Fools Rush In — The Partisan ‘Patriots’

Fools Rush In — The Partisan ‘Patriots’
Vol: 12 Issue: 30 Monday, September 30, 2002

This week the Sunday talk shows were focused, not on Iraq, but on Washington, with some American lawmakers sounding “like spokespersons for the Iraqi government” as Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles put it.

Nickels is a politician and it is pretty much in a politician’s blood to exaggerate, but concerning the case in point, I’d have to accuse him of understating the situation somewhat.

Representative Jim McDermmot, (D-Wa) appeared on ABC’s “This Week” by satellite link from Baghdad. He was in Baghdad with two other Congressional colleagues, Rep. David Bonior (D-Mi) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA).

They went to Iraq, hoping to persuade Saddam’s regime to accept unfettered weapons inspections,avert a war and return as heroes.

The three, who previously have called the 12-year U.N. sanctions program against Iraq “barbaric,” oppose the proposed U.N. resolution that the United States is seeking.

They are equally opposed to the congressional resolution now being hammered out that would authorize U.S. military force against Iraq.

Jim McDermott took this week’s prize for the offering the most aid and comfort for the enemy in the name of ‘patriotism’, telling ABC’s George Stephanopolis that he believes that, when it come to Iraq, President Bush would be only too happy to lie to the public.

“I think the president would mislead the American people,” Mr. McDermott said on ABC’s “This Week” about the president’s campaign for support for a military campaign against Iraq.

He told CNN “We don’t have to pass a resolution in the Congress or in the Security Council right now. Things are moving forward.”

McDermott told Fox News that America needs to “take Iraq at its word” on weapons of mass destruction. In his view, it has nothing to do with Saddam, weapons of mass destruction or any potential threat to America.

Instead, McDermott believes “They keep saying they want a regime change because they want control of the oil fields.”

This is the same Jim McDermott who voted against impeachment for President Clinton.

When presented with Article I of resolution (H. Res. 611) to ‘impeach President Bill Clinton for perjurious testimony to federal grand jury on his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky’ McDermott voted no.

So if McDermott believes a president might lie, he has already proved that’s not such a big deal to him anyway.

For the rest of the Iraqi position, we turn to US Rep David Bonior. “We need to go back to an unrestricted regime,” Bonior said on ABC. “And we also need to do that without the pressure of Iraq or the United States. Let the U.N. inspectors do their jobs.”

Bonior and McDermott harmonized regarding Iraqi assurances. The Iraqis, said Rep. McDermott, “would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted. And until they don’t do that, there is no need to do this coercive stuff where you bring in helicopters and armed people and storm buildings.”

“The Iraqis,” Bonior chorused, “we have talked to have said basically [inspectors] will have that unrestricted ability to go wherever they want to inspect.” (Bonior was another staunch Clinton supporter during the impeachment hearings — lying is only bad if you are a Republican)

On ABC yesterday, George Stephanopoulos pointedly asked both Democratic congressmen why “should we take the Iraqis at their word they have a decade-long record of denying inspectors access and deceiving U.N. inspectors.”

Mr. Bonior responded: “We could go back and play the blame game here until the moon comes out. But that’s not going to do us any good.”

Ah. The ‘Blame Game’ — where have we heard that phrase before?

Unlike Bonior and McDermott, though, the third member of the Congressional fact-hiding party, Mike Thompson did criticize Saddam. Speaking of blame, Thompson said on CNN’s “Late Edition” that Saddam was ‘partly’ to blame for the Iraqi people’s sufferings in the past decade.

And, still speaking of blame, wasn’t Iraq under ‘barbaric’ UN sanctions for the entire two terms of the Clinton presidency? Or did those sanctions only start to hurt innocent Iraqi civilians after January 20, 2001?


Let’s set aside the fact that some will oppose war with Iraq based on deeply held convictions and that some will support it for the same reasons.

Instead, let’s take a look at the Big Picture. Al Gore came out to blast the administration on the war. Gore spoke of the ‘betrayal’ he felt when Bush the Elder failed to take out Saddam in ’91.

Except that back then, Gore applauded Bush 41 for staying within the mission goals of removing Saddam from Kuwait and then withdrawing.

Jimmy Carter has also been burning up his word processor writing columns for the New York Times decrying the Bush Doctrine as ‘war mongering’.

