.

...No one can say with any certainty what will come from the document release. Intelligence officials with knowledge of the exploitation process estimate that less than 4 percent of the overall document collection has been fully exploited. It's reasonable to assume that documents in the collection will provide support to both supporters of the war in Iraq and critics. Summaries of the exploited materials, listed in a U.S. government database known as HARMONY, suggest that the new material will at least complicate the overly simplified conventional wisdom that the former Iraqi regime posed no real threat.

There are mounds of materials to go through, with less than four percent having been analyzed. No definitive picture of the inner workings of Saddam's regime and its threat to U.S. security is anywhere near being assembled.

Nevertheless, the long overdue release of the documents to the public will shed at least some light on Saddam's Iraq.

The libs will have to give up their beloved "there were no WMDs" mantra, or at least suspend it for a while. They will no longer be able to chant that Bush misled the country about Iraq. Now, there will be evidence that challenges the Left's "Bush lied" rallying cry.

Of course, that means that the lib media will do everything they can to discredit and dismiss and ignore the information that will be gleaned from these documents.

I expect to see a lot of selective blindness from the libs.

Negroponte and the Saddam Files

An oft-repeated Dem talking point is that the Bush Administration is shrouded in secrecy.

When it comes to the Saddam Files, Bush doesn't want to keep any secrets.

For weeks, months now, President Bush has been pushing for the release of tapes and documents that were captured after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. He wants the information made available to the public, but John Negroponte continues to fight its release.

In an article for the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes writes:

On February 16, President George W. Bush assembled a small group of congressional Republicans for a briefing on Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley were there, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad participated via teleconference from Baghdad. As the meeting was beginning, Mike Pence spoke up. The Indiana Republican, a leader of conservatives in the House, was seated next to Bush.

"Yesterday, Mr. President, the war had its best night on the network news since the war ended," Pence said.

"Is this the tapes thing?" Bush asked, referring to two ABC News reports that included excerpts of recordings Saddam Hussein made of meetings with his war cabinet in the years before the U.S. invasion. Bush had not seen the newscasts but had been briefed on them.

Pence framed his response as a question, quoting Abraham Lincoln: "One of your Republican predecessors said, 'Give the people the facts and the Republic will be saved.' There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?"

Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.

...Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out."

On February 15, 2006, ABC's Brian Ross had an exclusive report on "Saddam's Secret Tapes." Twelve hours of the more than 3,000 hours of tape were made public.

At the time however, the story was completely overshadowed by that far more pressing story, Vice President Cheney's hunting accident.

Bush has been trying to get the information out to the American public for months, according to Hayes.

Hayes writes:

On November 30, 2005, he gave a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy. Four members of Congress attended: Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee; Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee; Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona; and Pence. After his speech, Bush visited with the lawmakers for 10 minutes in a holding room to the side of the stage. Hoekstra asked Bush about the documents and the president said he was pressing to have them released.

Says Pence: "I left both meetings with the unambiguous impression that the president of the United States wants these documents to reach the American people."

Negroponte never got the message. Or he is choosing to ignore it. He has done nothing to expedite the exploitation of the documents. And he continues to block the growing congressional effort, led by Hoekstra, to have the documents released.

Negroponte continues to stonewall, claiming that the documents have historical value, but nothing to offer in terms of intelligence. That's his justification for withholding the documents.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Even if the documents are only of historical interest, why not release the historically interesting documents?

Why prevent the public from access to what's on the tapes?

Hayes points out that the tapes aired on ABC raise questions.

Left unanswered was what the analysts made of the Iraqi official who reported to Saddam that components of the regime's nuclear program had been "transported out of Iraq." Who gave this report to Saddam and when did he give it? How were the materials "transported out of Iraq"? Where did they go? Where are they now? And what, if anything, does this tell us about Saddam's nuclear program? It may be that the intelligence community has answers to these questions. If so, they have not shared them. If not, the tapes are far more than "fascinating from a historical perspective."

Good questions, questions that should be addressed.

Hayes also relays:

Officials involved with DOCEX--as the U.S. government's document exploitation project is known to insiders--tell The Weekly Standard that only some 3 percent of the 2 million captured documents have been fully translated and analyzed. No one familiar with the project argues that exploiting these documents has been a priority of the U.S. intelligence community.

Negroponte's argument rests on the assumption that the history captured in these documents would not be important to those officials--elected and unelected, executive branch and legislative--whose job it is to craft U.S. foreign and national security policy. He's mistaken.

Now, Negroponte has altered his rationale for not releasing the documents. He came up with a new explanation, one that is the inverse of his previous excuse.

Perhaps anticipating the weakness of his "mere history" argument, Negroponte abruptly shifted his position last week. He still opposes releasing the documents, only now he claims that the information in these documents is so valuable that it cannot be made public. Negroponte gave a statement to Fox News responding to Hoekstra's call to release the captured documents. "These documents have provided, and continue to provide, actionable intelligence to ongoing operations. . . . It would be ill-advised to release these materials without careful screening because the material includes sensitive and potentially harmful information."

This new position raises two obvious questions: If the documents have provided actionable intelligence, why has the intelligence community exploited so few of them? And why hasn't Negroponte demanded more money and manpower for the DOCEX program?

Sadly, these obvious questions have an obvious answer. The intelligence community is not interested in releasing documents captured in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. Why this is we can't be sure. But Pete Hoekstra offers one distinct possibility.

"They are State Department people who want to make no waves and don't want to do anything that would upset anyone," he says.

This is not idle speculation. In meetings with Hoekstra, Negroponte and his staff have repeatedly expressed concern that releasing this information might embarrass our allies.

...Hoekstra says Negroponte's intransigence is forcing him to get the documents out "the hard way." The House Intelligence chairman has introduced a bill (H.R. 4869) that would require the DNI to begin releasing the captured documents.

Obviously, President Bush wants the information released. He doesn't believe that potential embarrassment for our allies is an issue.

Why make Hoekstra go about getting the documents the hard way?

If the Saddam Files have the potential to influence public opinion on the war, then they are important and should not be held hostage by Negroponte.

Bush believes "that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren't released sooner. 'If I knew then what I know now,' Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, 'I would have been more supportive of the war.'"

Whatever their impact, Negroponte should listen to the President and open the Saddam Files now.

I can't help but think of the climactic courtroom scene in A Few Good Men.

Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth.

There's no question that the information should be released so that the public can determine its significance.

The American public deserves answers. I have no doubts that the public CAN handle the truth.