And his latest has been thrown in the dumpster with all the rest of the anti-American Iraqi war movies:

“Green Zone” is the last drama set to be released by a major studio related to the Iraq war, and Hollywood is undoubtedly grateful for it after the picture, directed by Paul Greengrass and starring Matt Damon, opened to just $14.5 million domestically and $9.7 million overseas.

It’s the latest in a string of flops that include “Body of Lies,” “The Kingdom” and “Stop-Loss.” Even “The Hurt Locker,” while not a major disappointment given its low budget, is the lowest- grossing best picture Oscar winner in recent history.

Recognizing that worrisome history, Universal Pictures focused its marketing on Damon and Greengrass’ popular collaboration on “The Bourne Supremacy” and “The Bourne Ultimatum,” but was apparently unable to sell the movie based on its action elements.

“This picture has done better than most of today’s modern war stories,” said Nikki Rocco, Universal’s domestic distribution president. “But we were hoping for better.”
Universal and its financing partner, Relativity Media, spent about $100 million to produce “Green Zone” and tens of millions more to market the picture, meaning it will be a major money loser.

The conspiracy loving lefties will love the movie, you can count on that, but the blatant attempts in rewriting history does not go unnoticed:

It’s one thing to make a fantasy film laced with snarky jibes at the United States and its military. It’s of another order entirely for an American studio (Universal, a unit of GE) to perpetrate, during an ongoing war, such vicious anti-American lies disguised as cheap entertainment.

“Green Zone” tells US troops that all of their efforts have been based on a deliberate deception. Worse, it blames the insurgency that has killed so many of our fighting men and women on US treachery.

Movies like “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Redacted” have shown US forces doing nasty things — but none went anywhere near as far as this picture in suggesting original sin corrupted the entire Iraq war and that American officials are more blameworthy than the insurgents for the most violent years.

“Green Zone” isn’t cinema. It’s slander. It will go down in history as one of the most egregiously anti-American movies ever released by a major studio.

Released and on it’s way to utter failure.

In an effort to put a fresh face on a much maligned, but successful (in the end) Bush admin operation, Sec’y of Defense Robert Gates sent a memo to the CiC Obama yesterday, requesting a name change for US and/or coalition forces in Iraq starting Sept 1st of this year.

The whoopdedoo proposition? Change Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn.

From Tapper:

Gates writes that by changing the name at the same time as the change of mission — the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. combat troops — the US is sending “a strong signal that Operation IRAQI FREEDOM has ended and our forces are operating under a new mission.”

The move, Gates writes, “also presents opportunities to synchronize strategic communication initiatives, reinforce our commitment to honor the Security Agreement, and recognize our evolving relationship with the Government of Iraq.”

This can only be another in a series of embarrassments for Obama and his choice of appointees. Operation New Dawn is the name used for the original Battle for Fallujah in 2004. Where has Gates been?

To make the faux pas even more obvious, there have been four such operations… as of April 2009. That means that the most recent “Operation New Dawn” in Fallujah happened while Gates held his current position.

This would be laughable, rather than tragically stupid, had this not been on the heels of Obama’s Veep, Joe Biden, attempting to rewrite recent history by touting Iraq as “one of the great achievements” of the Obama administration only a week ago.

[Biden] – I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

This is, of course, the perpetuation of the myth by Obama, the WH mouthpieces and a fawning media that the drawdown in Iraq is a byproduct of “da won”, and not the actual SOFA negotiated by the Iraqis and the Bush admin in December 2008…. before the PEBO embarked on his three day pre’Inaugural public relations campaign.

Obama has a truly deplorable track with appointees. One has to remember the hubbub over the Churchhill bust, the choice of gifts for visiting dignataries and, of course, the truly bizarre coaching by diplomatic advisors leading to embarrassing behavior exhibited by the POTUS INRE when to bow (and not) when receiving or meeting foreign dignataries.

But this one is simply inexcusable. And, beyond any plausible explanation.

If the Secretary of Defense wants to place an Obama “face” on the Iraq theatre, masquerading Obama success on Bush’s coattails, he might at least choose an original name not already used by Bush admin military officials. And most certainly one that hasn’t been used four times for a very bloody arena.

But then, the irony is delicious, no? Bad enough to steal the credit, but to steal the name of a theatre op??

Pathetic….

Joe Biden is out there claiming victory in Iraq is Obama’s achievement. Former V.P. Cheney answers that lie and much more:

Some highlights [transcript]:

CHENEY: I do see repeatedly examples that there are key members in the administration, like Eric Holder, for example, the attorney general, who still insists on thinking of terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts as opposed to acts of war, and that’s a — that’s a huge distinction.

~~~

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by my friend, Joe Biden. I’m glad he now believes Iraq is a success. Of course, Obiden and — Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy.

They opposed the surge that was absolutely crucial to our getting to the point we’re at now with respect to Iraq. And for them to try to take credit for what’s happened in Iraq strikes me as a little strange. I think if — if they had had their way, if we’d followed the policies they’d pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today.

So if they’re going to take credit for it, fair enough, for what they’ve done while they’re there, but it ought to go with a healthy dose of “Thank you, George Bush” up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations, with respect to prosecuting that war, we’re just dead wrong.

~~~

I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do. It was hard to do. It took a long time. There were significant costs involved.

But we got rid of one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. We took down his government, a man who’d produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who’d started two different wars, a man who had a relationship with terror. We’re going to have a democracy in Iraq today. We do today. They’re going to have another free election this March.

This has been an enormous achievement from the standpoint of peace and stability in the Middle East and ending a threat to the United States. Now, as I say, Joe Biden doesn’t believe that. Joe Biden wants to take credit — I’m not sure for what — since he opposed that policy pretty much from the outset.

~~~

I think the biggest strategic threat the United States faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind, and I think Al Qaida is out there even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that.

KARL: And do you think that the Obama administration is taking enough serious steps to prevent that?

CHENEY: I think they need to do everything they can to prevent it. And if the mindset is it’s not likely, then it’s difficult to mobilize the resources and get people to give it the kind of priority that it deserves.

~~~

KARL: If you have somebody in custody like Abdulmutallab, after just trying to blow up an airliner, and you think he has information on another attack, I mean, do you think that those enhanced interrogation techniques should have been — should have been used? I mean, would you — do you think that he should have been, for instance, subject to everything, including waterboarding?