In the House and Senate, we find Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt playing both sides of the fence, claiming to be united ‘as Americans’ behind the president. BUT using Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to get out the message.

And what, exactly, IS the message? Is it that Saddam is not a threat? All concede that he is a threat.

Is the message that weapons inspections will work? Hardly. To argue for weapons inspectors as a legitimate method of ending the Iraqi threat is more than building castles in the air. It’s closer to packing your stuff and trying to move into one.

Is the message that war can be avoided? I haven’t heard a single member of Congress that said they believed that was possible as long as Saddam rules Iraq.

Is it because Bonior, McDermott and company really believe Saddam is only ‘partly’ responsible for his people’s suffering?

These worthy gentlemen are aware of Saddam’s torture chambers. They are aware of Saddam’s history. They know he tested chemical weapons by wiping out forty Iraqi villages.

The mid-term elections are coming. The last thing the Democrats need is an America united behind a president from the other party — if they hope to pick up any new seats. Even if it means embracing Saddam.

So what is the message?

It’s that this president can’t be trusted. He is a liar who would do anything to help corporate America by securing Iraqi oil fields for American exploitation. That its about Big Oil. Or that it is about a cover up. Or its a personal matter between Bush 43 and Saddam.

Following this logic, Bush is about to start a war just to settle a grudge.

Is the message true? Is Bush a liar exploiting the Iraqis for political advantage and out of corporate greed? Is the war with Saddam a personal grudge match?

What does the evidence say? It says that Saddam was a threat before Bush got here. It says that Bush gave Saddam the same attention that Clinton did — until the attacks on September 11.

It says that this entire non-debate over a non-issue like whether or not Saddam needs to be removed is nothing less than putting party ahead of country.

The Congress is largely made up out of the Vietnam generation. The ones who keep yelling ‘No more Vietnams’. What MADE Vietnam a ‘quagmire’?

Dividing Americans is good politics, but lousy patriotism.

The Left scoffs that ‘questioning the president is tantamount to treason’ while loudly proclaiming their ‘patriotism’.

But for the life of me, I can’t find a single Democrat whose record suggests they genuinely disagree with the upcoming war or the reasons for it. Clinton and Carter both sent troops into harm’s way, Carter in Iran, Clinton in Iraq.

Bonior, McDermott and Company don’t agree with Saddam. They just disagree with Bush because he’s a Republican.

They didn’t take this stand when Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Not Bonior, not Daschle, not McDermott, not Carter.

How do they spell ‘patriot’? P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N.

The hypocrisy is stomach-turning.

Turks Grab 33 Lbs of Enriched Uranium Near Iraqi Border

Turks Grab 33 Lbs of Enriched Uranium Near Iraqi Border
Vol: 12 Issue: 29 Sunday, September 29, 2002

Editor’s Note: Network problems are responsible for the lateness of today’s Omega Letter. Please accept my apologies

I felt a lot safer when I thought that maybe all the missing nuclear weapons grade materials might just be errors in bookkeeping. That’s what the Russians have been saying for the last ten years.

Back in 1992, when I first became aware of the fact a number of ‘nuclear suitcases’ couldn’t be accounted for, both the US and Russian governments protested that no such weapon exists.

Then they said such weapons actually were developed as demolition munitions by the KGB during the Cold War, but that they weighed hundreds of pounds and were much too big to either fit in a suitcase or be portable.

Until it was revealed that the United States had also developed a similar weapon called the ‘nuclear backpack’ that weighed less than sixty pounds.

Once that news broke, all doubt of the existence of the nuclear suitcases was dispelled and both governments grudgingly acknowledged the existence of the weapons, but denied General Alexander Lebed’s sworn testimony before Congress in 1997 that more than a hundred could not be accounted for.

(General Lebed was killed in a helicopter crash in April, so we can’t ask him anymore).

Nobody is talking about the suitcases anymore, either. But nobody is denying they exist, either.

In listening to many in Congress, one comes away with the feeling that Saddam Hussein is a bit like those nuclear suitcases.

We know they exist. We know we can’t account for them. We don’t know if they have fallen into enemy hands. So we’ll pretend there’s no present threat so we can get on with the domestic agenda.

Until we can’t look the other way anymore.

