If you were being attacked by a tank and defined it as a car, I doubt you would win or have a chance of escaping with your life. That is why defining your adversary has merit and is logical.
What's your problem Obama? (See 1 below.)
===
That Bush lied became an albatross and with aid from the press and media it stuck.
It is one thing to believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake but it is another to believe Bush lied in order to do so.
This article refutes the lie allegation and comes from a respected Judge who is totally informed. However, the lie will persist because it accomplishes two goals and created a problem GW could not, nor will ever, overcome, ie. how do you defend against a lie that is believed.
1) Democrats needed to cast doubt on GW in order to justify their own pacifism and to garner votes from the masses who believe everything they hear and read. They are the Brian Williams' crowd who drink whatever NBC, CBS , MSNBC, ABC and the New York Times tell them .
2) By creating disbelief, even though virtually every recognized Democrat politician believed as GW did, it allowed them to align with the growing number of dissenters. Politicians always need cover when events turn and leave them on the wrong side of popular opinion. Most politicians are gutless and because they want to continue "serving the people" and thus, need to stay in office, they often feel compelled to twist the truth to do so.
God should have given anyone running for public office two mouths so they can speak out of both.
3) Sen. Mc Carthy created much of his witch hunt by telling lies . Lies are like clouds. They are made of fluff, are not easily grabbed. Therefore, it is difficult to refute a lie. In fact, when facts areoffered as rebuttal they are often and successfully characterized as simply another lie.
When someone falsely puts the "bad mouth" on you it is very difficult, if not impossible, to wash it away. Ask Dreyfus, if you don't believe me.
You can even ask me because there are many who do not know me, have never taken the time to engage in a lengthy discussion with me and who believe I am Atilla. Why? Simply because I hold conservatives views about many matters. As those of read these missives know, I consider myself politically schizophrenic because I am socially liberal, militarily hawkish and fiscally conservative but tend to be ruled by my fiscal conservatism. (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
This past Saturday we had a small dinner party of most of your friends who are very young and Ben and Amanda Payne were over. Ben is the Headmaster of The Savannah Classical Academy and said for the 60 seats opening they had 600 applications..
I am planning a visit to SCA and invite those who would like to join to e mil me. I am shooting for Friday , April 17.
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Abbas' Fatah: "Martyrdom-death is a destiny
we assume willingly and serenely"
Fatah's youth movement
"renewed its commitment to the [Martyrs'] path"
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement and its youth division Shabiba both recently released statements honoring "Martyrs" (Shahids), praising them for "watering the land of Palestine with their pure blood." Fatah declared that "Martyrdom-death for Palestine is a destiny":
"We believe that Martyrdom-death (Istish'had) for Palestine is a destiny we assume willingly and serenely, in order [to attain] a free and dignified life for our people in the paradise of the eternal homeland."
[WAFA (the official Palestinian news agency), Jan. 7, 2015]
Some of those who Fatah has exalted as "Martyrs" in recent months and whom the movement honored in its statement with its "highest praise" and "appreciation" are the following terrorists, as documented by Palestinian Media Watch:
The synagogue murderers Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal murdered 4 worshippers and a policeman in a Jerusalem synagogue (Nov. 18, 2014).
Fatah posted a picture of the graves of the two terrorists on its official Facebook page, with the text: "This is the place of eternal rest of Martyrs Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal."
Abd Al-Rahman Al-Shaloudi murdered a three-month-old baby and a young woman, when he intentionally drove his car into people waiting for a train.
Fatah posted an obituary for the murderer on its official Facebook page, calling him "heroic Martyr."
Dalal Mughrabi led the most lethal terror attack in Israel's history, known as the Coastal Road massacre, in 1978, when she and other Fatah terrorists hijacked a bus on Israel's Coastal Highway, killing 37 civilians, 12 of them children, and wounding over 70. Fatah organized a tournament named after her, and Fatah-run Awdah TV broadcast at length from a party commemorating the terrorist, referring to her as "Martyr" and stating that "we renew the promise to her and its fulfillment... [she] will remain a path for the next generations to follow."
Ali Hassan Salameh was commander of operations of the Black September terror group and planned many terror attacks, including the attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics in 1972, in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered. Fatah honored him as "Martyr" and for his "greatness of men and the pride of heroes."
Abd Al-Salam Hassouna shot and killed 6 and wounded dozens at a bat-mitzvah celebration in Hadera (Jan. 17, 2002). Sa'id Ramadan shot and killed 2 on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem and wounded dozens (Jan. 22, 2002). Fatah honored these killers as "heroic." Both were from Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Fatah's military wing.
