Status Lowered, But Threat Remains High

Status Lowered, But Threat Remains High
Vol: 17 Issue: 28 Friday, February 28, 2003

The US Department of Homeland Security lowered the national terror alert status from “High” to “Elevated” but says there is still a “continuing serious threat of terrorist attacks on American soil”. The status change comes at the same time that the United States has identified Hamas and Hezbollah as a probable third-party terror agents for Saddam Hussein.

According to one US official, the CIA estimated there is better than an 85 percent chance that Saddam would use proxy terrorists to strike the United States and that the likelihood would increase after any US military action were to begin.

The exercise was conducted several months ago and the analysts stated in a report that Saddam could order a terrorist attack against the United States before US forces start operations to oust him.

The analysis stated that if Saddam felt the end of his regime is inevitable that he could strike out against us using a third party, the second official said. The first official cited the assessment as saying that the pre-emptive terrorist attack could involve the use of chemical, biological or radiological weapons.

The formula used by the analysts to reach the conclusion involved what officials called a Bayesian analysis of Saddam s options. The analytical model is derived from the statistical-probability theory of 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes.

US intelligence officials said there have been recent reports that Saddam would try to use Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist group and Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, to conduct operations in the United States and against the United States abroad. The reports said that the two groups could carry out strikes in support of Iraq after the start of military operations, which could begin as early as mid-March, the officials said.

The intelligence assessment coincided with President Bush s decision announced Feb. 7 to raise the terrorism-alert status from yellow, heightened, to orange, or high danger of terrorist attackSaddam could order a terrorist attack against the United States before US forces start operations to oust him.

A classified F.B.I. intelligence bulletin was issued on Wednesday to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the country, warned the authorities to be on the alert for lone terrorists who are not directed by organizations like al Qaeda.

“Lone extremists represent an ongoing terrorist threat in the United States,” the bulletin said. “Lone extremists may operate independently or on the fringes of established extremist groups, either alone or with one or two accomplices.”

Senior administration officials said that there was still an alarming level of intelligence suggesting the possibility of a new domestic attack by Al Qaeda’s terror network, and that the alert would almost certainly return to “high risk,” or orange, in the days before we attack.

They said the decision to lower the threat level had followed days of vigorous debate in which senior law enforcement officers and intelligence analysts argued that it should not be reduced. Such a move, it was argued, might lead to dangerous complacency at a moment when the risk was still grave.

But finally, the officials said, a consensus was reached today that the alert should be lowered, given a drop in the recent level of terrorist communications, or “chatter,” and the two weeks that had passed without incident since the end of the hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage season. American intelligence and law enforcement officials had previously reported that there was evidence suggesting that Al Qaeda had timed new attacks to the hajj, which concluded on Feb. 13.

Assessment:

The US is dropping leaflets on Iraq warning the Iraqis not to let Saddam escape. This pretty well establishes America’s intention to either kill or capture Saddam. For that reason alone, Saddam has no reason not to use whatever weapons he has at his disposal, either on the battlefield or through terror strikes in the United States. “It’s a priority. We can’t have a repeat of Afghanistan,” a U.S. military official told the New York Post. He was referring to the escape of Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.

It’s quite a change from just a decade ago, when the biggest challenge facing America was what to do with the surplus money, or ‘peace dividend’ we were allegedly going to have left over following the end of the Cold War.

Peace and safety was breaking out all over; the Berlin Wall fell, the US began downsizing the military, happy days were here again.

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

”Useful Idiots”

”Useful Idiots”
Vol: 17 Issue: 27 Thursday, February 27, 2003

I was fascinated by this morning s edition of Islam Online. The lead story was headlined Hollywood Stars United To Win Without War with a picture of George Clooney over a caption quoting him saying We can t beat anyone anymore.

Islam online gushed, “on a growing list of Hollywood celebrities to speak out against war that includes Sean Penn, Ed Harris, Dustin Hoffman, Madonna and director Spike Lee, comes actor George Clooney to make a strong case against the Bush administration s war mongering , this time on a German screen.”

The Islamic press was raving about the anti-American comments made by Clooney to the Germans (see Vol 6 Issue 24).