Not a single one of the Democrats who advocate stalling on the war with Iraq — from Tom Daschle to Ted Kennedy — deny that Saddam has already stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Or that Saddam has a crash nuclear program ongoing.

But they feel safe in stalling, hoping Saddam can’t get all the materials together until after the mid term elections in November.

But that was until this morning, when it was reported that the Turks seized 33 POUNDS OF WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM in the southern province of Sanliurfa.

Sanliurfa borders Syria. From there, it is about 155 miles to the Iraqi border.

Authorities believe the uranium came from an east European country and has a value of about $5 million.

Police in Istanbul seized more than 2.2 pounds of weapons-grade uranium last November that had been smuggled into Turkey from an east European nation. Those smugglers were detained after attempting to sell the material to undercover police officers. These were way better organized.


The Turks say they are ‘investigating’ whether or not the uranium was bound for Iraq. News reports say simply that the suspects were planning to ‘sell’ it. Like they were a couple of Bedouin tribesman who found it in the desert or something.

Weapons grade uranium isn’t something you pick up at bargain prices in a black market somewhere and then hope you can find a buyer. Especially when you’re talking about something that costs five million dollars.

We already know that Iran is funnelling weaponry into Syria for use by guerilla forces in Lebanon.

We know that Tehran has the ability to enrich uranium, thanks to the nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

We know that Iran has been using Syria to supply Saddam Hussein. And we know that Bashar al Assad and Saddam Hussein have buried the hatchet and are cooperating much more closely than US intelligence wants to admit.

It is relatively obvious that the discovery of 33 pounds of weapons grade uranium in the border regions between Syria and Iraq constitutes the smoking gun that the doves in Congress have been asking for.

Syria and Iraq share an ultimate destiny as prophesied by the Bible and that takes place in the last days. Both Assad and Saddam seem determined to hurry it along.

The destruction of Damascus was prophesied by the prophet Isaiah. “The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. ” [Isaiah 17:1]

Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. In its long history, the city has never been destroyed. But that destiny is inevitable, should Syria throw its lot in with Iraq — especially if it can be proved that Assad is part of the uranium smuggling operation.

The city of Babylon is located about thirty miles outside of Baghdad. It has a population of about thirty thousand. Saddam has largely rebuilt the city, including several of Nebuchanezzar’s palaces. Saddam’s favorite palace, the rebuilt Southern Palace of Nebuchadnezzar, is also located there.

Jeremiah prophesied of Babylon, “And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.” [Jeremiah 51:37]

Of the kingdom of Babylon, [modern day Iraq] Jeremiah says, “Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby.” [Jeremiah 51:43]

The Bible claims 100% accuracy, 100% of the time, past, present and future. None other among the world’s sacred writings make similar claims. Only the Bible.

It remains an open challenge to the world system. Over the centuries, every generation has had its great thinkers and philosophers who dedicated their lives and considerable intellects to disproving the Scripture.

“Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:20-24)

How Much Is That Ally In The Window?

How Much Is That Ally In The Window?
Vol: 12 Issue: 28 Saturday, September 28, 2002

UN diplomats have leaked details on the US sponsored draft resolution on Iraq. The draft would give Iraq seven days to agree to unlimited weapons inspections.

The resolution, if passed, would warn that if Iraq fails to comply, all necessary means – a diplomatic term for military action – would follow.

Some other provisions to the draft that are unlikely to make the cut:

Iraq would have 30 days to make a full declaration of any and all nuclear, chemical, biological or ballistic weapons.

There is also talk of what some diplomats are calling a protection force that would accompany UN weapons inspectors while they work in Iraq.

The operative phrase here is “if passed” since it appears unlikely that it will.

The French, Russians and Chinese have already voiced their objections.

Since France, Russia and China are all Permanent Members of the Security Council, any one of them can veto any resolution the US might bring to a vote.

The French are demanding a nonsensical two step process. In Step One, the UN votes a new resolution into effect so that Saddam can violate it.

If he does, then the French want to implement Step Duh. We go back to the UN to debate a new resolution warning him about the importance of keeping UN resolutions.

The Russians now say that there is “no clear proof” that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. (That statement alone should be all the proof necessary for even the most thick-headed in the Congress).

Beijing also opposes a military strike ‘unless it is authorized by the UN’ — an authorization that requires Beijing’s approval to pass.