In its statement on the occasion of Palestinian "Martyrs' Day" last month, Fatah expressed its "loyalty" to all "Martyrs of Palestine" as follows:
"Loyalty to the Martyrs of Palestine is the most exalted expression of its commitment to the path and to the oath to liberate the land and to persist on the path of truth, which the Martyrs paved with their pure blood."
[WAFA (the official Palestinian news agency), Jan. 7, 2015]
"Sacrifice is merely one part of the doctrine of national struggle, the aim of which is to redeem our people and its future generations," the statement continued. It explained that "Martyrdom-death is our way to ensure the eternity of our people on its land, while it protects its Arab identity and holy places."
Fatah also "swore to remain faithful to their [the Martyrs'] sacrifice until all Palestinians, Arabs and free men around the world witness the establishment of a Palestinian state" and until "one of their small boys or girls raises the Palestinian flag over the walls of Jerusalem, the capital of our free and independent state."
Similarly, Fatah's youth movement Shabiba sent "greetings of respect and admiration" to the Martyrs and "renewed its commitment to the [Martyrs'] path until independence is achieved" and "until the establishment of the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital." [Ma'an (independent Palestinian news agency) Jan. 7, 2015]
The following are the reports on the statements honoring "Martyrdom-death for Palestine" released by Fatah and Fatah's youth movement:
Headline: "Our belief in Martyrdom-death (Istish'had) for Palestine is equal to our belief in the eternal life of our people in its land"
"Fatah said that 'loyalty to the Martyrs (Shahids) of Palestine is the most exalted expression of its commitment to the path and to the oath to liberate the land and to persist on the path of truth, which the Martyrs paved with their pure blood.'
In its statement, published by the [Fatah] Culture and Information Commission today, Wednesday [Jan. 7, 2015], on the occasion ofPalestinian Martyrs' Day, the movement added: 'We believe that Martyrdom-death (Istish'had) for Palestine is a destiny we assume willingly and serenely, in order [to attain] a free and dignified life for our people in the paradise of the eternal homeland. In addition, we believe that life is a great opportunity to invest everything in our power for the liberation of the homeland.'
Fatah saluted the 'souls of the Martyrs of the Palestinian people, its national power and the movement's Martyrs, [who died] on the path of struggle forPalestine. From Martyr Ahmad Musa, [through] Martyr and Supreme Commander PresidentYasser Arafat, the movement's great leaders, the firstself-sacrificing fighters (Fedayeen) and the generations that breathed out their souls for this path, to the last name on the list of national honor - all in order to reach the moment when the Palestinian flag will be raised over the skies of free and independent Jerusalem.'
The statement said: 'Our goals are the freedom and independence of the Palestinian people. Sacrifice is merely one part of the doctrine of national struggle, the aim of which is to redeem our people and its future generations. Martyrdom-death is our way to ensure the eternity of our people on its land, while it protects its Arab identity and holy places.'
On this occasion, the movement expressed its highest praise, appreciation and recognition to the souls of the Palestinian, Arab and foreign Martyrs who died as Martyrs for Palestine, and to their relatives and children. Furthermore, it swore to remain faithful to their sacrifice until all Palestinians, Arabs and free men around the world witness the establishment of a Palestinian state, and until one of their small boys or girls raises the Palestinian flag over the walls of Jerusalem, the capital of our free and independent state."
[WAFA (the official Palestinian news agency), Jan. 7, 2015]
Headline: "Fatah's Shabiba [youth movement]: Martyrs' Day is a day to renew [our] commitment to Palestine's Martyrs."
"Fatah's Shabiba [youth] movement in the West Bank sent greetings of respect and admiration this morning [Jan. 7, 2015] to the Martyrs (Shahids) on Palestinian Martyrs' Day, and renewed its commitment to the [Martyrs'] path until independence is achieved, until the establishment of the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, the return of the refugees and the realization of the dream for which they [the Martyrs] sacrificed their lives so that we may live in dignity and pride.
In a statement made on the occasion of this day, Fatah's Shabiba said: 'We remember our Palestinian nation's Martyrs, who ascended [to Heaven] at various stages of our nation's struggle for freedom, led by the eternal Commander Martyr Yasser Arafat, the first Martyr of the modern Palestinian revolution, Ahmad Musa Salameh, and our nation's Martyrs from the various factions and the National and Islamic Forces, as well as the Martyrs of our Arab nation - the heroes of the Jordanian, Egyptian and Iraqi armies, who watered the land of Palestine with their pure blood in order to defend its Arab nature and freedom, and whose graves still bear witness to their struggle.'