The syndicated columnist, Mona Charon, was making the rounds of the talk shows hawking her new book, Useful Idiots.

Haven t read the book yet, but I was intrigued by the title. Charon said it was a term coined by Lenin during the early days of the Russian Revolution to describe the liberals and leftists in the West who could help advance the Communist philosophy.

Another example of a useful idiot was director and professional idiot Michael Moore. Accepting an award in France for documentary about Columbine that was just another liberal anti-gun propaganda piece, he praised the French and reminded them,

“The majority of us Americans never elected George W. Bush.”

“We’ve been surviving a coup now for the past couple of years and because of that we don’t support coups instigated by us in other countries,” the director said, admitting “I will be crucified in the press in America when I got home.”

Islam Online was delighted to quote Moore and highlight Clooney.

It also cheered on Madonna s new anti-war effort. The famous star Madonna also joined the debate by her anti-war themed music video for the title track to her upcoming album American Life .

Madonna has wrapped shooting on her “American Life” video, and judging by some of the industry insiders who were at the shoot, the clip is sure to bring controversy to the singer. “American Life” is the first single to be released from the singer’s forthcoming album, due out in April 2003.

The video features several attention-grabbing moments, including one in which Madonna lobs a hand grenade during a runway show of couture army fatigues.

The fashion show then develops into a mad frenzy, which, according to her record label, illustrates the “catastrophic repercussions and horrors of war.”

However, Madonna said it is not meant to be anti-American, Islam Online reminds us helpfully.

Assessment:

It doesn t really have anything to do with the war, or Saddam Hussein or Iraq, (as we ve been saying all along). It s still Election 2000.

The liberal left pledged itself to destroying George Bush at all costs (evidently, including the destruction of America, if necessary) back in 2001.

Hollywood is the heart and soul, not to mention the mouthpiece, of the useful idiots of America s liberal left, and Lenin is not the only one to find them so.

The Islamic enemies of America find them extremely useful, for the moment.

‘This is Your Captain, Paladin, Speaking’

‘This is Your Captain, Paladin, Speaking’
Vol: 17 Issue: 26 Wednesday, February 26, 2003

The Transporation Security Administration has launched a test program in which four dozen commercial pilots will be permitted to carry a firearm while flying passenger planes. The test program is to begin sometime this spring.

The fed rules are as strict as they are predictably idiotic. The pilots won’t be permitted to carry the weapons on their persons, but will instead carry them in locked cases as they walk through the airport. The pilots can’t open the cases until airborne. And, if the pilot has to leave the cockpit, he has to lock the gun back in the case, first. It makes one wonder who the gun is designed to shoot — the co-pilot?

The pilots welcome the authority to be armed, but consider the rules to be a bit, shall we say, stupid?

Pilots don’t want to carry a weapon in a locked case they carry through the airport. They rightly point out that it’s far more likely to fall into the wrong hands if it has to be transferred back and forth.

They have a solution for the TSA, but the TSA was horrified at the prospect.

“We propose that we carry the weapon concealed personally on our body because that is the safest, most secure way for us to transfer the weapon,” said Al Aitken, spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association.

TSA spokesman Robert Johnson said the law says pilots can carry guns for only one purpose: to defend the cockpit during flight.

“We don’t want that weapon floating around inside the cabin,” Johnson said.

Yup. That’s likely to happen. A highly trained commercial airline pilot, surrounded by electronic gadgets and gizmos and charged with the lives of hundreds of people, sitting in the cockpit, playing catch with his gun with the co-pilot. Or worse.

Pilots will be required to undergo psychological and background checks before being selected for a five-day training program that will include lessons on marksmanship, defensive tactics and legal policies, Johnson said. After finishing training, pilots would be issued .40-caliber, semiautomatic pistols.

Some pilots object to the psychological testing they’d have to undergo if they volunteered for the program.

Assessment:

The plan to arm airline pilots comes at least eighteen months too late. On September 11, 2001, 19 guys armed with box knives killed three thousand people. Four armed pilots would have eliminated the possibility that could have happened. All four planes would have landed safely.

But thirty years of brainwashing, the residuals of which can be found in the program itself, meant that no airline pilot could carry a gun.