The inscrutable Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji explains China’s ‘position’ that the inspections Saddam won’t allow must be completed before taking any action against Saddam for not allowing them.

“If the weapons inspections do not take place, if we do not have clear proof and if we do not have the authorization of the Security Council, we cannot launch a military attack on Iraq – otherwise, there would be incalculable consequences”.

Ah. Confucious would be proud!

Since the beginning of the decade-long struggle between the United States and Iraq, France and Russia have been the leading powers sympathetic to Saddam Hussein.

Linked by oil contracts, military sales, and loans, they have been Iraq’s partisans, protectors, and proxies.

This isn’t about inspectors or evidence, this is about money.

Russian and French economic interests are not insignificant. Few reliable statistics are available, but trade between Russia and Iraq could run as high as $4 billion a year.

The Russian firm Lukoil, which is trying to extract 667 million tons of crude from the West Qurna oil field, says its contracts could be worth another $20 billion.

And let’s not forget that Iraq still owes Russia $7 billion for weapons purchased during the Cold War.

France’s economic stake is also substantial. The largest long-term contract in Iraq’s oil-for-food program is with Paris.

The French helped develop industrial support for Iraq’s military and helped build the nation’s electronics facilities.

US intelligence has officially designated China as one of the world’s main suppliers of missile-related technologies and nuclear materials, in particular to North Korea and Iraq.


This reads very much like the history books explaining the root causes of World War II.

You know the ones I mean. Where they lament the fact that all the signs were there, but none of the world leaders at the time could read them?

The regional conflicts remain unresolved; Greece vs Turkey, Pakistan vs India, Israel vs the Arabs; the former Yugoslavia continues to smolder beneath the surface.

The Russians still want the world to look the other way while they deal with Georgia and Chechnya.

The Chinese want the world to look the other way while they deal with Taiwan.

The French are just being French.

Historians would note as a telling sign the speed with which the UN mobilized global condemnation against Israel for cornering terrorists in Yasser Arafat’s compound, rushing to the rescue of one terrorist while obstructing action against another.

All the while proclaiming solidarity with America’s war on terror.

The world is crying — screaming! — for leadership at the global level before we destroy civilization in a new global war.

The Bible pictures exactly that scenario in the last days. It is out of exactly this kind of chaos that such a leader will emerge.

The stage is set for the final seven year drama that begins with the rise of antichrist and ends with Christ’s return.

The coming Tribulation Period is close. It could take another few years for the remaining details to fall into place. Or it could begin with the next war. Or it could start tomorrow.

This much is certain. Time is running out.

‘Not Playing Politics’, Dems To Delay Iraq Vote

‘Not Playing Politics’, Dems To Delay Iraq Vote
Vol: 12 Issue: 27 Friday, September 27, 2002

The day after Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle accused the administration of politicizing the war, a group of House Democrats are planning a strategy designed to delay the vote on Iraq until after the November 5th elections.

Democratic Representatives Ellen Tauscher of California and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have requested a meeting of all 209 House Democrats to round up support for delaying the vote on a use-of-force resolution until January.

In a self-indicting statement, Tauscher and Kucinich said in a letter to fellow House Democrats, The war has become a political issue in House and Senate campaigns.

Ellen Tauscher told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call that she resented what she saw as efforts by GOP House Whip Tom DeLay to make the Iraq vote a manhood test.

Daschle said Republicans had made it much more difficult to reach a consensus by politicizing the Iraqi issue and he said was now “unsure” the resolution could reach the Senate floor by next week as planned.

Daschle doesn’t say how the White House is politicizing the war. Evidently by jumping through the political hoops Daschle keeps putting in the way.


Not all Democrats are lying through their teeth, although one would have to be an idiot to argue that Daschle has any objective apart from winning seats in November. He can deny it all day long, but his actions say something else.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, speaking for a small breakaway group of Democrats, said, We stand today with President Bush not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans who share the president s belief that its time once and for all to stop Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction,

Other Democrats meeting with Bush included Reps. Leonard Boswell of Iowa, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota Bob Clement of Tennessee and Bart Stupak of Michigan.

If Daschle cared about the safety of American troops, he’d be doing exactly the opposite of what he is now doing.

The US needs to attack no later than January, and have wrapped up the war by February in order to avoid having troops in heavy chemical suits fighting in the desert heat.