In its statement, Fatah's Shabiba mentioned the Martyrs of our revolution, who acted as men during the years of the long national struggle everywhere in the homeland and outside it, in the prisons and on the borders, and the 'numbered Martyrs' (i.e., those buried in the so-called "numbered cemeteries" - Israeli cemeteries for terrorists and enemy soldiers), whose bodies are still held by the occupation."
[Ma'an (independent Palestinian news agency) Jan. 7, 2015]
Ahmad Musa is known as the "first Martyr (Shahid) of the modern Palestinianrevolution." He was killed by a Jordanian army patrol on his way back to Jordan after the first Fatah terror attack against Israel, the attempted bombing of Israel's National Water Carrier on Jan. 1, 1965.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’
Some journalists still peddle this canard as if it were fact. This is defamatory and could end up hurting the country.
President George W. Bush PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”
I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.
The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject.
Recall that the head of the intelligence community, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, famously told the president that the proposition that Iraq possessed WMD was “a slam dunk.” Our WMD commission carefully examined the interrelationships between the Bush administration and the intelligence community and found no indication that anyone in the administration sought to pressure the intelligence community into its findings. As our commission reported, presidential daily briefs from the CIA dating back to the Clinton administration were, if anything, more alarmist about Iraq’s WMD than the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.
Saddam had manifested sharp hostility toward America, including firing at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone set up by the armistice agreement ending the first Iraq war. Saddam had also attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush —a car-bombing plot was foiled—during Mr. Bush’s visit to Kuwait in 1993. But President George W. Bush based his decision to go to war on information about Saddam’s WMD. Accordingly, when Secretary of State Colin Powell formally presented the U.S. case to the United Nations, Mr. Powell relied entirely on that aspect of the threat from Iraq.
Our WMD commission ultimately determined that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” about Saddam’s weapons. But as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media.
Granted, there were those who disagreed with waging war against Saddam even if he did possess WMD. Some in Congress joined Brent Scowcroft, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and former national security adviser, in publicly doubting the wisdom of invading Iraq. It is worth noting, however, that when Saddam was captured and interrogated, he told his interrogators that he had intended to seek revenge on Kuwait for its cooperation with the U.S. by invading again at a propitious time. This leads me to speculate that if the Bush administration had not gone to war in 2003 and Saddam had remained in power, the U.S. might have felt compelled to do so once Iraq again invaded Kuwait.
In any event, it is one thing to assert, then or now, that the Iraq war was ill-advised. It is quite another to make the horrendous charge that President Bush lied to or deceived the American people about the threat from Saddam.
I recently wrote to Ron Fournier protesting his accusation. His response, in an email, was to reiterate that “an objective reading of the events leads to only one conclusion: the administration . . . misinterpreted, distorted and in some cases lied about intelligence.” Although Mr. Fournier referred to “evidence” supporting his view, he did not cite any—and I do not believe there is any.
He did say correctly that “intelligence is never dispositive; it requires analysis and judgment, with the final call and responsibility resting with the president.” It is thus certainly possible to criticize President Bush for having believed what the CIA told him, although it seems to me that any president would have credited such confident assertions by the intelligence community. But to accuse the president of lying us into war must be seen as not only false, but as dangerously defamatory.
The charge is dangerous because it can take on the air of historical fact—with potentially dire consequences. I am reminded of a similarly baseless accusation that helped the Nazis come to power in Germany: that the German army had not really lost World War I, that the soldiers instead had been “stabbed in the back” by politicians.
Sometime in the future, perhaps long after most of us are gone, an American president may need to rely publicly on intelligence reports to support military action. It would be tragic if, at such a critical moment, the president’s credibility were undermined by memories of a false charge peddled by the likes of Ron Fournier.
Mr. Silberman, a senior federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.
===
===
TONIGHT ON NBC "News"....Brian Williams talks about his exclusive interview with Abraham Lincoln and Invasion of Europe. A must watch !
.jpg)
.jpg)
-===
2a)
Obama's 'Secret Iran Strategy' Began in 2006 with Robert Gates
by David P Goldman
PJ Media
PJ Media
Over at Mosaic Magazine, former Bush aide Michael Doran claims that the Obama administration has had a secret strategy to engage Iran from the time it took office.
