Big Dogs Weblog

Don’t Let Facts Get in the Way Little Moonbat

Dec 18, 2007 Political

Meatbrain has not been to my site (well at least he has not commented here) in quite some time. For those of you unfamiliar with him, he is a left wing lunatic who finds fault with everything and his only method of debating is to demand proof of something and then call people a liar. I recently wrote a post about leaving Iran alone and Meathead took issue with it. He wrote a post at his site asking that I answer 3 questions. I am not going to answer them in his comments because no matter what I write he will call me a liar and then things go down hill from there. I will answer the 3 questions here so that they are put forth without all the drama associated with his site. He can either read it here or he can just sit in his mother’s basement eating Hot Pockets and drinking Mountain Dew. Those who do not know him (I do not link to his site) just think of the annoying gnat named Billy Joe and you will know Meathead. The only difference is that, at least, BJ made good arguments sometimes no matter how wrong he was. However, Meathead is just as annoying and degrading.

Q: Who in the intelligence community, specifically and by name, has indicated that Iran does not pose a threat?

A: I cannot answer the question as it is posed because it asks for the name of one person. The National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by a number of people and the press release on it was written by Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Dr. Donald M. Kerr. The NIE is comprised of information provided by many intelligence analysts so naming one specific person is something I cannot do. The question also takes the original post out of context. I was writing about nuclear weapons and said “Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat.” The logical conclusion of the statement is …to make nuclear weapons (and I indicated they might later but not now). The report states that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons since 2003 (emphasis should focus on the fact that they were prior to that despite their denials) and that they have not since then and there is no indication they will but if they do it will be well into the next decade (well into the next president’s watch).

UPDATE: I found this while searching for something else:

They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I have already shown that the report indicates they are no threat “to build nuclear weapons.” That is what the subject is about.

Q: In what previous NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report did “the intelligence community” state unequivocally that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?

A: I never stated that the intelligence community stated anything unequivocally. Check the post and see if the word is even in there. The exact quote is “Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes…” From the November 2007 NIE; “We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.” This is also is pointed out in the key differences between the previous NIE and this one in the summation. United for Peace also questions the differences by stating; ” The assessment does not explain — unless it is addressed in more than 130 pages still marked classified — how the May 2005 conclusion that Iran was still pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program went awry.” Therefore, the May 2005 NIE stated that Iran was working on developing nuclear weapons. Since the 2005 report has not been declassified I cannot cite it directly.

Q: How do you reconcile your claim that the intelligence community “missed 9/11 completely” with the fact that the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, which was titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, specifically noted that Osama bin Laden intended to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda operatives had traveled to or lived in the U.S. for years, that bin Laden had previously expressed a desire to hijack an American aircraft, and that “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York”?

A: First of all, the PDB which you cite does indeed have that title and the information contained after the title is old news that had been passed from the previous president. It was the ongoing stuff and if you look it clearly indicates that the information is from as far back as 1997 and it was prepared because Bush had been briefed about the desire of OBL to attack inside the US. Bush wanted to know if we had any new information. This was the historical portion. What the briefing did not say is that bin Ladin was an imminent threat. Specifically, the PDB stated “The only recent information concerning possible current activities in the PDB related to two incidents. There is no information that either incident was related to the 9-11 attacks.” The only recent information was about two possible activities. The PDB does not give any information that indicates an attack was imminent. The entire PDB has not been released but the fact sheet on it summarizes the information. The report does not address all the items you outline in the question and many of them are suppositions since the entire report has not been released (the 1998 PDB to Clinton did. More on that later).

Now for my assertion that the intelligence community missed 9/11 completely. It has already been established that the PDB had no information regarding imminent attacks on 9/11 or any other date. The information citing intelligence failures comes from the 9/11 Commission Report. This report is the Bible all libtards hold up when they claim the President was totally at fault despite the fact the report lays blame in a number of directions and reaches back prior to the Bush administration and to the Congress:

Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean says the report cites government wide “failure of policy, management, capability and, above all, failure of imagination,” but not government neglect. Fault is spread broadly: The intelligence community is harshly chastised but so is Congress for poor oversight of intelligence collection. Chemical and Engineering News

I realize that it is inherent in the design of moonbats to hate President Bush and blame everything on him. Meathead would have you believe that the intelligence community reported the late breaking news that bin Ladin hated us and was planning something and we are supposed to believe that the inaction of the president was the problem. If we were to take that at face value then we would have to blame President Clinton first. This is from his PDB in 1998:

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 129 an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks” to free ‘Abd al- Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [—]

2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources,but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.According to [—] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.