It is our troops who will sweat the effort to protect Democratic seats in the Senate, not the senators who put their reelection hopes ahead of national security.

Or the country in general. If the vote is delayed long enough, the Pentagon will be forced to postpone the war by a full year until the weather favors a ground war.

That’s all the time Saddam needs to develop a nuclear weapon, according to both US and British intelligence.

As I pointed out yesterday, Daschle took to the well of the Senate to denounce President Bush by accusing him of politicizing the war in a speech he made. Except Bush wasn’t talking about the war, didn’t mention the Democrats and didn’t say what Daschle accused him of.

When these (somewhat salient) facts were pointed out to him, neither Daschle nor Gephardt missed a beat. “Maybe that’s not what he said,” both acknowledged under direct questioning, “But that’s what he meant.”


The truth is not in them. The Democrats are desperate to find something that will prove they were right about Bush. Somewhere. The strategy is failing.

According to the Democrats, Bush is responsible for the recession; (that began before he took office) the Bush tax cuts made it worse; (it didn’t, it served as a cushion) Bush was running roughshod over the Congress on Iraq; (the opposite is actually true).

Just last month, the Democrats were insisting the president bring the debate to Congress. In August, Daschle said it would be a big mistake for the administration to act without Congress and without its involvement.

In September, Daschle said: “It would certainly be in [the president s] best interest, our country’s best interest, for him to go to . . . the United Nations, to solicit their support.”

The president went to the U.N. and laid out a clear and compelling case to that body.

Since the president has done and said everything the Democrats demanded of him, the tactic now is to go after him for things he didn’t do or say.

Now Daschle says that a ‘trusting relationship must be restored’ with the White House before the Senate can move on the resolution, which the administration had hoped to see done next week.

It was the first truthful statement offered by either Daschle or Gephardt regarding the White House this week.

Daschle noted during what some in the media are calling his ‘breakdown speech’ that, “Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they see going on right now. We’ve got to be better than this, our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we’re giving now.”

Daschle thought he was talking about the President. He should read his words again.

There are but three questions facing Daschle and Company.

First, is Saddam Hussein a clear and present threat to his neighbors and to regional peace? Second, does that threat extend to America? And third, will that threat go away by itself?

Do you think those questions remain unanswered?

Now, one more question. Which is more important? The security of the United States? Or getting re-elected?

Is the war being politicized by Bush? I dunno. Is Bush responsible for the March 2000 recession?

Is Al Gore the guy you’d like to see running the country at this moment?

I’d love to be able to ignore American politics and stick to the meat of Bible prophecy, but there is no way to separate the two and hope to understand the scenario of the last days .

The government of antichrist is political as well as spiritual.

A political climate of deception must not only exist — it must be politics as usual — for the world’s most prolific deceiver to enjoy any measure of success when his time comes.

Separating politics from end time prophecy would be like trying to understand science apart from mathematics.

You can’t get there from here.

When asked what would be the sign of His coming, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matt 24:4)

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much
Vol: 12 Issue: 26 Thursday, September 26, 2002

I heard someone recently compare the United States Senate to a bunch of idiots. I am sorry to say that at the time, I heartily agreed with the statement.

I would like to apologize, here and now — to any idiots I may have offended by the comparison.

I was fascinated when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle ripped into President Bush from the floor of the Senate, demanding the President apologize for implying that Democrats were ‘not interested’ in the security of the American people.

Here’s the background statement made by President Bush. “The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure.”

Daschle went positively ballistic. According to Daschle, Bush was saying the Democrats were unwilling to give Bush the authorization he is seeking to attack Iraq. And that Bush was implying Democrats cared more about their re-election in November than homeland security.

“That is wrong,” Daschle thundered. “We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death.”

Not to be outdone, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia demonstrated what fifty years in the Senate can do to a man.

[A selected excerpt: “Wrong!” (pause) “Wrong!” (pause) “Wrong!”]

“We’ve got to rise to a higher level,” Daschle said. “Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they see going on right now. We’ve got to be better than this, our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we’re giving now.”

“You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people” because they are Democrats, Daschle said later in his daily question-and-answer with reporters. “That is outrageous.”

Wow. They got all that out of the previously noted statement about the Office of Homeland Security?