He's right, but he neglects to mention that George W. Bush and his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, adopted the same strategy from the same source in November 2006, after the Republicans got crushed in congressional elections. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got a pink slip, Vice President Dick Cheney got benched, and "realist" Robert Gates–the co-chairman of the 2004 Council on Foreign Relations task force that advocated a deal with Iran–took over at Defense. Michael Doran reports all of this, all, that is, except Gates' central role in the plan. That would place a good deal of the blame at Bush's doorstep.
Writes Doran:
When he arrived in Washington in 2006, [Obama] absorbed a set of ideas that had incubated on Capitol Hill during the previous three years—ideas that had received widespread attention thanks to the final report of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan congressional commission whose co-chairs, former secretary of state James Baker and former Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, interpreted their mission broadly, offering advice on all key aspects of Middle East policy.The report, published in December 2006, urged then-President Bush to take four major steps: withdraw American troops from Iraq; surge American troops in Afghanistan; reinvigorate the Arab-Israeli "peace process"; and, last but far from least, launch a diplomatic engagement of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its junior partner, the Assad regime in Syria.
All correct, except that the 2006 congressional report was a carbon copy of the Council on Foreign Relations report of 2004, written under the supervision of Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor. When Gates replaced Rumsfeld in 2006, I lamented:
Like King Saul conjuring the spirit of the prophet Samuel, President George W Bush has conjured the undead of his father's administration, namely the Baker-Hamilton "Iraq Study Group". Samuel's ghost told Saul in effect (I Samuel 28), "You're toast," and the unfortunate president will hear the same message from his new defense secretary, Robert M Gates, and the rest of his fellow spooks.
Doran admonishes Obama for believing that the United States, not Iran, is responsible for enmity between the two countries. That was the central thesis of the 2004 Gates-Brzezinski document, which I quote:
The elimination of Saddam Hussein's regime has unequivocally mitigated one of Iran's most serious security concerns. Yet regime change in Iraq has left Tehran with potential chaos along its vulnerable western borders, as well as with an ever more proximate US capability for projecting power in the region. By contributing to heightened tensions between the Bush administration and Iran, the elimination of Saddam's rule has not yet generated substantial strategic dividends for Tehran. In fact, together with US statements on regime change, rogue states, and preemptive action, recent changes in the regional balance of power have only enhanced the potential deterrent value of a "strategic weapon".
The 2006 Iraqi elections had put the Shi'ite majority in power, and Iran loomed in the background as an ally and sponsor of the Baghdad regime. To take on Iran (as Vice President Cheney advocated) would have endangered American occupation troops in Iraq, as Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Michael Mullen told interviewer Charlie Rose on March 16, 2009:
What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is, in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it's the unintended consequences. It's the further destabilization in the region. It's how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now [because of the] capability that Iran has across the Gulf. So, I worry about their responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn't predict.
After the 2006 congressional elections, the main concern of the White House was to make Iraq look like a success. That meant placating Iran on one hand, and putting the rancorous Sunnis on the American payroll on the other. The Petraeus surge created the Sunni insurgency in its present form.
Obama justifies his policy towards Iran on the basis of the same "realist" approach that Gates brought to the last two years of the Bush administration.
|
In 2010 I warned of "Gen. Petraeus' Thirty Years War";" now ISIS is commanded by Sunni leaders that Petraeus trained through the Sons of Iraq movement. It was America's misguided effort to force majority rule upon Iraq that left the region in a perpetual state of instability. That is the thesis of Lt. Gen. Daniel Bolger (ret.) in his compelling book Why We Lost, which I reviewed here.
The best one can say about the Bush administration is that it never would have conceded so much to Iran, despite its 2006 embrace of the Gates strategy. At some point, no doubt, the Republicans would have given the mullahs an ultimatum, while Obama (as Doran documents) conceded everything at every step of the way. Obama justifies his policy towards Iran on the basis of the same "realist" approach that Robert Gates brought to the last two years of the Bush administration, but there is a difference. McBama and the Weird Sisters–Iran-born Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power–harbor a deep emotional antipathy to the United States, and a deep sympathy for anti-imperialist movements. They believe that the United States is a main instigator of the world's evil.
The trouble is that American policy in the Persian Gulf was FUBAR before Obama arrived–indeed, that is a large part of the reason that Obama arrived in the first place. Perhaps we Republicans can do without an honest accounting of our own blunders, but this would reduce the likelihood of blunders in the future.
David P. Goldman is Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Wax Family Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
