|
|
Archive for July 9th, 2008
My column titled, “Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?” has been widely distributed and commented on over the past several days. Comments received have been predictably partisan: Conservatives generally agree with the points made, while liberals almost universally reject the notion that George W. Bush acted in good faith and to the benefit of humanity by choosing to invade Iraq. Additional information and clarifications are presented herewith: 1. I did not claim that the yellow cake was discovered in 2003. 2. The basis for the facts in my article was an AP report, the link to which is provided below. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html There was no other source. 3. Yellow cake is a very dangerous substance, which can be converted to WMD with the right equipment and technology. To believe that Saddam Hussein lacked the ability or motivation to acquire and perfect the equipment for production of nuclear WMD is, in my opinion, foolhardy and naive. 4. Those who believe that presence of IAEA inspectors assured that the yellow cake was controlled and adequately protected from diversion overlook two vital facts: A. Saddam Hussein kicked the IAEA out of Iraq in 1998. Given that fact, just how effective was the IAEA? B. The IAEA was not, and is not, held in high esteem by some professionals and experts. Those who wish to explore the facts further should Goggle “IAEA effectiveness in Iraq” to glean more information, which includes, in part, the following report from the Nuclear Control Institute (http://www.nci.org/new/iraq-ib.htm): “The IAEA performance in Iraq has not been reassuring. Iraq learned early on that it could conceal a nuclear weapons program by cooperating with the IAEA. Khidhir Hamza, a senior Iraqi scientist who defected to the United States in 1994, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that Saddam Hussein approved a deception-by-cooperation scheme in 1974. “Iraq was careful to avoid raising IAEA suspicions; an elaborate strategy was gradually developed to deceive and manipulate the agency,” Hamza said.[6] The strategy worked. Iraq, as a signer of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, was subject to IAEA inspections on all nuclear facilities. But IAEA’s inspectors had failed to detect the Iraqi “Manhattan Project,” which was discovered after the Gulf War by IAEA teams at sites identified by the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM)” There are undoubtedly those who would be able to sleep comfortably in the knowledge that IAEA was protecting one’s loved ones from Saddam. That would not be true in my case. 5. Had the United States not invaded Iraq in 2003, that 550 metric tons of yellow cake would have remained physically within Saddam’s sphere of influence. Again, perhaps that would not bother some, but in light of 9/11, it bothered many Americans, including President Bush. 6. My column includes scores of references to Democrat politicians and officials who repeatedly declared that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that he posed a severe threat to the world, including the United States. Regrettably, all of those public words by Democrats get lost in the rush to give credence to the left wing mantra “Bush Lied! People died!” In truth, the high emotions surrounding WMD and the war on terror itself appear to be rooted in unmitigated hatred for George Bush and Dick Cheney, rather than objective consideration of facts. 7. Lest we forget, there is also the matter of UN Resolution 1441 which, although it did not authorize the use of force, did in fact document Saddam’s legacy of possessing and using WMD. Refer to the link below for the official document titled, “Security Council Holds Iraq In ‘Material Breach of Disarmament Obligations’ ” which was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council on August 11, 2002. 1441: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm 8. In October 2002, the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq was passed by the U.S. Congress. In the US House, 296 representatives (215 Republicans and 81 Democrats) approved the Resolution. In the US Senate, 77 senators (48 Republicans and 29 Democrats) approved the Resolution. In total, then, 110 Democrats voted in favor of the resolution. President Bush signed the resolution into law on October 16, 2002. The actual document itself can be viewed at the following link: Joint Resolution: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf 9. It has become fashionable “blood sport” in the media, and among liberals, to ridicule President Bush by calling him stupid, either directly or by inference. The delicious irony in that is that those who denigrate Bush’s intelligence the loudest are often the same folks who will swear that Bush sonehow tricked those 110 Democrats into voting for the war resolution in 2002! For a man with the alleged IQ of radioactive dust, George W. Bush seems to be an overachiever when it comes to bamboozling, and defeating, Democrats! 10. In my judgment, America (and the entire world actually) is fortunate that President Bush decided to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. The president’s action allowed the Iraqi system of justice to punish Saddam Hussein for his brutal dictatorship, including the use of WMD on his own citizens. In summary, I continue to believe that President Bush acted wisely, and that his actions have made the world a safer place. The fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the middle east should earn George W. Bush international acclaim, rather than the abuse and ridicule which has been heaped upon this honorable man by a biased media and Democrat Party still jaded from defeats in two separate presidential elections. John W. Lillpop