Couple of things to note about that core statement. First, the context. Bush wasn’t talking about the Iraq resolution. He was talking about the debate over elevating the Homeland Security office to a Cabinet level post.

Bush said that Senate Democrats were slowing debate in a politically motivated effort to preserve civil service protections that he said would tie his hands.

So, the tantrum in the Senate was unrelated to Iraq.

And Bush’s response to Daschle’s outburst didn’t sound like it was too concerned with politics to me.

“I am as determined today as I was on September 11th to pursue an enemy which still wants to hurt America,” Bush said. “The American people should expect me and any president to do everything we can to protect the homeland, and I will.”


The threat posed the United States by Saddam Hussein’s regime is real. Bush isn’t making it up. The politicizing of the war is equally real.

It only becomes political when it gets made political. The Bush charge that some in the Senate are more interested in ‘appeasing special interests’ than homeland security has resonance.

Bush wants the authority to hire fire or transfer federal civil service employees of the Office of Homeland Security.

The Senate is holding it up under pressure from labor unions that fear it will erode civil service protections.

Let me say first that they’re right. It WILL erode some collective bargaining power for the labor unions.

At present, federal civil service employees are essentially entrenched for life. The federal government is the nation’s largest single employer. That makes the collective bargaining authority representing them a powerful political force.

Here’s my best effort to translate the doublespeak.

In assuming that the party supported by the federal labor unions is the equivalent to Democrats, Daschle acknowledged the ‘special interest’ pressure referred to in the Bush comment was true.

That’s how Daschle made the connection that Bush MEANT Democrats when he said “the ‘Senate’ is more interested in special interests in Washington.”

Now, how did Bush ‘politicize’ the war?

It was Daschle who decided to take the rest of it out of context, apply it to his own reluctance to act independently of the United Nations, wrap himself in the American flag and demand an apology from Bush for impugning the patriotism of the Democratic Party.

Except Bush didn’t say any of that. The FACTS say all that, but Bush didn’t. The flap in the Senate is over Democratic reluctance to give Bush ‘bargain-busting’ authority.

The Senate has already heard testimony that ’employee entrenchment’ — or career federal civil servants who can’t be fired or transferred for non-performance — contributed to the breakdown of the intelligence gathering apparatus leading up to 9/11.

Let’s look at the equation. The unions don’t like that part of the plan. The unions support the Democrats. The Democrats don’t like that part of the plan, either, although they know it helped bring about 9/11.

A conundrum. Especially if somebody, like the president, points out the obvious. NOW what?

Umm. . .politicize the war by accusing the White House of politicizing the war? Change the focus of the spotlight AWAY from the fact ‘some’ in the Senate are putting their re-election hopes over national security?

This whole thing is an elaborate pre-election con game.

But this is not the time. Nor the place. America is facing a REAL war, against a determined enemy, at a time of unparalleled global unrest.

The Middle East is already primed and ready for war. Even without America’s planned invasion of Iraq.

There are terrorist cells living undetected among us.

America is opposed by most of our traditional allies.

In Germany, all Gerhard Schroeder had to do to come back from behind and win reelection was to hate America with more venom than his opponent did.

Russia announced today it would not support any new UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein.

America, with a handful of allies, stands alone against the rest of the world.

This is not the time for politics as usual.

“The Sleepers Have Awakened”

“The Sleepers Have Awakened”
Vol: 12 Issue: 25 Wednesday, September 25, 2002

US intelligence officials present at the interrogation of Ramzi Binalishib say that the rules have changed for al-Qaeda sleeper cells world-wide.

According to the most recent information being developed, the al-Qaeda network has decentralized its command structure, and has sent instructions to sleeper cells to attack their assigned targets at will.

The information was developed by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, one of the most well connected reporters in Washington and one of my most trusted sources.

Gertz said that terrorist cells now have more autonomy to conduct attacks around the world, quoting officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“The decentralization means the danger from this group is growing,” one U.S. intelligence official is quoted as saying.

So, how credible is the ultimate source? Is Binalshib for real?

One of the al Qaeda militants arrested two weeks ago with Binalshibh in Pakistan has been identified as one of the killers of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl, a senior Pakistani police official told the Associated Press last week.

The official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, refused to identify the suspect but said he was not among the five persons, including Binalshibh, who were handed over to U.S. authorities on Sept. 16 and flown out of the country.