It wasn’t always so. Once, when I was a Texas police officer, I had to fly from Lubbock to Dallas. I was armed, and notified the stewardess. The pilot asked me to leave my weapon with him in the cockpit while we flew.

I knew nothing of the pilot. I had no idea what his training with weapons was. But I handed over a loaded .357 Magnum without batting an eye. Why?

For the same reason that the TSA regulations are so stupid. Residual stupidity inserted by the ‘guns kill people’ crowd behind the thirty year brainwashing campaign that has resulted in the only people in America carrying guns being the outlaws.

I gave the pilot my gun because the guy was in charge of a multi-million dollar aircraft containing hundreds of people that was gonna fly in the air, and somehow find a little patch somewhere out there that was Dallas, line up with that one driveway out of all the rest in Dallas, from miles and miles away, before he can even see it, and set that big old plane filled with people down exactly where it is supposed to land.

If the TSA trusted him to do that, then I had little reason to doubt his psychological instability or to worry about how the presence of a gun might turn him from a competent airline pilot into a crazed killer.

I admit, it was a snap decision, giving him that gun, based on logic and circumstance. The logic being a lunatic pilot with an airplane is as equally dangerous as a lunatic pilot with a gun on an airplane.

Consequently, the pyschological screening process that prevents lunatics from being given multi-million dollar aircraft filled with passengers should be sufficient to include giving him .357 Magnum and six bullets?

It is a testimony to propaganda that the gun has been so vilified that using it to protect 300 people 35,000 feet in the air is optional.

For thirty years, people have been taught that ‘guns kill people’, without finishing the sentence with, ‘if somebody shoots one’. Guns by themselves can’t kill anybody. People kill people and use guns to do it. They are used by soldiers to defend our country. They are used by police to defend our society. They used to be used by citizens to defend our homes. And guns are used by our enemies to attack us.

In the post 9/11 world, arming airline pilots is controversial still. The brainwashed liberal left continues to believe guns are an evil, corrupting influence because that is what they want to believe.

It is fascinating to me that so many are so easily blinded. Here is the power of propaganda.

The whole issue boils down to the question of whether some Americans are more afraid of terrorists with box knives, or airline pilots with guns.

There are 100,000 commercial airline pilots. By spring, we’ll have armed 48 of them. Sort of.

Death From Above

Death From Above
Vol: 17 Issue: 25 Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Unamanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are just what they sound like. They are small aircraft that are piloted remotely. The pilot flies the plane like he was flying a flight simulator video game. Flying one isn’t all that different than flying a virtual aircraft on your home computer.

UAV’s fly low and are virtually invisible to radar due to their small size.

These drone planes can make formidable weapons — especially if equipped with spray tanks containing chemical or biological weapons.

But their small size limits their effectiveness as well. They would have to fly over densely populated areas if they want to achieve maximum casualties.

Cities like Washington and New York are well protected, with radar but there are lots of cities in America that are wide open.

And that is what Secretary of State Colin Powell says Saddam Hussein has in mind for his fleet. Saddam is known to have at least 79 Czech-made L-29’s and 91 of the upgraded L39 s small flight trainers that have modified to operate as UAV s.

According to the Czech Air Force web site, the L29 is 10.8 meters long, reaches 3.1 meters high, has a maximum speed of 231 kilometers per hour, has a practical flight ceiling of 10,900 meters and can, at most, range 1350 kilometers. But these aren’t the ones really worrying US intelligence.

Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month.

“UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons,” Powell said during his speech. “Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States.”

US intelligence reports that Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled “drone” planes equipped with GPS tracking maps.

The information about Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a “real concern” among defense personnel. They believe that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in such an attack.

Powell said there is “ample evidence” that Iraq has dedicated much time and effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. “And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth,” Powell said.

In the arms declaration Iraq submitted to the U.N. Security Council in December, the country said its UAVs have a range of only 50 miles. But Powell said U.S. intelligence sources found that one of Iraq’s newest UAVs went 310 miles nonstop on autopilot in a test run. That distance is over the 155 miles that the United Nations permits.

And the test was left out of Iraq’s arms declaration.

