December 11, 2004

"For personal reasons,"Kerik Withdraws His Name for DHS Chief

I am very disappointed and sad about this.
Kerik's original reason was that he had hired a nanny who was an undocumented alien, a la Zoe Baird, but now the story is more murky and political.
I believe it was because, as NewsMax and I both noticed, the Left was planning on going nuclear for his nomination hearings before Congress and maybe Kerik doesn't have the stomach for that.
This week alone there were at least 4 nasty hit pieces on him in the Leftist Media--one in the WashedUpPost, one in the NYSlimes, another in the Ass. Press and yet another by Clintonista Sid Blumenthal in the Guardian, signalling the Dimocrats' intention to give Kerik a Borking, if they could.
What a shame and a loss for America!
I still think Kerik would have done a terrific job and I'll be upset if we get Asa Hutchinson instead.
Dare we hope for Kerik's mentor and boss, Rudy Guiliani?

December 10, 2004

New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

It was as compelling a piece of video as you'll ever see: A scout with the Ten nessee National Guard, whose unit is headed for Iraq, publicly berating Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld over his fellow soldiers' alleged lack of adequately armored vehicles.

What made the footage even more powerful was Rumsfeld's response: The normally unflappable secretary stood motionless momentarily, seemingly at a loss for words, before answering.

Rumsfeld responded with characteristic candor. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," the secretary said during a town hall-type session with soldiers in an aircraft hanger in Kuwait.

It was red meat to the lions, who naturally ate it right up (while all but ignoring the context Rumsfeld offered).

It was a lead story on the network news broadcasts, and photos of the soldier and Rumsfeld dominated the top of the front page of The New York Times.

But there was a little bit more — and a whole lot less — to the story than what immediately met the eye.

For one thing, Rumsfeld was set up.
[Duh!
The Left hates Rummy and they're just sick that he's not one of the members of the Bush Cabinet who's leaving.--Jen]
Too bad!

A reporter for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, who subsequently couldn't keep from chortling in an e-mail to his colleagues, had recruited a couple of soldiers to ask potentially embarrassing questions.
[Is the Chattanooga Times even a legit paper?
I'd like to personally thank Matt Drudge for publishing that boastful email of Pitts' and scoring another victory for we citizen journalists!]

"I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," bragged Edward Lee Pitts, who was crowing over his success in finally publicizing a story "I've been trying to get . . . out for weeks."
[So, IOW, he's not reporting the news, but creating it.
Not kosher.]

Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team in Kuwait.
[Hopefully, not for long...--J.T.]

When he learned that Rumsfeld would be addressing troops at a town hall- style meeting at Camp Buehring — and that only soldiers would be allowed to ask questions — Pitts came up with a bit of journalistic subterfuge.

"I brought two [soldiers] along with me as my escorts," he wrote — and worked with them on how best to grill Rumsfeld.
[I don't see anything but partisan politics in this whole incident.]

Then, "I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question-and-answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

So what looked to the world like a soldier spontaneously voicing his beefs to the highest level of the military establishment turned out to be something else entirely: a meticulously arranged ambush.

"The great part," crowed Pitts, "was that after the event was over, the throng of national media following Rumsfeld . . . swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with."

When an officer from the unit asked Pitts what his story would say, according to the reporter, "I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mikes at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press."

And, of course, that was true.

After all, how often does a secretary of defense confess in public to sending ill-equipped troops into harm's way — callously and with malice aforethought?

Except Rumsfeld did no such thing.

That is, he made no such confession.

And he — and the U.S. Army — showed no such "malice" in the first place.

The soldier, Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked why he and his buddies were being sent into Iraq aboard what he termed inadequately armored vehicles.

War, of course, is an inherently risky business, a fact Rumsfeld underscored: "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank," he responded, "and a tank can still be blown up."

Nobody — least of all Rumsfeld — has denied that some troops have been sent into Iraq with less-than-optimal equipment. The issue was thoroughly debated during this year's presidential campaign — and no doubt President Bush was damaged politically because of it.