CHENEY: Well, I think the — the professionals need to make that judgment. We’ve got people in — we had in our administration — I’m sure they’re still there — many of them were career personnel — who are expects in this subject. And they are the ones that you ought to turn somebody like Abdulmutallab over to, let them be the judge of whether or not he’s prepared to cooperate and how they can best achieve his cooperation.

KARL: But you believe they should have had the option of everything up to and including waterboarding?

CHENEY: I think you ought to have all of those capabilities on the table. Now, President Obama has taken them off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army manual, which doesn’t include those techniques. I think that’s a mistake.

KARL: OK. So — so was it a mistake when your administration took on the Richard Reid case? This is very similar. This was somebody that was trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb, and he was within five minutes of getting taken off that plane read his Miranda rights, four times, in fact, in 48 hours, and tried through the civilian system. Was that a mistake?

CHENEY: Well, first of all, I believe he was not tried. He pled guilty. They never did end up having a trial.

Secondly, when this came up, as I recall, it was December of ‘01, just a couple of months after 9/11. We were not yet operational with the military commissions. We hadn’t had all the Supreme Court decisions handed down about what we could and couldn’t do with the commissions.

~~~

I want to come back again to the basic point I tried to make at the outset, John. And up until 9/11, all terrorist attacks were criminal acts. After 9/11, we made the decision that these were acts of war, these were strategic threats to the United States.

Once you make that judgment, then you can use a much broader range of tools, in terms of going after your adversary. You go after those who provide them safe harbor and sanctuary. You go after those who finance and those who provide weapons for them and those who train them. And you treat them as unlawful enemy combatants.

~~~

KARL: I’d like to ask you about the big terror case now, which is the KSM trial. The administration very much wants to see the mastermind of 9/11 tried in civilian courts here in the United States. New York has obviously objected.

Do you think that’s going to happen? Do you think this will be a civilian trial? Or are they not going to be able to do it?

CHENEY: It looks to me like they’re going to have great difficulty doing it in New York. I mean, even the mayor’s come out against it now. I think trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York’s a big — big mistake. It gives him a huge platform to promulgate his — his particular brand of propaganda around the world.

I think he ought to be at Guantanamo. I think he ought to be tried at Guantanamo in front of a military commission. They’ve got difficulties now, because my guess is they don’t want to send him back to Guantanamo, because that would validate, if you will, the value of Guantanamo. They’re trying to close it, clearly haven’t been able to get it done.

But my guess is, in the end, he’ll end up being tried in front of a military commission on a military facility some place.

~~~

KARL: We’re almost out of time. We’re going to get you very quickly on a few other subjects. First of all, one more on Palin. Is she qualified to be president?

CHENEY: I haven’t made a decision yet on who I’m going to support for president the next time around. Whoever it is, is going to have to prove themselves capable of being president of the United States. And those tests will — will come during the course of campaigns, obviously. I think — well, I think all the prospective candidates out there have got a lot of work to do if, in fact, they’re going to persuade a majority of Americans that they’re ready to take on the world’s toughest job.

A reunion between Bush and Cheney is on the schedule for later this month. It will be another reminder about the competent leadership America is currently missing!

Dude…..seriously?

[Biden] – I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

[video of Biden interview here and here - thanks to enduserindy]

A stable government no thanks to you, Obama and Hillary:

[2007] – President Bush signed a bill Friday to pay for military operations in Iraq after a bitter struggle with Democrats in Congress who sought unsuccessfully to tie the money to U.S. troop withdrawals.

~~~

Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against the bill.

“I fully support our troops” but the measure “fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,” said Clinton, D-N.Y.

“Enough is enough,” Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get “a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”

Their votes continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

Sen. John McCain, a GOP presidential contender, said the two Democrats were embracing a “policy of surrender.”

“This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag to al-Qaeda,” said McCain, R-Ariz. MoveOn.org… is a grass-roots anti-war group that rose to prominence in last year’s elections.

How about Biden’s awesome idea to split Iraq up?

Iraq’s new government of national unity will not stop the deterioration. Iraqis have had three such governments in the last three years, each with Sunnis in key posts, without noticeable effect. The alternative path out of this terrible trap has five elements.

The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security.

Or his assertion that The Surge, the strategy that ultimately won the war in Iraq, was going to be a failure and should not have been implemented:

“I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation… The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

But that’s not my only “dude….seriously”

Here we have one of The Four Corpsemen of the Obamaclypse, Robert Gibbs, telling the press corps that the Obama administration deserves the credit for Iraq.

Yeah, you heard me right:

Someone explain to me WHAT Obama “put back together” in Iraq? He did nothing….absolutely nothing for Iraq. He voted consistently against any kind of measure that would ensure victory and insisted troops be withdrawn before the victory was achieved.

Because of Bush there is now a democratically elected government in Iraq. Because of Bush there are millions of free people in a country that once ruled by a tyrant. Because of Bush, and his willingness to change course and listen to new ideas, we won in Iraq and THIS is why those troops can be brought home.

Nothing Obama, Biden, or anyone else in his Administration did enabled Iraq to be a success story. If the American people had listened to these fools we would have ran home with our tails between our legs like the paper tiger the rest of the world believed us to be.

Charles Krauthammer put it best tonight:

“At least this administration could have the decency to call it an American Success”

UPDATE

Remember this from six months ago?

WHERE are the Americans?” Talk to Iraqis in Baghdad these days, and you’ll likely hear the question.

Of course, everyone knows where the Americans are physically. The 130,000 US troops cantoned in a diminishing number of barracks outside the cities make their presence felt on occasion. The thousands of civilian Americans who are helping build a new Iraq are also easy to spot.

The question refers to the United States’ fast-fading political profile.

Those who deem Iraq as the biggest US foreign-policy success in decades are baffled by Washington’s determined efforts to deny that reality — indeed, whenever possible, to try to undermine it.

Having labeled Iraq the “bad war” as opposed to the “good war” in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has tried to minimize its commitment to the newly liberated nation.