• A [—] in October told us that unspecified “extremist elements” in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [—]

3. [—] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.

• In other [—] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that “they” were in the “ninth month [of pregnancy].”

• An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in “commerce” from abroad and said his impending “marriage,” which would take place soon,would be a “surprise.”“Commerce” and “marriage” often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [—] [Pages 128 and 129 of the 911 Commission Report]

Notice how much this PDB from 1998 looks like the one Bush received in 2001? As I stated earlier, the Bush PDB was a rehash of old material. However, this begs the question, if moonbats hold Bush accountable for 9/11 based on the 2001 PDB why do they not hold Clinton accountable for not acting on the same (and in some cases more detailed) information? The Clinton 1998 PDB actually said that it was going to happen in a couple of weeks so it was certainly imminent at that time. I would not hold my breath waiting for Meathead or any other moonbat to lay the same blame on Clinton that they have been laying on Bush.

In any event, I answered the questions and they are well sourced. This will not stop Meathead from calling me a liar, demanding facts and generally smearing me in his comment section. This is all I am going to say with regard to addressing him though I welcome comments and will respond in kind. I answered the questions so that readers who followed his trackback (but don’t waste your time) would know that I did not ignore him and that I had the facts in the case, so to speak.

BTW: If you are unfortunate enough to end up at Meathead’s site, there is a commenter named Dan. He wrote an ignorant comment posing as me until Meathead changed it. Dan also accuses me of threatening to get my military buddies to track him down when I was on WAR. I never said that and he is lying about it. I never threatened this guy on the air and I do not recall saying I would get anyone to track him down. It would not be worth my time or anyone else’s. I will give credit to Meathead for writing that the comment did not come from me and asking Dan to comment under his own name.

Tags: 9/11 commission report, Bush, Clinton, Iran, nuclear weapons, pdb

Stop the ACLU Blogburst 12-16-2007

Dec 17, 2007 Stop the ACLU

Cross posted from Stop The ACLU

Its become a popular yearly tradition now to send the Anti-Christian Liars Union grinches a Christmas card. I personally think its ineffective, and that the money you waste on a stamp for the organization to toss in the shredder would be better served towards a good cause. So, I encourage you to save that money, dig a little deeper, and contribute to an organization that fights the ACLU and defends Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, and the ACLJ are both great organizations that defend Christmas each year. The Alliance Defense Fund does it for free. Why not help groups like that out this year?

However, from experience last year…I know that many will insist on sending the ACLU a Christmas card. After all, it is tradition. If that is how you want to make your message…we have some great greeting cards and postcards available at our online store. Plenty of other great Christmas gifts too.

Send your Christmas card to the ACLU at:

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York , NY 10004

For great Christmas Card ideas visit Stop the ACLU at the top link.

Tags: cards, Christmas, Stop the ACLU

Let’s Leave Iran Alone

Dec 17, 2007 Political

The report is out and the intelligence community has weighed in on Iran and it has determined that Iran has no nukes and that while they might acquire the capability to build them, they are not yet at that state. Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat. Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes and never mind the fact that Israel has a vastly different opinion. We should also ignore the fact that Iran stopped working on its nuclear program and then started back up without anyone knowing and that they deliberately took actions to keep from being detected. We should also forget that the people telling us Iran is not a threat is the same community that missed 9/11 completely.

I think we should just leave them alone and let them do whatever they want because if we try to stop them now then everyone and their brother will scream that they had no nukes or no WMD. We will be looked at as aggressors rather than the liberators that we have been throughout history. People have used the “we found no WMD” mantra to question the validity of the war in Iraq despite the fact that WMD constituted a very small portion of the resolution for going in there and people seem to forget that Hussein actually used WMD on his enemies as well as his own people. Iran has shown that it cannot be trusted but that should really be none of our business. No matter what they build it is unlikely it can reach the US or that they can get it here so we should be safe.

