Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving. An official religious day set aside and recognized by the U.S. Government beginning with Abraham Lincoln:

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those whoare sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

However, since Abraham Lincoln did not establish Thanksgiving as a national holiday each state had the right to decide when it would celebrate Thanksgiving. Looking back one hundred yeras earlier during the American Revolution a yearly day of National Thanksgiving was suggested by the Continental Congress .

Following the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress recognized the need
to give thanks for delivering the country from war and into independence.
Congress issued a proclamation on October 11, 1782:

By the United States in Congress assembled.

PROCLAMATION.

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:----- Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness. Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleveth day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.

JOHN HANSON, President.
Charles Thomson, Secretary.

In 1817 New York State adopted Thanksgiving Day as an annual custom, and by the middle of the 19th century many other states had done the sameIt wasn't until 1941 that Thanksgiving was declared a national holiday, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Just remember, this is a nation founded on Christian principles.

John Adams' Letter to Thomas Jefferson: "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”

[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]reprinted in The
Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon (Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina Press, 1959), vol. 2, pp. 339-40

CNN eXits Left - It Was Just a Bug.

That now famous flash "X" over the face of V.P. Cheney while he was speaking on live television prompted CNN to immediately investigate the incident and concluded it was a computer malfunction - a "bug." Perhaps CNN need to revamp their control room so this won't happen again? This isn't some home personal computer here but equipments and software worth several hundred thousands of dollars.

We need more knowledgeable people out there who know how these things work and see if they come up with the same conclusion as CNN.

Here's one live "bug" snafu. Couldn't get anybody to condemn President Bush.

Here's another computer glitch stranding travelers at a London airport.

Anytime there's an error on CNN television, just blame it on the "bug." Please, copy the CNN graphics to your blog sites, you know, it's just a "bug," too. Can't stop that "X" thingy.

Teresa Heinz and Senator John Kerry Favor Genocide in Africa by Supporting the Ban on DDT?

Please visit Fighting Malaria website. It's an organization set out to educate people the value of DDT, a pesticide, that has been banned for the past 30 years worldwide. DDT was banned in the United States by the head of the EPA, William Ruckelshaus, as an example of politics trampling good science. In Africa, millions of African children and adults die from Malaria, Yellow fever or even Typhus when do-gooders environmental extremist groups made it nearly impossible for countries in Africa and elsewhere to use DDT.

There are 300 to 500 million malaria cases worldwide. Thousands of people die of the disease every day .. In 2000, South Africa started spraying tiny amounts of DDT in homes in its province with the most malaria cases, and rates of the disease dropped there by almost 90 percent, from a high of 60,000 a year. Sadly, other African countries would like to follow suit but can't do so on their own. They need funds from the World Health Organization or the U.S. Agency for International Development - and neither organization, though they know better, has the political guts to buck the international environmental lobby and allow funding for the spraying of DDT.

Politics have played a dangerous role in regulating DDT resulting in the unnecessary painful deaths of millions of babies, children and adults.

But the popular singer Bono said:

"This is our moment, this is our time, this is our chance to stand up for what is right. Three thousand Africans, mostly children, die every day of mosquito bites. We can fix that. Nine thousand people dying every die of a preventable, treatable disease like Aids. We have got the drugs. We can help them."

This is what ignorance does to children. It kills them. Drugs are not always the answer, especially when there are few being produced and are already expensive to produce. Until mid-2004, the WHO, UNICEF and USAID provided anti-malarial drugs that they knew for years fail as much as 80 per cent of the time. The vastness of the spread of Malaria is just too wide. The real answer lies in the use of DDT. But the myths continue to perpetuate about how "dangerous" DDT is, but it is not.

Since the EPA banned DDT in agriculture, countless studies have been conducted into the potential impacts of DDT on human health, yet none of them have been able to find any concrete evidence of actual human harm. DDT is remarkably non-toxic to humans; people have tried to commit suicide by eating it and failed miserably. DDT is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which may sound alarming, but is the same classification given to coffee and many other foodstuffs in our daily diet.

A leading DDT pesticide advocate died on July 19, 2004 who spent a good portion of his life to remove the stigma and myths about DDT.

The removal of the unwarranted stigma from DDT and the saving of many future lives is now nearer at hand than it has been in the last 30 years thanks to the efforts of Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, who passed away on July 19 at the age of 85.

Dr. Edwards led the opposition to environmental extremist efforts to ban DDT in the wake of Rachel Carson's infamous 1962 book Silent Spring. The testimony of Dr. Edwards and others during Environmental Protection Agency hearings in 1971 on whether to ban the insecticide led to an EPA administrative law judge ruling that, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

Inexplicably — or so it seemed — DDT was nonetheless banned by EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus. Dr. Edwards investigated and uncovered disturbing statements and troubling connections between Ruckleshaus and anti-DDT environmental extremist groups.

One famous myth about DDT use in the United States is the affects on American Bald Eagles.

Perhaps the most well-known allegation about DDT was that the insecticide supposedly caused declines in the populations of birds such as the bald eagle.

Dr. Edwards knew this was wrong. He knew that these bird populations had declined decades before DDT had ever been used. More importantly, the bird populations were actually rebounding during the years of peak DDT use, according to bird counts.

In an April 1972 edition of American Birds, a National Audubon Society magazine, anti-DDT editor Robert S. Arbib, Jr., accused a "certain paid scientist spokesman" of lying about higher bird counts. No scientists were mentioned by name.

On Aug. 14, 1972, the New York Times recounted Arbib's accusations in a story entitled "Pesticide Spokesman Accused of Lying on Higher Bird Counts." At the urging of the Times' reporter, Arbib named five scientists, including Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Edwards and two others filed suit for libel against the National Audubon Society and the Times. In July 1976, a jury decided that, though the National Audubon Society was not liable, the Times was. The jury found the Times article's statements were clearly libelous and made with "malice."