To recap, over the summer, Rep. Eric Massa stated that he would vote against the interests/opinions of his constituents if he thought it would be “helpful”. There was a small bubble of outrage that quickly passed, as our elected officials were kind enough to give us bigger reasons for outrage. Kim Priestap at Wizbang raises a good question about Massa’s motives, but a greater question was left unasked. Her main point is that Massa made a Freudian slip in asserting that he would vote against his district’s interests, later changing his wording to say opinions, is stating that he would support the health care bill. Priestap goes on to state that the main difference between Bush’s going against public opinion versus Obama’s is that Bush was doing what was in the best interest for national security while what Obama is doing is merely an attempt to grab power and put America under the dependence of the government.

Now, to take Kim’s point a bit further, the heavy public opposition to both policies are for two very different reasons. Many liberals were opposed to the Iraq war simply out of hatred for George Bush. If you don’t believe me look at how groups like Not In Our Name have folded up their tents, how the antiwar comic “Get Your War On” ended on January 20th 2009, or how Code Pink no longer dominates the news as opposed to back when they were exploiting Cindy Sheehan. Many additional Americans opposed the war because Bush did a poor job of making his case to the public as to why the war was necessary. Doug Feith’s book “War and Decision” illustrates how this happened and how the opposition was able to frame the arguments to push public opinion against the war. By contrast, the American public is greatly opposed to the current health care bill because Democrats have done a poor job of obfuscating the disastrous effects that this bill will have on both the levels of health care we enjoy and on the American economy.

But a larger question remains unanswered. For the most part, people opposed to the war in Iraq are in favor of the health care bill and those supporting the Iraq War are against the government taking over the health care industry. Granted, there will be exceptions, but for the most part this principle holds true. Which leads me to the question – we elect our officials to act in our best interests. At what point should we entrust our elected officials to “do the right thing” even if the majority of us disagrees with their course of action? Conservatives know that Bush was right on Iraq and that Obama’s health care plan will lead us to ruin. Liberals know that Bush was wrong about Iraq and that Obamacare will improve health care for all Americans. If we’re applying public opinion as the litmus test, are we selling ourselves short in that a simple majority rule should decide any issue, no matter how complex? For that matter, are we all being hypocrites for praising the steadfastness of our leaders who champion issues that we support while condemning the leaders who back issues we oppose? This is one time I don’t have a solid answer or a solid conclusion. Personally I find it refreshing to have a politician willing to be this honest with his constituents as Massa – I just hope he was as clear about his position during his last election campaign. I’d be really curious to hear what folks from both sides of the aisle have to say…

Crossposted from Brother Bobs Blog

But as we go forward, let us remember this-our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans, not each other. Let’s never forget what has always carried us through times of trial, including those attacks eight Septembers ago. [Did he just invoke 9/11 (not the first time, actually)? Something President Bush was criticized for doing repeatedly?- wordsmith]

Instead of giving in to fear and cynicism, let’s renew that timeless American spirit of resolve and confidence and optimism. Instead of succumbing to partisanship and division, let’s summon the unity that this moment demands. Let’s work together, with a seriousness of purpose, to do what must be done to keep our country safe.

As we begin this New Year, I cannot imagine a more fitting resolution to guide us-as a people and as a nation.

As Medved pointed out in his program Monday, if the president wishes for politics to “stop at the water’s edge”, why then did he feel it necessary to include the following, earlier in the same speech:

It’s why I refocused the fight-bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks [he's used this line in past speeches- wordsmith], and dramatically increasing our resources in the region where al Qaeda is actually based, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s why I’ve set a clear and achievable mission-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country.

Why does the “new kind of politician who rises above the petty Washington politics of old” never botheres to reach across the partisan divide himself and acknowledge that President Bush kept us safe since 9/11?

What is it with Mr. Unity, Barack Obama, who calls for the nation to come together at this particular moment, even as he sticks in politically partisan cheap shots within the same speech? As Michael Medved points out, how about leading by example, Mr. President?

Michael Medved writing in USA Today:

Obama undermines his own unity pleas by inserting cheap shots against his predecessor in even high-minded public pronouncements. His Nobel speech explicitly praised America’s battles in Afghanistan and in the first Iraq war 19 years ago, conspicuously excluding the current Iraqi conflict (in which soldiers continue to sacrifice). He also emphasized his decision to close Guantanamo a surefire applause line for his European audience but an utterly gratuitous slap at George W. Bush. Similarly, the big Afghanistan speech featured an out-of-context slam of the prior president’s decisions on Iraq. The whole world knows that Obama represents a fresh start, so these reminders of the raging disagreements of the Bush years unnecessarily undermine the spirit of solidarity the new president seeks.

Repeating the mantra “Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11″ is a politically partisan cheap-shot that stands only to alienate Americans such as myself, who rejects the conventional mainstream understanding of that statement.

Would excluding that gratuitous cheap-shot have weakened his radio address? No. Such partisan sniping is “sooo yesterday’s news”; and amongst his fellow liberals, so passé: Been there, believed that..time to moveon.org… to the present…None of them need reminding of what a “miserable failure” “King George” was.

But President Obama can’t help himself because he is not the president everyone who voted for him wishes him to be: A great American president who can unite the nation. Nope. He is a divisive liberal president who represents only one side of the country. The wrong side. He is not conducting himself as the American president, but as the liberal Democrat president.

I’m not the one with the unity problem. I’m not the one who has trouble leaving politics behind at the water’s edge. President Obama is the partisan problem. And the saddest part is he can’t even see it; nor would it appear, can any of his advisors recognize his divisiveness.

December was the first month since the beginning of the Iraq war in which there were no U.S. combat deaths, the U.S. military reported.

There were three noncombat fatalities.

“That is a very significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward, and I think that also speaks to the level of violence and how it has decreased over time,” said Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Since the beginning of the war more than six years ago, 4,373 U.S. military members have died — 3,477 from hostilities and 898 in non-combat incidents.

I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers.

What is telling, is how it took 4 days for the Administration to figure out how to address the recent terror plot, and only hours to confront Cheney.

In the next paragraph, Pfeiffer does as all good Obamadsmen do: Blame the previous administration for where we are at today:

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years.

