Friday, October 15, 2004
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Alarming Disarming & Appeasement President!
John Kerry, "I'm going to lead the world in the greatest counterproliferation effort."
Thanks to Cox and Forkum for an image regarding this issue.
Senator, You're no Reagan - Rich Lowry - October 11, 2004
UN watchdog concerned by disappearance of nuclear material from Iraq
There they (U.N.) go again! They lost it!. Captured al Qaeda Driver reports,"It must have fallen off the truck as we entered Syria!"
What did they (U.N.) lose. Nothing important.... Just the equipment that is used the make "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!"
If Saddam was able to stay in power, get the U.N. to end sanctions against Iraq by using the U.N. Oil-for-Food bribery scheme, continue to be supplied with materials from China, Russia, Germany and France, retool his multi-purpose factories and high-precision nuclear equipment. He would have been a serious nuclear threat.
(See report below)
Question: How did the equipment get there in the first place?
Question: How did average looters remove high-precision nuclear equipment?
Question: Who would want to have this equipment?
Question: How do you dismantle entire buildings that house nuclear equipment?
Please read the news below.
12 October 2004
Satellite images show equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons have disappeared from Iraq, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency has warned, and it has called on countries to provide information concerning their whereabouts.
Entire buildings once monitored and tagged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been dismantled, and equipment and materials in open storage areas have been removed, the Agency's Director-General, Mohamed ElBaradei, wrote in a letter to the Security Council.
The IAEA continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantling that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear programme and sites previously subject to ongoing monitoring and verification by the Agency, he said.
Since 1991 the IAEA has been required by Security Council resolutions to submit progress reports every six months on its inspections of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. However, the Agency pulled out of the country on the eve of the war last year, and since then has been concentrating on analyzing information collected since it began those checks. In August, the Agency did complete a separate, physical inspection of nuclear safeguards under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Mr. ElBaradei said through visits to other countries, the IAEA had been able to identify quantities of industrial items, some radioactively contaminated, that had been transferred out of Iraq from sites monitored by the Agency. However, none of the high-quality dual-use equipment or materials referred to above has been found, he added.
As the disappearance of such equipment and materials may be of proliferation significance, any State that has information about the location of such items should provide the IAEA with that information, he said.
Mr. ElBaradei also said the IAEA is considering requests by Iraq for help with the sale of leftover nuclear material at its Tuwaitha facility, except for a small batch for research purposes; the dismantling and decontamination of former nuclear facilities; and the resumption of IAEA assistance under a number of technical cooperation projects that had been suspended since December 1998.
Regime Strategic Intent
This report relays the findings of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
Saddam totally dominated the Regimes strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on
strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.
Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections to gain support for lifting sanctions with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development. By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability which was essentially destroyed in 1991 after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and infl uence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddams belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
What did they (U.N.) lose. Nothing important.... Just the equipment that is used the make "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!"
If Saddam was able to stay in power, get the U.N. to end sanctions against Iraq by using the U.N. Oil-for-Food bribery scheme, continue to be supplied with materials from China, Russia, Germany and France, retool his multi-purpose factories and high-precision nuclear equipment. He would have been a serious nuclear threat.
(See report below)
Question: How did the equipment get there in the first place?
Question: How did average looters remove high-precision nuclear equipment?
Question: Who would want to have this equipment?
Question: How do you dismantle entire buildings that house nuclear equipment?
Please read the news below.
12 October 2004
Satellite images show equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons have disappeared from Iraq, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency has warned, and it has called on countries to provide information concerning their whereabouts.
Entire buildings once monitored and tagged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been dismantled, and equipment and materials in open storage areas have been removed, the Agency's Director-General, Mohamed ElBaradei, wrote in a letter to the Security Council.
The IAEA continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantling that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear programme and sites previously subject to ongoing monitoring and verification by the Agency, he said.
Since 1991 the IAEA has been required by Security Council resolutions to submit progress reports every six months on its inspections of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. However, the Agency pulled out of the country on the eve of the war last year, and since then has been concentrating on analyzing information collected since it began those checks. In August, the Agency did complete a separate, physical inspection of nuclear safeguards under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Mr. ElBaradei said through visits to other countries, the IAEA had been able to identify quantities of industrial items, some radioactively contaminated, that had been transferred out of Iraq from sites monitored by the Agency. However, none of the high-quality dual-use equipment or materials referred to above has been found, he added.
As the disappearance of such equipment and materials may be of proliferation significance, any State that has information about the location of such items should provide the IAEA with that information, he said.
Mr. ElBaradei also said the IAEA is considering requests by Iraq for help with the sale of leftover nuclear material at its Tuwaitha facility, except for a small batch for research purposes; the dismantling and decontamination of former nuclear facilities; and the resumption of IAEA assistance under a number of technical cooperation projects that had been suspended since December 1998.
Regime Strategic Intent
This report relays the findings of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
Saddam totally dominated the Regimes strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on
strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.
Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections to gain support for lifting sanctions with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development. By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability which was essentially destroyed in 1991 after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and infl uence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddams belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
I'm confused
This was passed on to me, but I can't understand it.
Maybe you can.
I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head
so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
Ahh, it's so confusing!
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the
"Tax Freedom Day".
This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave
no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men.
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions,
all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn
brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000.
Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
Maybe you can.
I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head
so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
Ahh, it's so confusing!
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the
"Tax Freedom Day".
This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave
no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men.
Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions,
all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn
brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000.
Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