US intelligence has been tracking this threat for some time. On Dec. 17, 1998, during the end of Operation Desert Fox, a British missile blew open a hangar to expose at least 12 UAVs to US satellites. These aircraft had spray nozzles and wing-mounted tanks that feasibly could be used to distribute chemical or biological agents.

Not all had been destroyed in the bombing.

Two years later, surveillance photos caught L-29 modified UAV’s undergoing flight tests.

Back in October, President Bush mentioned it during a speech in Cincinnati.

“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas,” Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. “We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.”

You’ll remember that not too long after Sept. 11, there was a report made public about Usama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network being trained to conduct air raids through air vehicles outfitted with spray tanks. Some terror network members had looked into the possibility of training on the aerial UAVs.

This report was the catalyst for investigations into U.S. flight schools that led to all kinds of intelligence about the threat of chemical and biological attacks against the homeland.

Assessment:

As a weapon of war against the United States, using UAVs to deliver CBW to targets in the US is not very effective. It is very difficult to control the dispersal rate and would have to fly over densely populated (and densely protected) areas to achieve a high casualty rate.

But as a weapon of terror, it is profoundly effective.

By the Gulf War, Iraq had produced sufficient quantities of chemical precursors for almost 500 metric tons of the nerve agent VX and hundreds of metric tons of tabun, sarin, and mustard gas. Iraq had weaponized mortal shells, artillery shells, grenades, aerial bombs and rockets for chemical use and deployed 50 missiles equipped with potent chemical warheads.

After the Gulf War, UNSCOM destroyed more than 480,000 liters of chemical agents and 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors in Iraq.

Rough estimates conclude that Iraq may have retained up to 600 metric tons of agents, including VX, mustard gas and sarin. There are thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for.

Saddam s bioweapons arsenal is just as terrifying. Pathogens produced included both lethal agents (e.g., anthrax, botulinum toxin and ricin) and incapacitating agents (e.g., aflatoxin, mycotoxins, hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus and rotavirus).

UNSCOM reports indicated that Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax, 20,000 liters of botulinum, 2,200 liters of aflatoxin, and the biological agent ricin.

The Iraqi BW program explored and developed a broad range of weapon delivery systems, including aerial bombs, rockets, missiles and spray tanks.

While the prospect of such an attack on American cities is indeed terrifying, it is also eerily reminiscent of the battlefield scene described by the prophet Zechariah during the final battle in the war of Armageddon.

Zechariah 14:12 describes it thusly: And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

I am NOT saying that the war with Iraq is part of the war of Armageddon, or that this is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Instead, I am saying this. We are straining our eyes to look for flying drones containing weapons that can do EXACTLY what Zechariah foresaw 2500 years before the fact.

Add this to the list. What list? The list of things that are BEGINNING to come to pass.

The wars, rumors of wars, the rebirth of Israel, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the turmoil in the UN, NATO and the EU, the fear of biological and chemical war, the potential for a nuclear war taken together, what you have is a whole lot of Bible prophecy that is BEGINNING to come to pass.

And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

Stars Feel Unfairly Labeled

Stars Feel Unfairly Labeled
Vol: 17 Issue: 24 Monday, February 24, 2003

George Clooney gave an interview in which he complained it was unfair that Americans opposed to war are being branded unpatriotic. Does he have a point? Or is it another smokescreen?

Clooney, who in interviews with European newspapers has accused Bush of war-mongering over Iraq, is on a growing list of Hollywood celebrities to speak out against war. Others include Sean Penn, Ed Harris, Dustin Hoffman, Madonna and director Spike Lee.

“America’s policies frustrate me,” Clooney said in a German television program. “I think a war against Iraq is as unavoidable as it senseless. I think it’s coming. But I also think the real danger is going to be what happens after it.”

Most of Hollyweird has come out in support of Saddam Hussein, as has a goodly part of the left fringe of the Democratic party, like the Right Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Not to mention former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

When criticized for publicly opposing their own nation’s policies overseas, all immediately drape themselves in the Constitution and ask in hurt tones, “whatever happened to free speech?”

In previous articles and briefings, I’ve pointed out that America’s image abroad is as schizophrenic as it is domestically. Most countries deny being anti-American, but enthusiastically admit to being anti-Bush.

Since Bush is America’s leader, it’s a distinction without a difference. What is more important is what it means to America.