It is a lie that Iraq had “no al Qaeda presence” prior to invasion. It also misunderstands the nature of the war we find ourselves in, which is not limited to just al Qaeda, but a network of Islamic terror groups, many of which are affiliated with al Qaeda. (Interestingly, Pfeiffer’s post even mentions it’s not just al Qaeda who mean to do us harm, without seeing the contradiction he makes, here). Note that Osama bin Laden and his terror group wasn’t the only signatory to his 1998 fatwa, but was one of five. All can be said to fall under the umbrella moniker, “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders”. We are at war with an Islamic (Jihad) Terror Movement. Not just one terror group directly responsible for 9/11, but an entire network of religious nuts who cooperate and collaborate, and have shared ideology and goals.

It is why from the get-go, President Bush said our focus will not be limited to just al-Qaeda:

“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
-President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.

As far as Iraq, it became the central front of the GWoT from 2003-2008. Zawahiri regarded it with great importance. As Lawrence Wright, author of the definitive geneology on al Qaeda- The Looming Tower- said on national radio, it was al Qaeda that became bogged down by Iraq. Iraq became their Vietnam. And it is thanks to the war in Iraq that al Qaeda was exposed for the human aberration that they are, losing legitimacy in the eyes of many in the Islamic world- amongst both moderates and radicals, alike (they never had legitimacy in the eyes of peaceful Muslims- and yes, they do exist).

President Bush kept us safe since 9/11. And for the president who campaigned on reaching across the aisle, bipartisanship, and being a new kind of politician, he’d live up to that ideal if he would be gracious enough to acknowledge that and quit scapegoating the last administration for today’s current event difficulties. But president Obama can’t help but be who he is: A divisive, petty, all-about-me-and-my-legacy partisan, blame-handing, far-to-the-left politician. A divider, not a uniter.

Ah…but Pfeiffer’s distortions haven’t stopped spinning yet:

It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

President Obama is merely riding out the coattails of the decisions made before he ever came into office, including the signing of the SoFA. The war as it currently stands in Iraq today was “already winding down” with troop withdrawal planned before his watch even began. But he takes credit for success there, conveniently forgetting he opposed the decision that helped bring about that success.

It’s beyond humor to see that in September of ‘08, presidential candidate Barack Obama was criticizing President Bush for lack of urgency, as 43 mounted a “quiet surge” into Afghanistan in response to dealing with ever-changing circumstances on the ground. The need for an increase of troop strength for a counterinsurgency strategy was part of a 2008 strategy review. Meanwhile 44, in his continued criticism, seems to have not only adopted “lack of urgency” in dealing with Afghanistan, but made “dithering” one of the memorable words/phrases of 2009 (along with “teachable moment”).

Let’s be clear: President Obama is an inheritor and beneficiary of many of the tools and policy-decisions he will need to continue keeping America safe. This includes the “partnership building”. The notion that Bush only engaged in cowboy diplomacy and did not build alliances and cooperation with other nations is ludicrous and false. A lot of the GWoT was waged “behind the scenes”. But somehow “shock and awe” military aggression has come to define the Bush approach. This ignores the truly multi-pronged effort President Bush did take in engaging the Islamic terror network. Not only were they decimated on the field of battle, but much of their financing choked off and bank assets frozen due to Bush being engaged on the diplomatic front, resulting in law enforcement and intelligence gathering and sharing. The constant usage of the phrase “military alone can’t solve this” is strawman nonsense to fuel the false premise that the Bush Administration only pursued military use of force in combating Islamic terror.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action.

Try “dithering”. Where was his action when it came to supporting the people of Iran? When it came to Afghanistan?

And he has used “bellicose rhetoric”. On the campaign trail in regards to how to handle Pakistan and Iran. And against political opposition (remember “get in their faces”?).

Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country.

The “bellicose rhetoric” did not happen for 7 years. It only happened on the heels of 9/11, then toned down (rather unfortunately in some cases, imo).

And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

How about being “off-key” in spending so much time attacking what a former VP (who left office as deeply unpopular in opinion polls as the president, as noted by Mark Hemmingway) has to say, than in attacking those who wish to kill us:

the White House is still in campaign mode, worried about what a private citizen — who left office remarkably unpopular! — thinks of them.

What is laughable is the absurdity of the Administration to wax so indignant and Obama supporters and liberals to be so outraged that “How dare you! How dare former VP Cheney speak out against the sitting president!”

Well, maybe he wouldn’t feel so inclined to speak out if the current administration would have more class and dignity than to make political swipes at the previous administration in rationalizing their every decision in how they are dealing with the current state of affairs.

Maybe when you quit blaming Bush for your own inadequacies in how you’re handling today’s problems, then maybe Bush’s hatchet man will quit chopping you down a notch or two, Mr. President.

The year started with my wife outta work, no family income (I just get beer money for my books), two sick kids, the neighbor’s trampoline had just taken flight into the back of our car-almost totaling it.

The year continued…

Obama took office. He and Dems gave a trillion dollars in “stimulus” money to their organized labor donors who paid 80% of their campaign money (according to the Federal Election Commission website) with the idea that if the kickback wasn’t given right away unemployment would rise above 8%.

Then unemployment reached almost 11% (almost 25% in some states…states that probably won’t be blue again in the fall-not w 1:4 voters outta work!).
The war in Iraq continues under the Bush plan, and Obama-who had pledged for 2yrs to focus on Afghanistan-took 10 months to decide on what to do.

Also in Afghanistan, our own Flopping Aces writer, Chris Galloway returned from his tour there in April, but on June 30th his months of being unable to adjust, his frustrations w Obama and the left’s ignorance of the war on terror among other challenges drove him to take his own life. God bless you Chris! You’re missed more than you know.

My wife did find a job, but 3 more of my friends lost their jobs (2 of em far left, unabashed moonbat Obama lovers).

Last night, my wife and I did the usual. We looked back on the year, we complained about some things, and we thanked God for others (a trip to Disneyworld with our kids that was the greatest vacation in our lives!). We talked about making resolutions, and decided on a list of things we wanna try and do instead. As we waited up for the ball to drop on TV, I got a facebook message that a friend of mine’s mom had just died. 2009 was going out like bitch.