Let the Russians and the Europeans worry about the fallout from a nuclear blast, should Iran develop a nuke. If they never develop one then it was prudent not to go after them and if they do build one then those who said they would were right and those affected can pay the consequences for not listening. However, any person (or nation) who opposes interfering with Iran and its nuclear ambitions now will have no right to blame their development of nuclear weapons on George Bush. Any member of the US Congress that does should be immediately taken to Gitmo and left there until they die. Any nation that has the audacity to blame it on him should be cut off from the world. This scenario is not beyond belief. Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the North Koreans and then Bush was blamed for “taking his eye off them” when they ended up testing a nuclear device.

I say the hell with Iran and let’s just ignore them. We will have proof of their nuclear ambitions when they announce they have the weapon (they wouldn’t lie, now would they) or when they launch one. In any event, we will then have the provocation we need to send about a hundred thousand Tomahawks toward their country and wipe that miserable place off the map. I bet then the naysayers will want action.

Of course, this all assumes that Israel is going to play the wussy games that the US is playing and sit idly by while Iran develops a weapon that will be used to destroy that country. If Israel gets fed up Iran might not exist too much longer.

Tough sanctions are needed right now and without them the world will be getting what it asked for. We need members of the UN Security Council to sanction Iran and we need the damned Russians and Chinese to get on board with the program instead of selling the Iranians what they need to make war.

I believe we should try diplomacy first but sine the diplomats are cowards and will not go practice diplomacy we are left with few choices should things get dicey.

The old Goodwrench commercial used to say; “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” If we don’t do something now (like sanction Iran) then someone will pay for it later. It will be harder, of course, because Iran looks at the latest intelligence report as a declaration of surrender.

The only way to deal with Muslims is to be tough and to never back down. Thanks to the spineless people in our intelligence community and the greedy rulers of Russia and China, we will have a tougher road to travel from this point forward.

Tags: china, Iran, Iraq, nukes, russia, war, WMD

Elizabeth Edwards Worries About Huckabee

Dec 16, 2007 Political

Elizabeth Edwards has been brought out on various occasions to attack others on behalf of her husband. Her favorite target has been Hillary Clinton and my belief is that John used her so he would not be seen as a man attacking a woman. Elizabeth has had her go rounds with Ann Coulter as well but probably because John is afraid of Ann.

Now Elizabeth is out attacking Republicans who she says we should all fear. Her named target this time was Mike Huckabee who Edwards ridiculed for not believing in evolution. I am not going to rehash the evolution idea and why it makes no sense or why people hold it as gospel truth despite the fact it has never been proven and that it is a theory. The theory of evolution is much like the theory of Global Warming in the minds of Democrats. They believe it so it must be true and they will repeat it as true so often that it will become ingrained in people. Global warming and evolution are taught in schools as if they are proven science and this is done to brainwash a generation of school kids so they grow up to be little tree-hugging liberals. The libs have to find a way to replenish their ranks because they are aborting their children thus removing future generations of liberals.

Speaking about Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently surged ahead in Iowa polls, Elizabeth noted, “He seems like a nice charming guy,” before saying that Huckabee, “doesn’t believe in evolution and has some nutty views about what it is we should do about ending violence in our inner city — we should make sure all of our young people are armed. Republicans scare me.” Political Radar

Elizabeth also went on to talk about Karl Rove and how he might not be working in the White House but is working in the “back” of the presidential race. It would seem that Rove is the Republican she is most afraid of. Elizabeth said that Republicans scare her and they should. Republicans stand for things that run counter to the liberal psyche. Republicans are against abortion, against universal health care, against socialism and against big government (though you would not know it by the way some of them act). Edwards wants the government to run every aspect of our lives and this is not the way a free society is supposed to be. She wants socialism and her belief in liberal ideals shows that she is a rich elitist who believes she knows what is best for the average person in this country. She can talk about helping the poor all she wants but if she really wants to help them perhaps she can get her husband to stop being involved in things that hurt the poor.