But the most vociferous critics — Sen. John Kerry foremost among them — would not have been satisfied with all the armor in the world: They were against the war, pure and simple, and they viewed the equipment issue as a tool with which to damage Bush.

Those who believe Operation Iraqi Freedom to have been an essential engagement in the larger War on Terror are correct to be worried about armor.

We certainly are.

Yet we also understand that all the armor in the world wasn't available. The Army had been designed and equipped to fight an entirely different sort of conflict than what it has encountered in Iraq.

Meanwhile, armor and related equipment is being produced, distributed and installed as quickly as possible.

Some 18 months ago, it was deemed necessary to move against Saddam Hussein — which brings the discussion back to where Donald Rumsfeld began it: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

The Chattanooga Times Free Press did the nation no service by reducing this debate to a gotcha-game played in the Kuwaiti desert — and the liberal media are compounding the damage by distorting what it was that Rumsfeld said.

At the end of the day, soldiers need to make do with what they have.

So it has always been.

Preach it, Post!
I am thoroughly *disgusted* with this latest show of disloyalty to our country, our troops and the Bush Administration by the MSM.
When are we, the American people, going to completely wash our hands of the Leftist media and their minions?
I'm beginning to think more and more that our real war is with them and that our war with the Islamofascists is only secondary, but, of course, they're one and the same and both working to help the other.
(Do the evildoers need to be given a bigger hint that they could hit our soldiers in Iraq in their vehicles and that the likelihood that they would hit one that wasn't armored is "good," thus causing maximum deaths and injuries?)
One of the things I've been doing recently is watching the repeat of the series "Band of Brothers" on cable...Can you imagine our men in uniform in WWII whining to Sec. of War Henry Stimson about their lack of warm uniforms, hot food and even enough ammunition when they fought the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945?
Worse yet, can you picture front-line reporter Ernie Pyle taking pride in goading those guys to do that carping?
Sec. Rumsfeld is quite right--"You go to war with the army you have..."
And thus is ever has been and probably ever shall be.
Give Rummy credit for holding the town meeting with the troops and asking for feedback, though.
He's such a great guy and remains one of the most successful military leaders of all time!
I'm sure he was aware of the problem and didn't need Mr. Pitts or his ventriloquist dummy to make him aware of it.
In fact, there's news that they're "working the problem" as fast as they can:
Humvee work to double in Limestone

And then there's some indication that the problem isn't as pervasive as that cheering crowd of soldiers would indicate, either:
Maine unit has no complaints about armor

Do read the WSJ's op ed today, placing a good part of the blame for the lack of armor where it properly lies, with Congress and the acquisition monies it gives the Pentagon to fight our wars.

Soldier admits his story of Iraqi boy's death a lie

When Army Sergeant Dennis Edwards spoke at Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School last month, 100 students listened in rapt silence as he told chilling tales of battlefield horror in Iraq and criticized President Bush's motives for going to war.

Edwards, 23, a Barnstable High School graduate, said he and two other soldiers shot and killed a 10-year-old boy in Iraq who pretended to be wounded and suddenly fired an AK-47 rifle. The boy was found to have explosives attached to his body, Edwards told the stunned audience.

Now, Edwards has admitted to his superiors in the elite 82d Airborne Division that the story about the shooting was a lie, Army officials yesterday. As a result, the veteran of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be charged with making false statements, face a court-martial, and be stripped of his rank.

His confession has also saddened Dennis-Yarmouth teachers and students, who said they felt honored and captivated by his appearance.

''We need to use this as a teachable moment," Superintendent Tony Pierantozzi said yesterday. ''We need to make sure our students . . . clearly understand that sometimes individuals might elaborate stories or examples for their own benefit."
[...]...The Cape Cod Times reported that Edwards criticized Bush's invasion of Iraq as a ''personal vendetta" to complete President George H.W. Bush's unfinished work against Saddam Hussein. ''The first Bush couldn't get it done, so it's time for the next Bush to do it," the Times quoted Edwards as saying in the talk.