I dunno what 2010 will bring. I know the deadline for Iran to give up its nuclear program has come and gone, and that Obama “strongly objected” to the tyrannical oppression of the Iranian people. I know that even if the current plan in Iraq works, 50-70,000 American combat troops will just be re-named “security forces” in October. I know that there’s no plan for fighting terrorists in Afghanistan other than to make soldiers read Miranda rights if they choose to capture a suicide bomber (should Marines get badges now, or will those grunts just toss em on the ground w a firm, “Badges!? We don’t need no stinking badges!”?). I know that even TIME Magazine reported that there is no military option for Yemen. I know from a friend just back from the region that Somalia is a war zone w Americans fully involved and the world ignoring it (but Obama did get a peace prize). I know that Israel is not gonna wait forever re: Iran, that Russia’s making offensive weapons again for the first time in 20yrs, and I know that if I look around the web or TV I can still find some leftwinger nutroots moonbat moron blaming Bush for something-anything-even though Obama’s been President for a year now.

More than anything, I know that 2009 changed me. Chris’ death effects me harder than any other that I’ve known in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know that what pissed him off politically and militarily pisses me off too. I know that the trip I took w my wife and kids to Disneyworld in December changed me somehow. I no longer care as much about trying to warn people on the left of threats. I no longer care to debate them about the validity of the war in Iraq, about the need for the war in Afghanistan, or the (4) 911 Commission report causes that drove Al Queda to start killing Americans in 1992 (3:4 of which were blowback from America’s war on Iraq).

I care more about my family now. I care more about my friends. I don’t live in a leftist nest like San Fran, LA, NYC, DC, or Boston, and since I live between the burbs and farm country in Ohio…I don’t think the war whose name must not be spoken is gonna effect me as much as it will those who cannot dare to speak its name. I will not be attacked. Al Queda’s not gonna waste operatives in the Akron area as much as they gonna aim for someplace where the leftnuts are all gathered-like NYC and DC on 911.

So, when the next attack comes, and it will, it’s gonna be aimed at those who continue to try and pretend there is no war, there is no threat, and if we’re just nice to everyone around the world (except Republicans who they wish would die ala Rush Limbaugh), then everything will be fine. I’ve tried for years to explain documented threats and ties, and now those people need to learn on their own. How? Well, Clinton’s Counterterrorism Czar, Richard Clarke, was asked by the 911 Commission back in 2004, and he told them there’s only 1 thing that gets Americans to recognize the threat: “more body bags.”

Maybe the same is true with the economy. Maybe the leftnuts who lose their jobs and can’t find another will start to ask why they can’t? Maybe they’ll start to see that repealing the Bush tax cuts (or letting them expire) is not a good idea ’cause it raises the tax on those same people who do the hiring? Maybe they’ll see that they can’t find a job because small business owners had their taxes increased, and they have less to spend on new hires? Maybe they’ll see that forcing businesses to spend more on healthcare means less money for hiring them? Maybe the nutroots people who are outta work will say, “Gosh, I like taxing people who make $250,000 a year, but…now those people are spending their money on these new taxes instead of spending it on hiring me? With 1:4 people in the blue state of Michigan looking for work…it could happen.

2009 was a good year and a bad year. Obama gave himself a B+ for having accomplished nothing. Since, by the Bush standard, he is responsible for everything then 2009 gets a B+. If you agree, then great. If you don’t, then you must be some sort of right winger teabagger conservative wackjob (at least by MSNBC, Huffpo, and NYT standards).

In the end, I’m optimistic about 2010. Why-with so much potential horror looming?! I’m optimistic because like no other time in our recent history…there is no place for the left to hide. No conspiracy theories, no blaming Bush, not denial or deliberate ignoring of wars, nothing can hide them from the cold dark realities of the world, from the broken promises of their leaders, from their own cowardly refusal to open their minds to the scary scary thought that if something wasn’t Bush’s fault or the Repubs’ fault, then what caused it?

What caused the recession?
Why are so many out of work?
Why are Dems supporting the indefinite war in Iraq now?
Why did Al Queda start killing Americans?
What if Bush’s anti-charisma wasn’t to blame for “the world hating us?”

So many more cold questions that they didn’t even dare to ask before, but this year…this year they cannot even escape the answers.

Welcome Dems, welcome to reality

No despot fears the president and no demonstrator in Tehran expects him to ride to the rescue.

After a year in office the world knows what to expect. A bunch of “soaring” rhetoric about democracy and freedom but NO action whatsoever. In essence, Obama is intending to stay above it all and withdraw from any and all action on the world stage.

With year one drawing to a close, the truth of the Obama presidency is laid bare: retrenchment abroad, and redistribution and the intrusive regulatory state at home. This is the genuine calling of Barack Obama, and of the “progressives” holding him to account. The false dichotomy has taken hold—either we care for our own, or we go abroad in search of monsters to destroy or of broken nations to build. The decision to withdraw missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic was of a piece with that retreat in American power.

In the absence of an overriding commitment to the defense of American primacy in the world, the Obama administration “cheats.” It will not quit the war in Afghanistan but doesn’t fully embrace it as its cause. It prosecutes the war but with Republican support—the diehards in liberal ranks and the isolationists are in no mood for bonding with Afghans. (Harry Reid’s last major foreign policy pronouncement was his assertion, three years ago, that the war in Iraq was lost.)

As revolution simmers on the streets of Iran, the will was summoned in the White House to offer condolences over the passing of Grand Ayatollah Hussein Montazeri, an iconic figure to the Iranian opposition. But the word was also put out that the administration was keen on the prospect of John Kerry making his way to Tehran. No one is fooled. In the time of Barack Obama, “engagement” with Iran’s theocrats and thugs trumps the cause of Iranian democracy.

