On May 18th 2008 Barack Obama stood on stage and said Iran was not a threat.

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose any serious threat to us,” he told a crowd at a campaign stop over the weekend, prompting the probable Republican opponent for the White House to respond that Iran already is attacking the U.S.

Today Iran test fired 9 missiles as a show of force against the United States and Israel. Doh!

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said were intended to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack, state television reported.

The BBC reports on the new missile and the effect it had on the world oil markets. Note that Barack Obama and the American left don’t count actions that undercut global oil markets as any sort of threat to our way of living.

Iran has test-fired nine missiles, including a new version of the Shahab-3, which is capable of reaching its main regional enemy Israel.

The Shahab-3, with a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles), was armed with a conventional warhead, state media said. Iran has tested the missile before, but the latest launch comes amid rising tensions with the US and Israel over the country’s nuclear programme.

The early morning launch at a remote desert site sent oil prices climbing.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe called on Iran to “refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world”.

What did Iran have to say?

Brig Gen Hoseyn Salami, commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ air force, said: “Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy.

“The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance.“

Yeah, that peaceful victimized country of Iran. The same country of Holocaust deniers that is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East, exporter of Shia extremists in Iraq, killing American soldiers every chance they get and threatening the destruction of Israel and her allies. That one.

Yet the American left is offering this guy up as their savior, the messiah of leftist extremism.

Words have meaning.

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Webloggin Note: There are currently 2 bouts of misinformation coursing through the blogosphere with regard to this story.

First, for all the conservatives that claim this is proof positive that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a nuclear program and that he had made progress on that front: sorry that is not the case with this particular uranium. This yellowcake was well known by the IAEA and the US since the first gulf war. Saddam couldn’t use this uranium for nuclear weapons because it was so well known. It was under lock and key so he had to look elsewhere. Its removal makes sense but does not point to any secret attempts to make new stockpiles by Saddam or Iraq.

Second, and something I consider to be more disingenuous and troubling are the claims by the New York Times and other left leaning sources of misinformation regarding the Niger purchase attempts.

Here is what the New York Times published today, proving that they are either paid propagandists or just plain stupid:

The yellowcake removed from Iraq — which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa — is used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing does it become low-enriched uranium, which can fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs.

Wrong. The following excerpt from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Wilson’s report puts to rest this lie. Iraq was actively trying to purchase yellow cake uranium for weapons likely using oil for food funds; the only problem for them was that they were rebuffed in those efforts. (Hat Tip Ed Morrissey, here and here)

[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”

It appears that the New York Times discredits itself just by being in print.

Original Article Below:

From Brian Murphy of the AP:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

Joe Wilson is a liar who should be investigated for contempt of Congress charges regarding knowingly giving false testimony. This yellowcake, though, predates that.

There is a happy ending. This stuff is not in the hands of terrorists, thanks to President Bush’s actions for which he has been hammered by the left for 5+ years.

When I was a young man just coming of age, I was told Ronald Reagan was a senile old warmonger because he was irresponsibly ratcheting-up an arms race with the Soviet Union; a little while later, as the Soviet Union came apart I was told it might be time to pay the piper on this as the munitions of the former republic came to a high potential for falling into the hands of terrorists.

So in just a few short years, the American Left has gone from arguing against the Reagan Doctrine, because of all the havoc it might cause through terrorists getting ahold of weapons and raw materials that would otherwise be unavailable to them…to an impassioned reprimand of anyone who might try to stop that from happening.

In November, they’re running for control of our military and our intelligence agencies. Their sales pitch? That they would bring about “change.” Huh. Yeah, looks like it.

[Discuss This Topic with MKFreeberg]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The story is amazing and the source — the normally anti-American Spiegel (a German magazine) — is equally amazing.  According to this story, things in Baghdad are going really well, and the citizens have a renewed sense of well-being and purpose:

There is an unexpected air of normalcy prevailing in Baghdad these days, with consumption flourishing and confidence in the government growing. The progress is astonishing, but can it last?

