See Slide 2

More WMD! Who would have guessed that the Marines would find Sarin gas in Fallujah.

I am just so disgusted with liberals right now...what did they want a big ass sign that said WMD here! A brightly lit grocery store with all kinds of WMD tagged and labeled for us to destroy?

But here again, MORE WMD.

Remember all those studies that showed that us republican red-staters were stupid because we STILL believed Saddam posessed weapons of mass destruction even though the New York Times and the Washington Post told us they were not there? Maybe the Dems lost to people who believe in patience and investigation--not splashy headlines.



A reader at Captain's Quarters points out the warning labels are written in Russian and German. Go to the USA today website referenced above and look at it up close.

No Link!

Our leftist idealogues refuse to admit that Saddam had ties to terrorism, but as the oil-for-food scandal grows, we are learning that the UN was actually an accomplice to laundering money used to sponsor terrorism.

The Report of the 9/11 Commission has been digested, and the news media outlets have seized upon it as confirmation of their view that al-Qaeda is a purely stateless entity that never had "operational links" with rogue states like Iraq. Somehow, goes the thrust of the Report, Osama bin Laden was for years able to finance, train, and supply an international terrorist corporation that had ongoing jihad operations in fifty countries - by himself, on no more than a $30 million personal fortune. Thirty million dollars is the budget of a small school district in Wisconsin, where I live.

But the 9/11 Commission didn't even bother to trace the money trails of terrorist finance that led to the catastrophe three years ago, calling the question "one of little practical significance."

As a criminal litigation attorney, I can say that who pays the bill is centrally important in every criminal conspiracy. American law makes no distinction between the crook who held up the bank, his friend who drove him to the bank, the lookout man, and the genius who paid for the ski masks. They are all "parties to the crime" in legal parlance.

So the central question of our time becomes: Did Saddam Hussein help pay for 9/11, making him legally and morally as guilty as the hijackers themselves? As a lawyer, I think a good case can be made for this in a court of law, a convincing circumstantial case at the bare minimum. Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission ignored it.

The Commission's report implicitly concedes that money is by its nature fungible. What you save from one funded terror project can now be spent for another terror project - a project that you might not have been able to afford otherwise.

It isn't as if bin Laden didn't need the money. As journalist Richard Miniter pointed out in his book Losing Bin Laden, "the most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Iraq was money." Al Qaeda officials have repeatedly whined, while under interrogation, that cash was always a problem. Saddam, on the other hand, had over $11 billion to play with, from skimming billions off the lucrative UN "Oil-for-Food" scam operation.

Read this excellent piece here.

The Difference

Someone asked on the radio today what happened to Democrats...they used to want to free the oppressed from dictators and applauded the success of minorities in this country, but they fall silent on people like Powell, Rice, Gonzales, Barreto, Paige, etc. I don't believe that Democrats stopped wanting these things. I believe they want to feed the starving and free the oppressed.

I also believe they want the promotion of highly skilled and successful women and minorities to positions of power in our government. I just believe they don't want Republicans doing it. They don't like Bush nominating Rice, the first black female to hold the position first held by Thomas Jefferson (a slave owner) because it's a Republican doing it and that runs contrary to their mythologizing of Republicans being racist.

The other thing you should notice is how Democrats love to brag about their difficult and poor childhood's. President Bush spoke of Condi's upbringing in a segregated south and her meager family means. When Condi spoke she mentioned none of these things. This demonstrates the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats want to use their upbringing to convince the public they are one of them. Today, when Senator Reid gave a press conference he spent a tremendous amount of time describing how poor he was as a child. John Edwards always spoke of how his father was a millworker. Bill Clinton is the man from Hope, Arkansas. John Kerry let everyone know he was a war hero in Vietnam.

But we never heard Dick Cheney campaigning that he grew up in very similar circumstances as John Edwards. We will not hear about how Alberto Gonzales, the first Latino Attorney General, grew up in a house with only two bedrooms and that didn't have a phone until he was in his teens. Colin Powell did not begin every speech discussing his family's challenges.

This is why the Democrats do not connect with mainstream America. People don't want people who use their hardships (that everyone faces) as credentials. They want to hear about people's accomplishments--and they don't want the person telling them about their successes always being THAT person (e.g. John Kerry). I think that's something to consider...

Goss Goosing Liberal Pansies

There is a media firestorm about how everyone is resigning at the CIA. I say GOOD! This is the same institution that allowed al Queda to attack us six times and said the WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk.

The CIA is beholden to the Executive Branch! Not Congress or the government employee union. The people that give the CIA their most value are the people in the field and the low level analysts crunching information--not the career seat warmers from liberal colleges (post Vietnam, the guys during the cold war rocked!).

The angrier the people at the CIA become at Porter Goss, you know he's doing a great job (the same barometer I use to determine if Bush's foreign policy is working--it enrages the Euros).

The Next Month of Headlines

At the New York Times will be about this marine that apparently murdered an Iraqi terrorist faking death.

There are many reasons to think the marine was justified to shoot the person just to make sure he's dead and not holding onto a grenade or hiding a gun--how many times have we seen a horror movie and said, "empty the clip in the mother fucker, then get an ax and chop him to bits then burn him so he can't come back to life and kill you later."

But this isn't a horror movie and this is quite serious. If he suspected the terrorist was faking it, then he could have shot him in the foot and if he moved then they could have attacked him and subdued him. I suspect the media is going to spin this out of control: this is the leg of the impeachment screed the democrats are going to use.