In an interview later, the Times reported, Edwards said that ''we went over there for one reason, and because that fell through we're stuck over there for another reason." Edwards, who served in Iraq from August 2003 to March of this year, said US officials had not planned well for the mission.
[As a lowly sergeant and a "youngster" non-com, how would he know this?--Jen]
[...]...Edwards spoke about his living conditions, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the lack of armored Humvees.
[Ah, yes! The usual talking points against the war, the military and this nation that we're used to from the Left and the MSM.--J.T.]
He also criticized the news media for what Edwards said was a lack of reporting on positive results of reconstruction, such as new schools and other infrastructure.
[Well, thank God for small favors! He at least got this part right.]

"...For their own benefit" or for that of the Leftist Democrats, eh?
How and why Sgt. Edwards put his service as a Useful Idiot for the Democrats in the MSM above that of his service to his country as a loyal soldier is beyond me, but this is pathetic.
Praise the Lord the truth came out and at least one false story in the Media about U.S. troops "slaughtering the innocents" of Iraq has been shown to be false!

Berlusconi Acquitted of Corruption Charges

A Milan court acquitted Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi of corruption charges Friday — a major victory in the billionaire media baron's decade-long battle with legal woes he has blamed on left-wing prosecutors.

I have no doubt they were Left-wing prosecutors who were after Silvio, just like the Lefties go after Bush here and Howard in Australia and even Tony Blair in the UK, who's supposed to be a fellow Leftist, but who acts like a Tory when it comes to standing by Bush and fighting the war in Iraq.
Congratulations to Premier Berlusconi!
I never questioned his innocence but now he can have a more worry-free Buon Natale!

December 06, 2004

Here you can read all about Bernie Kerik and re-discover that he's the perfect man for the job of protecting the nation:
Profile: Bernard Kerik
His mother was a prostitute who was murdered when he was 9, he dropped out of high school (but got his GED later), they call him the "Baghdad Terminator" in Iraq, he walked a beat in pre-Guiliani Times Square and he cleaned up Riker's Island, among other accomplishments.
I've been a big Kerik fan since 9/11, whereas I wasn't that keen on Tom Ridge, but Ridge had the President's confidence so that was enough for me.
Indeed, we haven't had another major attack here since 9/11 on Ridge's watch, but I feel even safer now that I know that Kerik, the cops' top cop, will be on the job and I'll bet our first responders feel good about his nomination, too!
Surely, the Senate will see things our way and confirm his appointment...

This scandal is like a boil that gets worse all the time and needs to be lanced, but will it be?
Events of last week seemed to make that eventuality a lot more likely.
It started with Norm Coleman's Committee investigatory findings as he stated them in Thursday's WSJ:
Kofi Annan Must Go

It's time for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign.

Over the past seven months, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has conducted an exhaustive, bipartisan investigation into the scandal surrounding the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. That noble program was established by the U.N. to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, then languishing under Saddam Hussein's ironfisted rule, as well as the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.N. after the first Gulf War. While sanctions were designed to instigate the removal of Saddam from power, or at least render him impotent, the Oil-for-Food program was designed to support the Iraqi people with food and other humanitarian aid under the watchful eye of the U.N.

Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists
[I wonder who Norm's referring to here: it couldn't be journos like Dan Rather, who got that interview with Saddam or CNN (who admitted they lied about the sanctions to get access), inter alia, could it?!--Jen]
and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.

While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose.
[I think Sen. Coleman is quite right in this respect; Kofi will block any attempts internally to disclose the extent of the bribery and to "find" the documents that prove how much and to whom the bribes were paid.
We know this because he's been doing it for months, even though he started an internal investigation with the very competent Paul Volcker at its head.
This was window dressing for the media only.--J.T.]
[...]...The consequences of the U.N.'s ineptitude cannot be overstated: Saddam was empowered to withstand the sanctions regime, remain in power, and even rebuild his military. Needless to say, he made the Iraqi people suffer even more by importing substandard food and medicine under the Oil-for-Food program and pawning it off as first-rate humanitarian aid.