If true, it would be the first evidence linking al Qaeda to Pearl’s abduction and killing. Pearl was kidnapped in January while investigating links between Pakistani militants and Richard C. Reid, the ‘shoe bomber.’ Reid was arrested in December on a flight from Paris to Miami trying to set off explosives in his shoes.

So let’s start connecting the dots.

Binalshibh’s a Yemeni national. So are the Lackawanna Six. Pearl was investigating Reid’s connections to al-Qaeda when he was killed by an al-Qaeda terrorist arrested with Binalshib, from whom this information was obtained. Previous US intelligence estimates put as many as 5,000 al Qaeda members of sleeper cells inside the United States.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said two weeks ago in announcing a heightened alert status that “widely dispersed, unsophisticated strikes” by lower-level al Qaeda operatives are a danger.

The alert status has been downgraded from ‘High’ to ‘Elevated’ but Ashcroft says it was because maintaining the level at ‘high’ without a specific threat would be meaningless.

Added together, one comes up with a pretty accurate picture. And it isn’t pretty.

How America reacts under the strain will determine America’s future role in the global political arena.

There are already calls to abandon ‘traditional foreign policy objectives’ — double-speak for abandoning Israel — and embrace the ‘common global security structure’ of the United Nations.

Christians are now a target of Islamic warriors world-wide. Six Pakistani Christians were executed at a Pakistani charity for the crime of being Christians earlier this morning. This is just one in an ever-increasing wave of attacks specifically targeting Christians.

America is perceived as a Christian country by the Islamists. The next logical step for appeasing the Muslims would seem to be for a movement calling upon America to disavow Christianity.

Where is America in Bible prophecy? It isn’t mentioned. We may soon find out why.

Now is the time to pray for our country. And for our faith. And for the lost in America at risk of having their chance to decide for Christ robbed from them by an al-Qaeda sleeper cell terrorist.

Your friends and co-workers will want to know what it is that the war is all about. First, tell them what it s NOT about. It s NOT about US foreign policy. It s NOT about US support for Israel. It s NOT even all about the USA, in the final analysis.

Christians anywhere in the Islamic world are at risk. Now so are Christians in America.

What is this war about? Add up the available facts, filter out the spin and take a look at who this war is against.

It s against Jesus Christ — and those who claim Him. We are dedicated to providing you with the truth and the evidence to back it up. That s why we come at you from some many different angles; media propaganda, liberalist agendas, national politics, international politics, the Middle East all point to war against the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus and those who claim Him.

A war against those who believe the Bible is the living Word of God.

Is this the beginning of the Tribulation? No. That comes with the signing of the confirmation of the treaty of Daniel 9:26. We aren t there yet. But we are certainly close.

This isn t the end, or the beginning of the end.

But it is certainly the end of the beginning, to borrow a line from Winston Churchill.

Pray for the spiritual condition and enlightenment of our leaders. Pray for America.

But keep your powder dry.

He’s My President, Too!

He’s My President, Too!
Vol: 12 Issue: 24 Tuesday, September 24, 2002

With those words, Al Gore put a cap on the most contentious and fractious presidential race in US history. You remember how it all went down.

There was the effort to ‘take the high road’ by repeating the mantra, “every vote should count” while simultaneously conducting a court battle to disqualify hundreds of military votes.

The rallies in which candidate Bush was accused of ‘stealing the election’ while Gore’s lawyers tried to have it declared invalid; the double standard in which the Florida Supreme Court’s rewrite of Florida election law was appropriate but the Supreme Court intervention was a political coup d’etat.

Then, when it was all over, after long weeks of constant sniping from the Gore side, the magnanimous concession speech in which Al Gore announced that George Bush was “my president, too.”

Since then, Gore has maintained a bit of momentum from the charges that Bush ‘stole’ the 2000 election.

That dog won’t hunt anymore. The FEC concluded Clinton-Gore BOUGHT theirs in 1996.

This week, the Federal Election Commission has finally closed its books on the 1996 Clinton fund-raising scandals, announcing Monday that it fined the Democratic National Committee $115,000 for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from non-U.S. citizens and other illegal sources.

