Jay Byrds
I’m in a bad mood. I missed the first deer at 0630 on Monday morning. A fraction of a second later, I clobbered the second, much bigger one. My F150 is in the body shop getting the deer hair cleaned from what’s left of my grill, bumper, right fender and other assorted parts. The deer wasn’t so lucky. Since then I’ve been making the commute in a steroidal roller skate and feeling like my hind end is dragging on the highway. I need my truck.
As if that wasn’t enough, John, a Bush/Rumsfeld hating liberal fan of the past couple of years emailed. He asked me if I feel like a sap, now that Rockefeller’s report proves Bush lied us into war. No John, I feel like a sap because my state keeps sending Jay and his senior partner Bobby Byrd back to the Senate. Their leadership, combined with that of the Democrats that have led my state for the past 80 years, explains why out of 50 states we rank at the top as the most taxed and at the bottom in per-capita income. It explains why everything in the state has Robert C. Byrd’s name on it including the compost pile in my backyard, and why our youth are escaping the state at a rate practically as high as the human traffic crossing the U.S./Mexican border. We may have to build a fence to keep them here.
I only have space here to talk about one of my state’s Jay Byrds. I’ll aim for the highlights so as not to be too long about it. Be sure to study the linked information and share it with the Johns you know. That didn’t sound right. Share it with the liberals you know.
Jay Rockefeller is a New York transplant to West Virginia, and like many of his colleagues is of inherited wealth, Harvard educated and a career politician. He’s in the news this week for releasing the latest Democrat version of Bush lied and insisting that Iraq and the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power. Americans must suffer from collective attention deficit disorder. Otherwise, there is no explanation for why politicians keep trying to get away with what they do. The adage says if you’re honest, you’ll never have to remember what you said. Jay and his party have selective amnesia.
Unfortunately, the Democrats and specifically the Clinton administration held a different view about whether Saddam was a threat to us and whether or not we should remove him from power. This article is an excellent compilation of the Clinton rhetoric concerning Saddam and Iraq. Oddly enough, the Clinton administration drew these conclusions without the benefit of intelligence manipulated by the Bush administration. Bush wasn’t even there yet, but Jay was a serving Senator. Now peruse the Iraqi Liberation act of 1998 You don’t need to get bogged down reading the whole thing, but make sure that you read the not manipulated by Bush Congressional findings, which include:
“On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran… In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians… killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds… On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons… killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds… On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded… Kuwait…”
Yes Jay, Saddam certainly stabilized the region and made us safer. Odd that your political party and administration didn’t quite see things as you now do. Reckon they were manipulating the intel for political purposes? You should have pointed out for them the flaws in their assumptions and tell the rest of us how we were misled – by Bill Clinton et al.
[What if Saddam Hussein] ”fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.…If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow…Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.” President Bill Clinton, February 18, 1998 **(obviously relying on intelligence not manipulated by George Bush)
Fast forward to October 10, 2002, and scrutinize Senator Jay Rockefeller’s speech on the Senate floor concerning the pending Iraq resolution. As the link shows, the speech for the moment is still on his website. It’s also other places, otherwise, it could go to the same place as did John Kerry’s DD Form 214. Maybe he should have reread his own speech. Go read it all. It’ll leave you scratching your head. The Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reminded us in the speech:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
There is another piece to the intelligence business you need to understand. The members of Congressional intelligence committees are privy to high-level intelligence as is the President. Otherwise, what’s the point? When they say they’re not, it’s a red herring. No one in the know can contradict his or her statements without revealing sensitive information. They know that. If the Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says he didn’t know then what he knows now one must draw two conclusions. He’s lying or he’s an incompetent boob that shouldn’t be allowed into the same state where national security secrets are kept. Unless he has Sandy Berger with him who “was appointed by former President Clinton to vet Clinton-administration documents before those documents were turned over to the September 11 investigating commission.”
Jay adds another interesting twist in 2003. This memo, prepared by Rockefeller’s staff, sets out to politicize intelligence. Not to look for solutions to problems in our intelligence gathering process, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence should, but to strategize ways in which to use it to undermine the President and as a result put national security in jeopardy in favor of political gamesmanship. The memo didn’t get much play in the media, not the MSM anyway. It’s clear to everyone except maybe John that Senator Rockefeller is simply following the political strategy laid out in his memo. Again, Democrats are showing us that given the choice between politics and protecting our country, they’ll pick politics every time.
The Senator insists that there were no links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and terrorists. We don’t even need to discuss the obvious, which was his paying of money to homicide bombers. Please Google Ansar Al-Islam and read the tons of available information. You’ll find many reputable sources that show this terror organization in Iraq with links to Al-Qaeda. Here’s the State Department designation of Ansar Al-Islam as a terrorist organization. Here’s an interesting article on the subject, here’s another** and here’s another. If there isn’t enough information out there to convince you of Iraq’s terror links, then maybe a first hand account from the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister might help.