In retrospect, that patina of cosmopolitanism in President Obama’s background concealed the isolationism of the liberal coalition that brought him to power. The tide had turned in the congressional elections of 2006. American liberalism was done with its own antecedents—the outlook of Woodrow Wilson and FDR and Harry Truman and John Kennedy. It wasn’t quite “Come home, America,” but close to it. This was now the foreign policy of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. There was in the land a “liberal orientalism,” if you will, a dismissive attitude about the ability of other nations to partake of liberty. It had started with belittling the Iraqis’ aptitude for freedom. But there was implicit in it a broader assault on the very idea of freedom’s possibilities in distant places. East was East, and West was West, and never the twain shall meet.

~~~

Everywhere there is on display evidence of the rogues taking the Obama administration’s measure, and of America’s vulnerable allies scurrying for cover. A fortnight ago, Lebanon’s young prime minister made his way from Beirut to Damascus: Saad Hariri had come to pay tribute to the Syrian ruler.

You may remember the name of Hariri. Five years ago he was the match that lit the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. Syria had watched as President Bush had actually backed up his words and brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. They were afraid of the same thing happening to them.

Amazing what backing up your words can do.

We’re now worlds away from that moment in history. The man who demolished the Iraqi tyranny, George. W. Bush, is no longer in power, and a different sentiment drives America’s conduct abroad. Saad Hariri had no choice but to make peace with his father’s sworn enemies—that short voyage he made to Damascus was his adjustment to the retreat of American power.

In headier moments, Mr. Hariri and the leaders of the Cedar Revolution had been emboldened by American protection. It was not only U.S. military power that had given them heart.

There was that “diplomacy of freedom,” the proclamation that the Pax Americana had had its fill with the autocracies and the rogues of the Greater Middle East. There but for the grace of God go we, the autocrats whispered to themselves as they pondered the fall of the Iraqi despot. To be sure, there was mayhem in the new Iraq—the Arab and Iranian rulers, and the jihadists they winked at and aided, had made sure of that. But there was the promise of freedom, meaningful elections, a new dignity for men and women claiming their own country.

What a difference three or four years make.

What a difference indeed. All the dictators, kings, and despots had to do was wait out Bush, which they did, and watch as 52% of the American people installed a man no one fears. A man whose picture could be included in the dictionary definition of Paper Tiger.

It is different today, there is a cold-bloodedness to American foreign policy. “Ideology is so yesterday,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed not long ago, giving voice to the new sentiment.

History and its furies have their logic, and they have not bent to Mr. Obama’s will. He had declared a unilateral end to the “war on terror,” but the jihadists and their mentors are yet to call their war to a halt. From Yemen to Fort Hood and Detroit, the terror continues.

But to go by the utterances of the Obama administration and its devotees, one would have thought that our enemies were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, not the preachers and masterminds of terror. The president and his lieutenants spent more time denigrating “rendition” and the Patriot Act than they did tracking down the terror trail and the latest front it had opened at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. Our own leaders spoke poorly of our prerogatives and ways, and they were heard the world over.

The world understands we are a weaker nation, because of one man, and they have nothing to fear. Obama will do his best to have it both ways; using his rhetoric while doing almost nothing. He talks of engaging the enemy or despots, yet in Obama World that means he intends to sit down and talk. We used that policy for 13 years with Saddam and now we are using it with Iran: it is only meant to appear as if we are making an effort while accomplishing nothing.

And the whole world is watching.

More here.

I’ve been pondering the implications… since pondering and speculation is all we can do at the moment. I’ve also been searching codification docs, old EOs, wondering if this is business as “usual” or what. I am also seeing many blogs are misinformed, thinking INTERPOL is a newly added organization to the immunity list of IOIA. Not true. So let me fill you in on a few basics.

Granting immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 since EO 9698 in 1946, plus various subsequent EOs adding designated organizations to that list isn’t unusual. It lies within POTUS power to alter any varying degree of that immunity under that Act. We are not talking about an infringement on the Constitutional powers by the Executive Office here. That argument should fly right out of the window.

The IOIA, from what I understand, differs from the blanket immunities granted to sovereign nations under the FSIA (Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act) by granting immunities to the designated int’l organizations in two distinct classes: international organizations as one class, and their property and assets as the other.

Reagan’s original EO 12425 added INTERPOL… but included many limitations in the second property/asset classes – some specificially as it related to search and seizure of property, customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes.

Clinton amended Reagan’s original EO, granting additional immunity not originally included for INTERPOL’s property/assets with his EO 12971 on Sept 15, 1995.

From what I can see, Obama has pretty much made it a clean sweep with his current EO, granting what constitutes absolute immunity for all INTERPOL property and assets. What this final extension of immunity does provide is a lockbox on all INTERPOL property, assets and files… well out of the reach of our country’s FOIA. This becomes even more bizarre coming from a POTUS who prefers to import enemy combatants, thereby bestowing Constitutional rights the moment they set foot on our borders, and thereby allowing courts almost unfettered access to classified intel.

So if you’re Obama, why open one door to Constitutional rights access, and slam the other Constitutional rights door shut? Or better illustrated, using McCarthy’s question… why does INTERPOL need that additional immunity?

The simple answer is… they don’t. But Obama does.

Fact is, INTERPOL’s increased immunity mitigates a great deal of Obama’s responsibility in some key areas of pesky campaign promises.

I will somewhat agree with ThreatsWatch’s Steve Schippert that this could conceivably extend to INTERPOL arrest of Americans on our soil. But if SCOTUS could conjure up Constitutional rights for those who were captured and held on foreign soils, nor were subjects of extradition, it’s going to be extremely tough for them to figure out a way to deny Constitutional rights to an American citizen, arrested on US soil by an int’l police organization.

SCOTUS examination is always a case by case examination of specific events as they relate to law. But INTERPOLs increased immunities extend to protecting them and *their* assets from search and seizures. It does not not allow them to do unConstitutional search and seizures upon American citizens solo. The stroke of an EO pen cannot usurp that unmistaken able Constitutional right… at least as it stands today.

But Schippert may have lead me to the Obama benefits as a motive when he elaborates on Obama’s lukewarm opines on the Int’l Criminal Court. Clinton signed us on, Bush removed us. Obama’s been hesitant, saying it’s “premature”. Schippert makes a good case for Obama’s delays not being related to sovereignty concerns, but “image”… a subject that this arrogant WH occupant remains consumed with daily.

Even if Obama did sign the Rome Statute, ratification by Congress is still required to cement that relationship as legal and prosecutable to the fullest treaty extent. Obama is fast running out of charisma chips with the public. His best chance for any successful ratification would be with/through the current Congress… who’s make up after 2010 is in no way guaranteed to be as acquiescent to his demands.