FEC documents described how Democratic fund-raisers demanded illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals in China and other countries in exchange for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

Penalized, among others, were the Democratic National Committee, $115,000; the Clinton-Gore campaign, $2,000; and the Buddhist Progressive Society, $120,000, the Washington Post reported.

The paper also said the DNC also agreed to surrender an additional $128,000 representing illegal campaign donations that were not returned.

On the heels of all that, Al Gore came roaring back with a vengeance this week, launching an all out assault against George Bush the man, George Bush the Commander in Chief and the Bush economic platform.

When it came to Iraq, Al Gore used to be a hawk, until he saw a possible political advantage in attacking the administration over whether or not we should move against Saddam Hussein.

He said on Monday that Bush’s position regarding Saddam Hussein has ‘hurt the United States’ standing and could dangerously undermine the rule of law around the world’ according to published accounts.

“After Sept. 11, we had enormous sympathy, goodwill and support around the world,” Gore said Monday. “We’ve squandered that, and in one year we’ve replaced that with fear, anxiety and uncertainty, not at what the terrorists are going to do but at what we are going to do.”

Did I remember to mention that Gore also accused Bush of ‘politicizing’ the war to his advantage?


What I DO remember that ‘enormous sympathy, goodwill and support’. It began with celebratory marches across the Middle East, disingenous expressions of sympathy like the proffered Saudi donation of $10 million to Rudi Guiliani (provided we admitted we brought it on ourselves by supporting Israel) and the refusal of European states to cooperate in the prosecution of known terrorists in US custody.

Unless Gore is speaking of the outpouring of condolences from those friendly nations who, as the shock wore off, began pointing to US foreign policy as the underlying cause of September 11.

Gore says all that is the fault of George W. Bush. The Democratic presidential candidate accused Bush of abandoning the goal of a world where nations follow laws.

“That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States,” he said.

“If other nations assert the same right, then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear,” and any nation that perceives itself threatened would feel justified in starting wars, he said.

Apparently, George Bush isn’t Al Gore’s president anymore. And, if the Democrats are to be believed, Al Gore isn’t their candidate for president anymore, either. But nobody told Al Gore.

His speech was not vetted by the DNC, and the Democratic establishment is scrambling to distance themselves from their former champion’s comments.

Gore was all over the map, first praising Bush 41’s prosecution of the Persian Gulf war, then criticizing him for not taking out Saddam. (Gore didn’t mention the fact that the mission objective was to end the Kuwaiti occupation and contain Iraq — not to end Saddam’s regime).

Gore admitted that he knew Iraq had secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons back when he was vice-president, but skipped the part about the ineffectiveness of a weapons inspection program that left him with sufficient stockpiles to kill everybody on earth, if Saddam could develop an effective delivery system.

According to Gore, President Bush is out to rule the world, not end the threat posed by al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Gore says Bush’s policies threaten to “destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.”

Gore has decided that faced with ‘his president’s’ judgment on what’s best for America’s security, he feels safer relying on the judgment of the United Nations Security Council.

Gore picked a good time to remind America he is still the Man with the Plan. The DNC, having concluded they can’t win by tacking the administration on Iraq, is trying to shift attention away from the war and toward the economy.

Already every major Democratic presidential candidate has laid down his take on what President Bush and the U.S. should do with Iraq, and almost all of them, from Lieberman to Edwards to Gephardt have taken a more hawkish stand than Gore himself took earlier this year in a speech before the Council of Foreign Relations.

Suddenly there is Al Gore, shifting the debate back toward the war, irritating both the Republicans and his own party – which is still trying to recover from the Clinton-Gore hangover.

Al Gore stands as a living monument to the power of a sympathetic press corps’ ability to turn black into white, up into down, lies into truth and scandals into political advantage.

It doesn’t matter what reality is, provided you have the backing of the mainstream media.

Why is Al Gore a fitting topic for a news briefing dedicated to Bible prophecy? Because this isn’t about Gore. It’s about deception. Gore is just the illustration.

The Bible says that, when the time comes, the world will be ripe for the greatest deception of all time when the antichrist comes to power.

Americans have traditionally believed that with our free press and open society, we’re too sophisticated to fall for the siren song of globalism that will be put to such effective use by the antichrist in the last days.

Al Gore isn’t the antichrist, but he is a master of mass deception.

The antichrist could pick up a few pointers from this latest speech.