As for Huckabee and evolution. I do not agree with many of the things that Huckabee says and he is not in my first tier of candidates but he has a right to believe or not to believe what he wants. His belief on evolution is based in his religious teachings and using this as a qualifier for office puts a religious test on his candidacy. That is her right as a private citizen but it is not a test that can be used by our government to determine if he is qualified to run. Just as Romney’s Mormon religion does not bother me, Huckabee’s position on evolution does not bother me and it would not even if I believed in evolution.

The bigger question is; why does John Edwards keep running his wife out to attack other candidates? If he so cowardly that he cannot make these attacks on his own or is she a surrogate who he can later say was expressing her own views? It won’t matter because what she says will be tied to him just as Bill Clinton’s words are tied to Hillary. Maybe John figured he needed to have a spouse attacking other candidates just as Hillary is doing.

No matter what the reason, Huckabee is not running against Edwards in the primary and, as it appears right now, Edwards is not close to winning his party’s nomination. Perhaps he and his wife should spend their time attacking those against whom he is running.

He can’t ever take on a Republican if he does not get past the Democrats.

Others with similar posts:
Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, 123beta, sTIX bLOG, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Global American Discourse, Right Voices, OTB Sports, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tags: democrat, edwards, evolution, fear, huckabee, republican, rove

What Experience Matters for Presidential Candidate?

Dec 15, 2007 Political

The Democrats have made about experience with regard to Hillary Clinton and her supposed 35 years of it and the supposed lack of said experience by B. Hussein Obama. I have written a number of times about the lack of experience Hillary Clinton has and I find it interesting that people, including her husband, say that she has a lot and Obama only has a year’s worth. Obama was in politics at the state level for many years and based just on political service (as an elected office holder, not a First Lady) Obama bests Clinton by at least a half a decade. But does the experience really matter?

When George Bush ran for reelection the Democrats were dead set on beating him and they ran John Kerry against him. George Bush certainly had more experience required for the job than Kerry because Bush had actually been President for four years. No matter how many years Kerry served in public office, the fact is that Bush had four years of actual experience doing the job. I don’t recall Clinton, Kerry or any other Democrat (except Zell Miller) saying that Bush should be reelected because he had more experience. The Democrats, including their sycophants in the media (Rather) did everything they could to unseat Bush even though he was the more experienced candidate. Is there any doubt Bill Clinton believed he was more experienced than Bob Dole because Clinton had already served four years?

I wonder who the Clintons voted for? I believe they wanted Bush to win (and there were rumors of them sabotaging Kerry) but not because they thought he was great but because Hillary would be able to run for the office sooner than if Kerry had won (assuming he had two terms). With Bush they knew he was limited to only four more. However, most Democrats in public office voted for Kerry and they did so only to get a member of their party back in control of the White House. They did not care about experience.

Yet here we are in 2007 and experience is supposed to be a big deal. How many people who run for the office for the first time actually have on the job experience? Sure, there are those better qualified by virtue of their resumes. If they were a governor or CEO of a company they would certainly have more experience than a person who has little or no time in charge of anything or who has a few years of service in the Senate. If the Clintons actually believe that experience is important than why are they not supporting Joe Biden. Biden has held an elected office since 1970 (several years in Delaware and the balance in the US Senate) so if experience is the be all, end all that the Clintons want us to believe, they should be supporting Biden and his 37 years of experience. That is two more than the hyper-inflated number Hillary uses.

The fact is, the experience is only one portion of the total equation. Hillary is smart and she has some experience but she lacks in other areas. She is divisive, she is manipulative, she has a problem with telling the truth, and she lacks actual leadership qualities and she lacks experience when compared to others who are running. How many times have we heard stories where people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to feel her wrath? How many books portray Hillary as a Gestapo type leader who demands total loyalty and uses threats to enforce that loyalty? A true leader is able to influence people and gain their willing cooperation to accomplish those things that are necessary to be successful. Having people who cower and are afraid to make a mistake is not a sign of a good leader.

Of course, I have been using a recognized definition of experience. To Bill and Hillary, experience might mean being a Democrat and great experience means being a Democrat named Clinton.

Source:
Marc Ambinder

Tags: Clinton, Democrats, experience, Obama