So, let me see if I have this sorted out. Saddam was the biggest threat facing our country and Middle East stability in 1998, according to Clinton Democrats – of which Jay Rockefeller is one. In 2002, Jay Rockefeller – the Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - gave a convincing speech on the floor of the Senate about our need to take action against the regime of Saddam Hussein in order to protect ourselves in a dangerous, uncertain post 9/11 world. In 2003, politics replaced his concern for national security when he strategized how to use intelligence information to undermine the President during a time of war. It’s too bad that people like John are so full of hatred for our President and our country that they’ll believe him.
Welcome to the Sap Club John.
** Two Weekly Standard articles are linked here, but may not open. If not, post these links into your browser and try again. They’re worth the read.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
000/000/012/710goolj.asp (How Bad is the Intelligence Report, Stephen F. Hayes, 09/25/2006)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/
000/000/001/607rkunu.asp?pg=1 (Democrats for Regime Change, Stephen F. Hayes, 09/16/2002)
Copyright © 2006 J. D. Pendry
****
Someone out there absolutely hates your guts. Make sure you know who it is.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:44 am
I find it especially ironic that Kerry now claims he was misled by Bush, as do the rest of the left. Maybe Kerry forgot his speech before the Senate in November of 1997, “We Must Be Firm With Saddam.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/r105/r105s09no7.html
There are some statements contained in it that sound remarkably like what George Bush has done and Kerry now opposes.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Regardless of what Democrats thought about Saddam, could you please post about what the current situation is in Iraq and how we can fix it?
We have serious issues in Iraq and debating “he said/she said” about the run up is counter productive. I know that it makes everyone feel comfortable to point out that Democrats were just as ignorant as Republicans on the threat posed by Saddam, but really, what difference does it make? I want to know how we’re going to prevent unneccessary American military casualties and restore our moral standing in the world. Is ripping Clinton all we have to talk about on the right wing blogs?
-MF
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:00 am
MF, cutting and running sure won’t fix anything, will it? What about supporting the fight? What about supporting gathering information from captured terrorists and giving the government the power to intercept communsications between Al Qaeda operatives inside and outside the US? How about reporting some good news from the front lines (there is plenty not being reported on) to show our brave troops actually are accomplishing their mission? What about censuring those that call our troops cold blooded killers on the floor of Congress?
If you want to fix things, look inward first and determine just what you are doing to support or oppose the actions. That might be the best starting point.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Lew,
Who said anything about cutting and running? That is the problem with the debate, I can’t bring up a contrarian position without being attacked under a false premise.
The last time that I looked, the FISA law had provisions to do exactly what you suggest regarding terrorist communication. Why is that an issue? Are red herrings the best we can do here?
Our tax dollars have been paying for “news reports” out of Iraq. I hope there is good news to be reported, but my guess is that between the legitimate press and the paid marketers, there isn’t much to report. I wish I was wrong, but I haven’t seen much evidence to support that. If there is a lot of good news, why is it not being heard?
I agree with you that we should look inward, that is my point. If our policy is not working, we should adapt it rather than attack those that disagree.
What have you done to support the troops? Do you have familly or friends who are in service? I am a veteran of the first Gulf War and I thank God that we had a sensible CINC at the time who understood what it was like to serve. We must support our troops with the best planning, the best equipment and we must oppose war profiteering. We owe it to them to make sure their mission is clear and we support every effort to succeed. Saying “stay the course” doesn’t cut it.
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:23 am
MF, I was not attacking you, but stating what seems to be the preferred solution coming from the Democratic Party leadership. Perhaps if members, such as yourself and others in the party, were to be contacting them telling them that cut and run, or as they prefer, “redeployment” is not what you all wish to see, they might present a different strategy than retreat.
Staying the course is being misrepresented. As in all wars, they change and so has this one. No one knows what their enemy is up to until they face him on the battlefield and then adaptions have to be made. Or, as was said in a movie years back, “Improvise, adapt, overcome.”
As I read at the Multi-National Forces in Iraq web site, I can see where changes are being made as needed to strengthen the Iraqi Forces and defeat the insurgents. “Staying the course,” although a catchy phrase, is actually nothing more than “completeing the mission.”
I applaud you for your service in the First Gulf War. However, had the CINC finished the job, perhaps we wouldn’t be fighting them today, two World Trade Center attacks may not have happened, the USS Cole may not have been attacked, the Khobar Towers as well as the two Embassies may not have been attacked either.
Then again, had the Democratic Party let us fight and finish what we were doing in Viet Nam years earlier and not abandoned them in 1975 when the North violated the Paris Peace Accords and Saigon fell to Communism, perhaps these little tin horn Islamofascists wouldn’t have decided we were really nothing more than the Paper Tiger China accused us of being.
As for me, I was too old to reenlist for the First Gulf War and defintely too old to go back in now, I did my time in Viet Nam, 1969 to 1971, Central Highlands, 3 more in Germany, in time for the 1972 Olympics and the actions of the Baider/Meinhoff Gang and came close to being deployed to Israel in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War (2nd ACR, we were pulled back from field manuevers and put on standby). I then did 3 more in Ft. Bragg before becominig disillusioned under the Carter Administration and allowed my enlistment to run out.
With 4 grandsons now, I prefer to see this fought over there and completed as much as possible before they become of serving age or before they face these insurgents on our own streets.