All of America — not just the Jimmy Carters and Jesse Jacksons who build castles in the air, or the George Clooneys and Sean Penns eager to rent rooms in them — but ALL of us.

This morning’s Washington Post reported that “many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein”.

Wonder why they think that?

” “It is rather astonishing,” said a senior U.S. official who has access to the reports. “There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein is the problem.” One ambassador, who represents the United States in an allied nation, bluntly cabled that in that country, Bush has become the enemy.”

The Post tries to explain why the world claims to love America but hate George Bush in geopolitical terms, but the explanation is an exercise in circular logic.

“Analysts and U.S. officials suggest a number of reasons the president has become the subject of such vitriol overseas. Some of it stems from personality: Bush’s blunt manner and frequent references to religion appear especially grating to European ears, these analysts and officials say. But much of it is rooted in substantive questions about the role of U.S. power in the world and whether Bush is properly using it in his battle with Hussein.”

Assessment:

That paragraph contains more baloney than a New York deli. Europeans know of George Bush what they are told of George Bush. They don’t live in America.

Most Europeans know about as much about George Bush as you do about Jacques Chirac.

And if you’ve been watching American news, you probably don’t like him much. I don’t either. But millions of Frenchmen do. They must know something we don’t.

So now we return to George Clooney, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Jesse Jackson, etc., etc., ad nauseum, and their flag-draped indignation at being labeled ‘unpatriotic’ for supporting Iraq’s best interests or the UN’s instead of what the Commander in Chief says is America’s best interests.

Clooney can’t find an audience for his views at home, so he takes them to Germany. The Germans watch Clooney’s movies, figure he lives in America and must know something about George Bush. So Clooney tells them what he thinks, and the Germans come away not liking George Bush very much.

It sounds overly simplistic, until you remember how you feel about Jacques Chirac or Gerhardt Schroeder.

(And why you feel that way, since you couldn’t pick them out of a line-up six months ago).

George Bush’s universal unpopularity didn’t begin with Iraq. It began with the “Not my president” crybabies during Election 2000.

The networks were profoundly anti-Bush in their coverage, as was CNN. The controversy dominated the overseas news. So did the endless recounts, lawsuits, and the anti-Bush campaign that followed.

That would have been a significant wall for any president to have to hurdle, had the “not my president” campaign died after the election ended.

The networks (with the notable exceptions of ABC and CNN) eventually came to an uneasy peace with the Bush administration, but Hollyweird and the Clinton left wing has kept up the campaign of innuendo and division — the kinds of stuff that make news overseas.

And now, at the time when we need allies the most, we can’t find any. Not because our allies disagree with us. Not really. Canada doesn’t really hate Americans. And they don’t really like Saddam Hussein. They just don’t like George Bush more.

The same can be said for the rest of our reluctant ‘allies’ marching in the streets to protest a war against Iraq that the Iraqi people themselves say is necessary.

The division among the Allies has made war more likely, not less, since that division has given Saddam hope he might be able to exploit it to achieve his military objectives.

The division at home has made war more likely, not less, for the same reasons.

Saddam remembers how Vietnam ended.

This is where we apply the unspun logic. Is war in America’s interests? No. Has the disunity made war more likely, or less?

Clearly, Saddam’s ‘cooperation’ has increased in direct proportion to the military forces massing along his borders. What does that suggest to you?

Now we add the known facts. When Bill Clinton bombed the socks off Saddam in 1998, nobody said boo. Same thing when Clinton ignored the UN and used NATO to bomb Milosevic’s Serbia. Where were the protests?

Same Saddam, same UN, same NATO, same America. Carter, Clooney, Baldwin, Jackson, Clinton; they’re the same. The only thing that has changed is the president.

So, when you add everything up, what is the motive behind the antiwar liberal left’s agenda? They don’t like George Bush. More than they don’t like Saddam.

How unfair is the label ‘unpatriotic’?

If he isn’t their president, then who is?