I also have to assume that Obama’s calculated move is not meant to be an alternative supporting intel arm of the now-defunct “war on terror”. In fact, it makes such info more removed, and more difficult to use in a military tribunal. Thus I chip away at the more obvious “no gain” motives.

But there are two possible motives gleaned after reading Curtis Bradley’s May 2002 article in The American Society of Int’l Law. This was shortly after the Bush admin had announced it’s intent not to ratify the ICC treaty. The below paragraph is what set my mind a’whirl:

Nevertheless, there may be at least two ways in which the Administration’s announcement will have legal significance. First, Article 86 of the Rome Statute provides that parties to the treaty shall “cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court,” and other articles in the treaty provide that the Court may formally request even nonparties to provide assistance to the Court and to surrender suspects to the Court.

One possible effect of the Administration’s announcement will be to preclude an argument that the United States would be violating its duty not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty if, in some future case, it rejects a request for assistance by the Court. In fact, the same day that the Bush Administration made its announcement, Pierre-Richard Prosper, the State Department’s ambassador for war crimes, stated that the Court should not expect assistance from the United States.

Another possible effect of the Administration’s announcement concerns the Court’s jurisdiction. Article 12 of the treaty allows the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the nationals of non-party countries if the crime is committed in the territory of a party country. The Administration’s announcement might remove any basis for parties to the treaty to argue that the United States, by signing the treaty, has waived objection to the trial of US citizens in this situation.

This posits two very specific avenues of benefits for a hands-off INTERPOL, and even a possible re’signatory status – even if not ratified – on the ICC treaty. The first allows this POTUS to cooperate with this int’l court system by sending Americans accused of war crimes elsewhere to stand trial, while effectively telling the nation that his hands are “tied”.

What better way for Obama to accomplish his promise to seek “justice” upon the prior administration – from President Bush to any defense department personnel in his sights – to appease his far left base, and still do the traditional Pontius Pilate washing of hands of guilt?

The second is this just may be a great dumping ground for future enemy combatants… alleviating this POTUS of the repercussions of an unsuccessful and controversial prosecution in the US federal justice system.

Both potential “int’l law” scenarios are a win win for the Obama extreme left base – a group feeling they’ve been abandoned by a “central” Obama. To this day, they thirst for Bush’s blood, and those in his administration. Obama can use the int’l court system and regulations to virtually hand them Bush’s head. Voila… a surprise campaign promise fulfilled.

As for Gitmo, for a POTUS who’s greatest skill is voting “present” and passing the buck of responsibility to others, Obama would be grateful not to fill up the cell blocks of a new “Gitmo” located on US soil if he could simply pass them off to the ICC. He again washes his hands of any ill-treatment in the hands of international authorities. If this is the case, there will be some new ROE following soon.

Time will perhaps reveal more what the Obama admin has planned with this subterfuge. Until then, were I the former admin members, I’d be keeping a watchful eye over my shoulder. But what I am most sure about is this Executive Order is not to benefit INTERPOL – who has functioned for decades without these immunities. Executive Order #13524 is all about the power of “appearing powerless” in the court of public opinion.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he would have found a justification for invading Iraq even without the now-discredited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to produce weapons of mass destruction.

“I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat,” Blair told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast this morning.

It was a startling admission from the onetime British leader, who was President Bush’s staunchest ally in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Blair’s comments were immediately denounced by critics who accused him of using false pretenses to drag Britain into an unpopular war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of allied troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Speaking to broadcaster Fern Britton, Blair insisted that ousting Hussein had improved the situation in Iraq by laying the foundation for a more democratic country. He described the upcoming Iraqi elections as “probably the single most significant thing that’s happened to that region for many years.”

“I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons still in charge,” Blair said of Hussein.

The title of that article above, from the LA Times, is titled: WMD Not Point Of Iraq War.

Of course it wasn’t. It was One of MANY reasons for that war, one of which….and the most important in my opinion…was Saddam’s support of terrorists. After 9/11 we could not allow this tyrant to continue to support our enemies while thumbing his nose at the entire world for the previous 13 years. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II investigation report on pre-war Iraq Intelligence stated:

Conclusion 10: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information. The intelligence community reported regularly on Iraq’s safe harbor and financial support for Palestinian rejectionist groups, the Abu Nidal Organization, and others. The February 2002 NIE fully supported the claim that Iraq had, and would continue, to support terrorist groups.

Conclusion 11: Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi’s presence in the country.

Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and the November 2002 NIE, dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qa’ida were cooperating partners. According to an undisputed INR footnote in the NIE, there was no intelligence information that supported the claim that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qa’ida. The credibility of the principal intelligence source behind the claim that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with biological and chemical weapons training was regularly questioned by DIA, and later by the CIA. The Committee repeats its conclusion from a prior report that “assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al_Qa’ida.”

Amendment 119 – strike the above conclusion and insert

Conclusion 12: Statements by the President and Secretary Powell that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training were supported by the intelligence. Numerous intelligence assessments stated that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training and specifically training in poisons and gases. While some DIA reports raised questions about the credibility of this reporting and one CIA report noted that the source may have exaggerated his reporting in a separate area, the CIA did not raise questions about the source’s weapons training reporting and., in fact, provided and approved the use of this language in both the President’s and Secretary’s remarks.

Comments – None of the statements provided in this report suggested or implied that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had “partnership.” Additionally, while there were policymakers who commented that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, those comments were fully supported by the intelligence. The al-Libi reporting on CBW training was never questioned by the CIA and the information was approved by the CIA for use in both the President’s Cincinnati speech and Powell’s UN speech. In the case of the Powell speech CIA actually provided the information to him to use in the speech in the draft of the speech the CIA wrote. Furthermore, the conclusion as drafted says that intelligence community “assessments were inconsistent” so accordingly, how can the Committee judge policymakers to not have any statements substantiated by the intelligence?

As did the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (pdf):

Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign “fighters” drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.