Satire By John W. Lillpop No one can deny that Reverend Jesse Jackson is many things to many people. However, no one has ever accused the Reverend of being overly sophisticated or temperate in his language and or behavior. That is unlikely to change as Reverend Jackson seeks to contain the firestorm resulting from his crude, intemperate remarks about Barack Obama on national television. Specifically, in a video aired on FOX network, Jackson leans over and whispers, “See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith based … I want cut his n**s off … Barack … he’s talking down to black people.” For emphasis, Jackson appeared to make a stabbing or cutting motion with his hand. While Jackson was unveiling his scheme to neuter Barack Obama on national television, the would- be target of the “unkindest cut” was actually helping make Jackson’s case by admonishing American parents to “make sure your children can speak Spanish.” For that bit of idiotic and unseemly vote trolling, Obama should be gelded on national television (FOX), as soon as it can be verified that Obama has “n***” to begin with, or that he has flip-flopped on the issue, whichever comes first. Some unsolicited advise for Reverend Jackson seems appropriate: Reverend, in order to prevent this sort of mix-up again, perhaps you should speak Spanish when plotting to undo a brother’s masculinity and reproductive rights on right-wing television? Brother Obama would appreciate it!
July 9, 2008 Senator John McCain Dear Senator McCain: Over the past several months, you have campaigned vigorously for the so-called Hispanic vote. Regrettably, that means that you continue to favor a path to citizenship (amnesty) for millions of illegal aliens. In meeting with La Raza, going behind closed doors with Hispanic leaders in Chicago, and by visiting Columbia and Mexico, you have apparently joined your Democrat opponent in a bidding war to determine whom can do the most to appease those who have little or no regard for American sovereignty and the rule of law. With all due respect, your advocacy on behalf of illegal aliens ignores the economic, social, educational, and cultural burdens that would be unfairly dumped on the backs of American citizens, most of whom are also taxpayers. Furthermore, immigration reform anything like the McCain-Kennedy proposals from last summer would encourage millions now living in Mexico and other points south of our borders to come here illegally, thereby further jeopardizing homeland security and adding more distress to American citizens. While in Mexico, you spoke about the need to secure US borders before reforming immigration law. On other occasions, you have vowed that your number one priority, if elected, would be immigration reform including a path to citizenship. Senator, while your position on illegal aliens may endear you to some Hispanics, the simple fact is that it may cost you far more votes from conservatives who must insist on responsible governance in accordance with the rule of law. Your opponent is widely regarded as a flip-flopping socialist who would be an unmitigated disaster for America, particularly if Democrats expand their majorities in the next Congress. To be perfectly candid, I know of no conservative who would even consider voting for your Democratic rival. However, given your untenable position on illegal aliens, many conservatives will also be unable to vote for you. That could mean a default victory for the radical socialist from Illinois. Is that what you fought and sacrificed for in Vietnam, Senator? Your unworthy opponent has developed a much-deserved reputation as one who flip-flops on critical issues. Normally, that would be a negative trait for any politician, but in the case of John McCain and his position on illegal aliens, a flip-flop just might save his career and all of America. Senator McCain, will you please reconsider your position on illegal aliens? Why not embrace a plan that immediately secures the borders, deports those here illegally, and requires an orderly and lawful process for all people wishing to join us and partake of the American Dream? Why not a plan that is fair for all people? Why not a plan that respects American citizens and honors immigrants who stand in line, wait their turn, and follow the rules? Why not a plan that will make it possible for conservatives to rally behind the candidacy of John McCain with gusto and hope? Thank you for your consideration, Senator. Sincerely, John W. Lillpop |