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ORDAINED OF God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God . . ” Romans 13:1-2)

“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (1 Peter 2:18)

“Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1)

“Reverend Jackson, Let Me Speak”

“Reverend Jackson, Let Me Speak”
Vol: 17 Issue: 23 Sunday, February 23, 2003

Last week, I asked where all the Iraqis were at during all the antiwar marches. It turns out that at least some of those who fled Saddam DID attend some of the marches. Here’s what an eyewitness to the march, Amir Taheri, had to say about how interested the marchers were in hearing from the Iraqis they claim to be helping. The account comes from Canada’s National Post.

That is significant because Canada is no friend of the war effort and no friend of the Bush administration.

“I spent part of last Saturday with the so-called “anti-war” marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice be heard. Soon, however, it became clear the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading “Freedom for Iraq” and “American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!”

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the “spontaneous” marchers, were allowed. These read “Bush and Blair, baby-killers,” “Not in my name,” “Freedom for Palestine” and “Indict Bush and Sharon.”

Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.

The thugs also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam’s forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.

We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend’s attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.

“Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?” 78-year old Salima demanded.

The reverend was not pleased.

“Today is not about Saddam Hussein,” he snapped. “Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq.” Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend’s goons closed in to protect his holiness.

We next spotted former film star Glenda Jackson, apparently manning a stand where “anti-war” characters could sign up to become “human shields” to protect Saddam’s military installations against American air attacks.

“These people are mad,” said Awad Nasser, one of Iraq’s most famous modernist poets. “They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant’s death machine.”

“Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?” Nasser the poet demanded.

The Iraqis would have had much to tell the “anti-war” marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression.

“I had a few questions for the marchers,” Sultani said. “Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the anti-war marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?”

Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam’s henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked.

Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq’s leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.

Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq’s foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the “deep moral pain” he feels when hearing the so-called “anti-war” discourse.

“The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs,” Khoi said. “The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim.”

Khoi said he would say “ahlan wasahlan” (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq.

“When you are being tortured to death you are not fussy about who will save you,” he said.”

Assessment:

You know what scares me? The fact that this is so obvious to a nobody like me, but completely escapes the huge news gathering apparatus of ABC News’ (‘More Americans get their news from ABC than from any other source) Peter Jennings.

Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq’s most famous satirical writer was never contacted by Peter Jennings, probably because of what he might say.

If Jennings had asked the question posed by Amir Taheri, Kistaini would have posed a question in return Jennings wouldn’t be able to answer.

“Don’t these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad?” he asked. “The Western marchers behave as if the U.S. wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein.”

So why has the world gone Saddam-happy? One could make a case that this is residue from Election 2000. Europe doesn’t claim to be anti-American, just anti-George Bush.

That the march organizers were deliberately disingenuous is beyond question. The proof is in the fact there were no expatriate Iraqis allowed to speak. There were no expatriate Iraqis allowed to march. There were no dissenting voices. That isn’t a pro Iraq, or anti Bush, or anti Democrat or pro liberal statement. It’s just a fact.

The radical fringe Democrats like Jesse Jackson failed to poison the nation regarding Election 2000, since we live here and know how elections work. And we’ve grown used to the difference between reality and partisan reality.

But they’ve done an effective job of poisoning the rest of the world. The average man on the street in Europe reads quotes from American politicians saying George Bush just wants Iraqi oil, why would he doubt it was true?

When marches are conducted by large groups of Americans carrying signs saying things like “Bush-Blair, Baby-killers”, why would he doubt it?

Especially when a sixth of the planet already has Osama bin-Laden and radical clerics exhorting them from the pulpit to hate America and to hate George Bush.

This isn’t a blind defense of George Bush. It’s bigger than that.

If Al Gore were president, it would still be wrong to aid and abet the enemy of your country by trashing the commander-in-chief.

The peaceniks might say Saddam isn’t THEIR enemy, but it is nations that make that determination.

Individuals don’t have that luxury.

That’s what treason laws are for.

When PC Doesn’t Come Naturally . . .

When PC Doesn’t Come Naturally . . .
Vol: 17 Issue: 22 Saturday, February 22, 2003

Much is being made of the fact that recently arrested Sami al-Arian was a frequent guest of the Bush White House. We’ve pointed out other similarly shady characters that were also entertained, even feted, by the Bush administration in the days immediately following 9/11.

First, Sami al-Arian. He is the professor at the University of South Florida who was charged with financially masterminding Islamic Jihad, along with seven other Tampa area Muslims.