~~~

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Key line:

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.

Even more here about the ties.

There was clear evidence Saddam supported terrorists and we could not allow that. No way, no how. I thank god every day we had a few world leaders, like Tony Blair and President Bush, that did what needed to be done to protect our countries.

As for the WMD’s. That same Senate report above concludes that while he may have not had any major amounts of WMD he DID have the intent and capabilities of reconstituting those WMD programs within a short amount of time after sanctions being lifted.

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Did he have those nukes when we invaded?

Nope.

If left untouched could he have had a nuke in a short amount of time?

Yup.

That’s the point.

He supported terrorists and took every step to ensure that he would have WMD within weeks of sanctions being lifted.

Those are the reasons we invaded and why it was the only right, just and smart thing to do.

I will end this post with a portion of President Bush’s speech to the UN in 2002, there were many reasons for the Iraq invasion….and most of the left and our MSM ignores them, instead wailing and gnashing their teeth about WMD. Those possible WMD’s along with Saddam’s support of terrorism made him a “grave and gathering danger”:

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which, the Council said, “threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region.”

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit “extremely grave violations” of human rights and that the regime’s repression is “all pervasive.” Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents — all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General’s high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

~~~

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program — weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime’s compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, “condemning” Iraq’s “serious violations” of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, “deploring” Iraq’s “clear violations” of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing “flagrant violations” and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior “totally unacceptable.” And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq — four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a

grave and gathering danger.

To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of “oil for food” and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

~~~

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

The Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at George Bush, the former US president, has himself come under a shoe attack in the French capital at the hands of a fellow Iraqi.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi, a television reporter, was in Paris on Tueday at a news conference to promote his campaign for the “victims of the US occupation in Iraq” when the attacker turned the tables on him, shouting: “Here’s another shoe for you.”

Al-Zeidi, who ducked and the shoe hit the wall behind him, said: “When I used this method, it was against the occupation.

“I didn’t use it against a compatriot. I always knew the occupier and his lackeys would stop at nothing to get to me.”

The thickset man made a brief speech in Arabic during the question and answer session, defending US policy and accusing al-Zeidi of “working for dictatorship in Iraq,” before throwing his shoe.

Stolen ‘technique’

Al-Zeidi later quipped: “He stole my technique.”

What technique is that? Missing?

I’d say Al-Zeidi learned from George Bush’s technique of ducking.

Muntazer al-Zaidi (R) reacts as a shoe is thrown at him during a news conference in Paris, December 1, 2009. Zaidi, an Iraqi reporter imprisoned for throwing his shoes at then President George W. Bush, found himself on the receiving end of a similar footwear attack in Paris on Tuesday.
REUTERS/Reuters TV

Noel Sheppard questions how the media will report this, given Al-Zeidi’s celeb status, now that “the shoe is on the other foot”:

To give readers an idea of the media’s fascination with the original shoe throwing incident, a Google search of “Man throws shoe at Bush” produced 1.2 million results.

As for LexisNexis, similar search terms produced almost 1,000 reports in the days immediately following the event.

CNN logged 34 such reports, with MSNBC and Fox News in second with eight, followed by ABC and NPR with seven, and CBS and NBC with six.

Will Zaidi on the receiving end of a shoe toss be as newsworthy?

Also of interest is not just who reports this, but how.

Consider the tone of the Agence France-Presse article published hours ago:

A protester who presented himself as an Iraqi journalist in exile hurled a shoe Tuesday at the colleague who one year ago found fame hurling his own footwear at then US president George W. Bush. [...]

Following the commotion, the news conference continued with Zaidi taking questions about his famous assault on Bush on December 14 last year, which was shown around the world and made him a hero in the Arab world. [...]

Zaidi’s shock action was rebroadcast repeatedly around the world and made him an instant hero among Iraqis and others who felt that Arab honour had been violated by the US occupation of Iraq.

Introducing his guest at the packed Paris press conference, the president of the local Arab Press Club, Kamal Tarabay, said Zaidi’s “audacious gesture” made him a “hero of the resistance against the occupier.”

See what I mean?

This piece presented Zaidi as practically a hero.

With this in mind, it will be interesting to see if other media outlets that cover this incident use it as another opportunity to praise Zaidi as they bash Bush.

U.S. Army Spc. Scott Guthrie stands watch on the roof of an Iraqi police station in Tunis, Iraq, Feb. 28, 2009. Guthrie is assigned to 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class James Wagner

Thomas Ricks posted a nice response by Lt. Joseph Somers, in reaction to a shootout in Diyala province between Iraqi Police (IP) and Iraqi Army (IA), questioning its meaning.

Lt. Somers sheds some light on the cause of the shootout; but the real gem is the second half of his letter:

I am the platoon leader responsible for this IA company. The IA on IP “shootout” was due to large egos, not sectarian rifts.

The IA company is fairly competent. Last week we showed them how to clear rooms. A decent amount of them already knew how. One of the IA soldiers even made a correction on one of my soldiers. Today we taught them out to plot points on maps.

They are making arrests completely autonomous from US forces. Most of the time I don’t even know about the raids they conduct until days after.

Prior to this deployment I remember talking to one of my soldiers who had seen some of the bloodiest days of the surge. He told me how Iraq was un-fixable and how all the IA and IP were corrupt and not to be trusted, and how Iraq was going to unravel. Today I saw that same soldier sit down with a couple IA and train them how to read a map for two hours. I literally had to tell him to stop. Driving back to the FOB he spent the entire time talking to me about what we should train them on next week and how much he enjoyed it.

Iraq is a long way off, but even my most skeptical and jaded soldiers have seen the potential in Iraq in the three months we have been here.

Before I left that company commander today, I asked him how long it had been since he had actually been in a firefight with an insurgent group. He said it had been about 11 or 12 months. He said that he was tired of all the fighting and he was ready to move on.

I left that IA station a little more confident in the future of Iraq today.

Foreign powers appear to still be exercising influence and interference with the democratization process of Iraq:

What was once a foreign-led terrorist organization is now a mostly Iraqi network of small, roving cells that continue to rely on the flow of fighters and weapons smuggled through the Syrian border, albeit at a slower rate, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

Syria denies role

Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, the Interior Ministry’s chief of intelligence and investigations, said Iraqi officials suspect the Aug. 19 and Oct. 25 bombings, which targeted the Foreign, Justice and Finance ministries, among other entities, were planned at a secret meeting in Zabadani, a city in southwestern Syria, close to the Lebanese border. He said al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders met with former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party on July 30 to chart out a new strategy.

The willingness to cooperate and collaborate between supposed “secular” Ba’athists and religious Islamic jihadis held true even prior to invasion, despite what the current UK inquisition is asserting in its testimony.

Bill Roggio questions the possibility that eastern Syria will become another Waziristan safe-haven for al Qaeda.