Since it was never likely that the U.N. Security Council, some of whose permanent members were awash in Saddam's favors, would ever call for Saddam's removal, the U.S. and its coalition partners were forced to put troops in harm's way to oust him by force. Today, money swindled from Oil-for-Food may be funding the insurgency against coalition troops in Iraq and other terrorist activities against U.S. interests. Simply put, the troops would probably not have been placed in such danger if the U.N. had done its job in administering sanctions and Oil-for-Food.
[I dunno about this point of Coleman's.
Saddam's determination to make war with his enemies and to make WMDs far exceeded the will of the U.N. to keep him in check and to fight for the rights of the people of Iraq.]
[...]
To make matters worse, the actions of Mr. Annan's own son have been called into question. Specifically, the U.N. recently admitted that Kojo Annan received more money than previously disclosed from a Swiss company named Cotecna, which was hired by the U.N. to monitor Iraq's imports under Oil-for-Food. Recently, there are growing, albeit unproven, allegations that Kofi Annan himself not only understands his son's role in this scandal -- but that he has been less than forthcoming in what he knew, and when he knew it.
[...]...Mr. Annan has named the esteemed Paul Volcker to investigate Oil-for-Food-related allegations, but the latter's team is severely hamstrung in its efforts. His panel has no authority to compel the production of documents or testimony from anyone outside the U.N. Nor does it possess the power to punish those who fabricate information, alter evidence or omit material facts. It must rely entirely on the goodwill of the very people and entities it is investigating. We must also recognize that Mr. Volcker's effort is wholly funded by the U.N., at Mr. Annan's control. Moreover, Mr. Volcker must issue his final report directly to the secretary general, who will then decide what, if anything, is released to the public.
[P.S. It's a recipe for disaster, non-disclosure and more coverup!--Jen]

Therefore, while I have faith in Mr. Volcker's integrity and abilities, it is clear the U.N. simply cannot root out its own corruption while Mr. Annan is in charge: To get to the bottom of the murk, it's clear that there needs to be a change at the top. In addition, a scandal of this magnitude requires a truly independent examination to ensure complete transparency, and to restore the credibility of the U.N. To that end, I reiterate our request for access to internal U.N. documents, and for access to U.N. personnel who were involved in the Oil-for-Food program.

I'm very afraid that this is not going to get the Senator and the rest of us where we want to go.
All of the U.N. diplos, including Kofi and probably his son, are going to claim diplomatic immunity--at least in the U.S.A.--as long as they're "doing U.N. business."
If these scalawags won't pay NYC parking tickets, why would they be accountable for untold millions in bribes from Saddam?
At the very least, Sen. Coleman's op ed does make the matter one of public record and interest and he's started the ball rolling--I hope!
The release of this report was followed by further developments on Friday.
To wit, President Bush called for a full investigation:

[...]
President George W. Bush called for a “full and open” accounting of Iraq’s now-defunct oil-for-food programme following accusations that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein illegally reaped billions of dollars from it because of Annan’s lack of oversight.

Only the day before, our U.N. Representative John Danforth resigned, after only 5 months' service, claiming he "wanted to spend more time with his wife."
Yet, he was less than supportive of Kofi Annan's continued leadership of the UN and also called for a thorough investigation of the Oil-for-Food program by somebody.
President Bush is a poker player (and a good one, too!) and he doesn't rush into anything, but if you ask me, his demand for answers, added to Danforth's resignation are the first signs of a possible U.S. "disengagement" from the U.N.
The President didn't take the more dramatic step of recalling our representative and he didn't say that our country wouldn't be paying their U.N. dues, which account for 22% of the whole U.N budget, but the implications are there.
If the scandal continues to draw out, it will be in large part because the MSMedia--who else?!?--will persist in NOT running with this story of the biggest scam in the history of the Civilized World.
IMHO, the best thing to do would be to put Kofi, his son, program director and known bribee Benon Sevan and Jacques Chirac on trial in Iraq for these crimes, because it was the Iraqi peoples' money and they were the ones who were harmed.
I don't think these boys will get any "diplomatic immunity" in Baghdad!
Saddam hasn't been tried yet, either, notice, so maybe he'd be willing to part with information for his role in this scandal in exchange for the Iraqi court giving him leniency (heh-heh! As if that's going to happen!).