Pork is available in Baghdad once again. Not just in the Green Zone, where US diplomats can enjoy their spare ribs and Parma ham, but also across the Tigris River, in the real Baghdad, at “Al-Warda” on Karada Street. Bassim Dencha, 32, one of the few Christians remaining in Iraq and the co-owner of Baghdad’s finest supermarket, has developed a supply line from Syria. As a result, he now has frozen pork chops and bratwurst arranged in his freezers, next to boxes of frozen French fries and German Black Forest Cakes. And the customers are buying.

For four years, selling pork or alcohol in Baghdad was a security risk. But the acts of terror committed by Islamist fundamentalists, who once punished such violations of their interpretation of the Koran with attacks on businesses and their owners, have gradually subsided. The supply of imported goods is also relatively secure today, now that roads through the Sunni Triangle are significantly safer than they were only a few months ago.

“It’s worth it again,” says businessman Bassim Dencha. “All we need now is enough electricity to reopen our refrigerated warehouse.”

And on and on, with details of progress and optimism.  The story (of course) points to the fragility of this renewal, and has doom and gloom statements about its sustainability, but the story’s general tenor is cautious optimism.

Do you think Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama have read this?  Do you think they care?  How about the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, etc., ad nauseum?  I doubt any of them want to see stories like this published in America between now and November.  It will be devastating to their oft repeated message that the Iraq War is unwinnable (since this report allows for the possibility that we won), and that Bush was a horrible, malevolent idiot, whose wrongful conduct taints all Republicans, practically mandating an Obama victory.

Please go to the Spiegel story and email it to your friends.  More people should read it and see what they’re missing when they open America’s papers and magazines, or turn on the news channels.

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

There is an absolutely staggering editorial in today’s Washington Post — it admits that, John Rockefeller’s “official” indictment to the contrary, Bush did not lie. If anything, Rockefeller, in his official Senate Intelligence Committee report is lying by reaching conclusions at odds with his own evidence:

Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.

There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

There’s more in the same vein. I suspect we should make multiple copies and start handing them out whenever we hear someone start to say “Bush lied….”

Others blogging this one: The Anchoress, Brutally Honest, Cheat-Seeking Missiles, Hot Air

Steve Schippert, writing at The Tank on National Review, has a nice parallel post which discusses what a rarity the above editorial is by focusing on an ABC news story that desperately tries to spin the success in Iraq to Obama’s benefit (”This is not the Iraq War I thought I knew.”)

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Frederick Kagan has a fascinating comparison of the specific Iraq policy plans McCain and Obama advanced before the Surge.  McCain actually envisioned a surge-like event, and described all the positive benefits that would flow from it — and his predictions proved to be completely accurate.  Obama, of course, demanded retreat and defeat.  Given the success of the plan McCain envisioned, it is not unreasonable to assume that Obama’s opposite plan might have had a very opposite outcome.  I love Kagan’s conclusion:

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

The two men brought different backgrounds to the test, of course. In January 2007, McCain had been a senator for 20 years and had served in the military for 23 years. Obama had been a senator for 2 years and before that was a state legislator, lawyer, and community organizer. But neither presidential candidates nor the commander in chief gets to choose the tests that history brings. Once in office, the one elected must perform.

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

[Discuss this topic with Layla Elizabeth Gonzalez...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

For all of you who have been so kind as to make a USO donation, I wanted you to see the kind of things that money buys.

General Petraeus cut the ribbon on a brand new USO office right in Iraq - where it can do the most good. From the press release:

The new center is located just north of Baghdad, in an area that our soldiers have dubbed “Mortaritaville” because of its history of frequent mortar and rocket attacks. The 2,300 square-foot facility offers our men and women in uniform a comfortable lounge where they can forget about the war for a few precious moments and enjoy entertainment from home, such as video games, DVDs, movies and more.