He is best known for his television confrontation with Bill O’Reilly – which ended with O’Reilly telling al-Arian that if he (O’Reilly) were the CIA, he’d follow al-Arian everywhere he (al-Arian) went. That interview took place only days after the 9/11 attacks.

Arian has been under federal surveillances for almost ten years, as it turns out. The passage of the Patriot Act made the evidence they had gathered over the pariod of time admissible in court. That evidence reportedly includes intercepts and other information revealing al-Arian inciting others to kill and then gloating over his successes.

Steve Emerson’s 1994 documentary and book, American Jihad, contained detailed information about al-Arian and his terrorist connections.

Not only were the al-Arians not avoided by the Bush White House – they were actively courted. Candidate Bush allowed himself to be photographed with the al-Arian family while campaigning in Florida.

In May 2001, Sami al-Arian was invited into the White House complex for a political briefing for Muslim-American leaders. The next month his son, Abdullah, who was then an intern in the office of Congressman David Bonior, joined a delegation of Muslim leaders at a meeting with John DiIulio, head of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

After the group entered the complex, a red flag belatedly popped up over the al-Arian name, and the Secret Service ordered him out of the complex.

The entire delegation marched out with young al-Arian – and soon afterward, President Bush personally apologized to the young man and ordered the deputy director of the Secret Service to apologize as well.

On November 30, 2001, if you were an Omega Letter subscriber you read that President Bush broke the Ramadan fast with a collection of Muslim leaders, including Muzzamil Siddiqi.

You also know that Siddiqi was among those Islamic clerics who were invited to lead prayers at the Washington National Cathedral the Sunday after the attacks when the United States reached out to God for provision and protection.

Siddiqi opened his comments by dedicating his comments to Allah, saying, in the name of god, the most gracious, most merciful .

He chose to call Allah god given the fact Allah was not a name particularly popular in the hours immediately after the attacks.

Siddiqi then offered the following comments: We turn to you, our Lord, at this time of pain and grief. We witness the evil of destruction and the suffering suffered by many of our compatriots. With hearts weighed down with grief and with tears in our eyes, we turn to you, our Lord, to seek comfort. O Lord, Help us in our distress, keep us united as people of diverse faiths, colors and races, keep our country strong for the sake of good and righteousness, and protect us from evil.

Only a year before, Siddiqi addressed a rally in Washington DC, saying, “The United States of America is directly and indirectly responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people. If you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of god [Allah] will come.

Another invited guest to that White House Ramadan feast was Abduraahman Alamoudi, executive director of the American Muslim Council.

In 1996, Alamoudi addressed the Islamic Association of Palestine in Chicago. I think if we are outside this country, we can say, oh Allah, destroy America, but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America.

It was Alamoudi, at the same Washington rally who exhorted the crowd, saying, Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas. I wish to add that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. Who else here is a supporter of Hezbollah?

Assessment:

By and large, I am a supporter of George Bush. His conduct and character are a refreshing change from the previous occupant. But that doesn’t mean that Bush is always right.

It is clear that George Bush has never mastered the concept of ‘political correctness’ the way his predecessor did.

His politically correct campaign to portray the majority of the Islamic world as decent, hardworking people whose religion was hijacked by a handful of terrorists fizzled, but not because it didn’t have the support of the politically correct among us.

It didn’t have the support of the Muslim world. Poll evidence taken across the post 9/11 Muslim world suggests that Bush has the equation backwards.

The Bush guest list was specifically chosen to reveal the face of the real Islam. The one he was telling us about. And that is the face of majority Islam that the polls reveal.

The kinder, gentler Islam of Muzzamil Siddiqi, Sami al-Arian and Abduraahman Alamoudi.

Bush’s problems began when he claimed Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and then proclaimed Allah to be another name for God.

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)

That is not to say that President Bush is, in my estimation, an evil man. Just poorly advised. It is my sense of the man that political correctness doesn’t come naturally to him and he doesn’t do it well.

It appears that Bush has learned his lesson. But no lesson learned comes without a price. He is paying the price now for his foolishness. But I’ve noticed something.

When was the last time there was a Ramadan party at the White House?