There’s also a Cyber Café with free Internet and email access, plus telephone service with prepaid phone cards, so our troops can call home for free to hear the delightful sound of their child’s voice or to have a comforting chat with a friend or loved one. There is also a library where they can lose themselves in a book, and supporting it all—a kitchen stocked with goodies… because everyone wants a snack with a movie.

The USO is one of those organizations that I would love to volunteer with, except for my geographical birth defect of having been born to the wrong country. If you haven’t donated yet, here’s the link. And thanks.

[Discuss this Topic with Right Girl...]

Other Reading: USO Girls

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Michael Yon, who appropriately boasts that he is probably the most experienced reporter in Iraq, reminds us that Congress must stop obsessing about the past in Iraq and must approach Iraq as a winnable situation. He begins by detailing the enormous strides — both practical and “hearts and mind” stuff — that Americans have accomplished in Iraq:

It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about “GoArmy.com.”

The problem as he sees it (and I agree, as I’ve said before), isn’t what’s on the ground in Iraq, it’s what’s going on in Congress. There, the Democrats are determined to destroy George Bush, even if it means taking the whole US down with him, and the Republicans are desperate to pander to anyone with a shrill complaint. The result, of course, is that they’re legislating as if it’s 2005, not 2008:

Soldiers everywhere are paid, and good generals know it is dangerous to mess with a soldier’s money. The shoeless heroes who froze at Valley Forge were paid, and when their pay did not come they threatened to leave – and some did. Soldiers have families and will not fight for a nation that allows their families to starve. But to say that the tribes who fight with us are “rented” is perhaps as vile a slander as to say that George Washington’s men would have left him if the British offered a better deal.

Equally misguided were some senators’ attempts to use Gen. Petraeus’s statement, that there could be no purely military solution in Iraq, to dismiss our soldiers’ achievements as “merely” military. In a successful counterinsurgency it is impossible to separate military and political success. The Sunni “awakening” was not primarily a military event any more than it was “bribery.” It was a political event with enormous military benefits.

The huge drop in roadside bombings is also a political success – because the bombings were political events. It is not possible to bury a tank-busting 1,500-pound bomb in a neighborhood street without the neighbors noticing. Since the military cannot watch every road during every hour of the day (that would be a purely military solution), whether the bomb kills soldiers depends on whether the neighbors warn the soldiers or cover for the terrorists. Once they mostly stood silent; today they tend to pick up their cell phones and call the Americans. Even in big “kinetic” military operations like the taking of Baqubah in June 2007, politics was crucial. Casualties were a fraction of what we expected because, block-by-block, the citizens told our guys where to find the bad guys. I was there; I saw it.

The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best. But the grass-roots political progress of the past year has been extraordinary – and is directly measurable in the drop in casualties.

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting. To give one example, I just returned this week from Nineveh province, where I have spent probably eight months between 2005 to 2008, and it is clear that we remain stretched very thin from the Syrian border and through Mosul. Vast swaths of Nineveh are patrolled mostly by occasional overflights.

We know now that we can pull off a successful counterinsurgency in Iraq. We know that we are working with an increasingly willing citizenry. But counterinsurgency, like community policing, requires lots of boots on the ground. You can’t do it from inside a jet or a tank.

As for me, I’ve sent this article to my Senators and my Representative. They’re all radical Democrats, so I doubt it will change their rigid, hate-filled little minds one bit, but it can’t hurt and there’s a smidgen of a chance that it might open their minds to the facts on the ground.

By the way, if you want a sense of how far the “lose at any cost” Left is willing to go, check out this American Thinker post about the attacks on General Petraeus for wearing tacky medals. And Representative Jackie Speier, armed with an almost complete absence of useful information, didn’t even wait until her new seat was warmed up to leap into the lunatic anti-War sphere. It must be interesting living in a factual vacuum. I wonder if, eventually, your head explodes.

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)