The verdict against the Times was overturned in May 1977 by Judge Irving Kaufman on the grounds that the newspaper was justified in reporting the charges because they were "newsworthy" and that it did not matter that the Times had serious doubts about their truth.

Kaufman, as it turns out, was also a close personal friend of the then-publisher of the Times, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger.

Interesting details of how environmental extremist organizations, politics and close political ties among judges and companies were able to keep the DDT ban in perpetuity.

To help readers understand, here is a list of 100 things you should know about DDT.

Nicholas Kristof in this Op-Ed piece in The New York Times essentially said that the worldwide ban on DDT qualifies as one of the most underreported scandals of the past several decades where millions died needlessly because of the myths about DDT.

Here are a few well known Democrats or naysayers who applaud the continued banning of DDT who would rather save mosquitoes than the millions of African children:

1. Senator John Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry are big fans of Rachel Carson, whose disingenuous book Silent Spring launched the radical anti-pesticide movement that Terersa Heinz Kerry bankrolls rather handsomely through her family philanthropies.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry applauds "important gains" like the "banning of DDT and other harmful pesticides" as vital to ending the "devastating triple whammy" that women get from "the chemical soup" they encounter every day from birth control pills, makeup and sunblock, and "daily games of golf" on courses that are "perfectly manicured, thanks to estrogenic pesticides."

"Drift is something we cannot afford when it comes to human rights," she insists. But her notion of human rights often neglects the most basic one: life itself. Her concern about speculative harm from chemicals drifts into intense, misguided opposition to substances vital to preserving life in her native Africa (Mozambique).

2. Sierra Club director Michael McCloskey, who said that the "Sierra Club wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control...[because by] using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations."


We need to allow the use DDT once again out to countries that are in need of this miracle pesticide. This is an effort well worth it for both the Democrats and Republicans. Let's stop the genocide through misinformation and disinformation by those who are anti-DDT.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Romona Ripston...married at the hips.

Rememer a few days ago I blogged about how the U.S. House of Representatives is going to to get the "Survey Sex" case another rehearing? As I delve in deeper I found out an interesting tidbit about Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals. He is married to the Executive Director of the Southern California ACLU, Romona Ripston. The Conservatives find him to be THE most dangerous judge in the country.

What was interesting is Romona Ripston's comments about another issue but taken into context of what happened in the Sex Survey case makes her a bit hypocritical when her own husband is doing the exact same thing by attempting to regulate society judicially from the bench by telling flat out that parents do not have parental rights regarding their children and education.

"I think we need to lighten up a little bit about some of the things that we're beginning to regulate in this society." says Romona Ripston, executive director of the Southern California ACLU.

You're right. We need not to regulate as much and leave judicial activism from the benches of the court system behind. Judicial activisms do not belong on the court or in the hands of judges who want to make their own laws.

Ban the Traditional Hot Dogs!

A spoof, so don't get your panties up in a wad. Might not be suitable for young viewers.

I wonder what Kosher hotdogs would look like? For those who gag easily, maybe Blue Tights might in your realm of things.

Zarqawi's Mess

See my update about family members of Zarqawi who are publicly renouncing the little terrorist tyrant.

The Source of Plame's Leak or Gossip? Armitage?

Newsweek has an article detailing Bob Woodward's (and Novak) refusal to say who spoke the name Plame to him. But Bob Woodward says that when it all comes down to it, it's much ado about nothing.

But he has repeatedly emphasized on talk shows and in interviews that when all the facts become known, the Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little. In private conversations with journalists, Novak has suggested the same.

But compared to Chris Matthews of MSNBC "Hardball" had him orgasming all over the screen anticipating that eeeeevil Karl Rove and Libby will get indicted and convicted for leaking the Plame name, and hoping that V.P. Cheney will somehow get the shaft, too. Such a sordid dream of his.

But the interesting thing is that Newsweek is bringing up former Deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage.

He was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward's, and he fits Novak's description of his source as "not a partisan gunslinger. Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same."

For those who don't know Richard Armitage he was against the Iraq war even though he was Colin Powell's right hand man at the time, and had no grudge against Wilson. And if Richard Armitage is the source of the Plame "leak" then, just as Woodward said, all would be much about nothing and it was just the sort of gossip talk in Washington that goes only daily than an intentional smear campaign against Wilson. And if so, most likely at this juncture with Newsweek helping break the story, then certainly the liberals, democrats and the lovable fuzzball Chris Matthews will have eggs all over their faces and belong to this year's most idiotic travails of the democratic scream machines over much ado about nothing.

A Nice Little Success Story

Here's a story that turned out to be a successful one for a deaf 16-year girl named "Jade."

While others are not so fortunate.

Be sure to be thankful of your fortunes and to think of others who are not so fortunate this Thanksgiving week.

US Soldier and His Platoon's Perspective on Freedom While Fighting in Iraq

This is a must read letter from a mother about his son who is fighting in Iraq for our freedom and the Iraqis' freedom.

Mom,

Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday. Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard please…

My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago. I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Indeed. Read the rest of the full 2-page letter.

Semper Fi!

US House of Representatives in California to Overturn Ninth Circuit Court's Ruling on Sex Survey Case for Another Rehearing

Ah, I had a feeling this would happen.

A few weeks ago I blogged about an outrageous decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three-panel judge in California on the ruling of parents' rights regarding their children and education. The U.S. House of Representatives in California heard about this case and considered it a ridiculous ruling believing that the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District" and that they are prepared to send this case to the Supreme Court.

U.S. House Passes Resolution Urging Ninth Circuit to Rehear Sex Survey Case Liberty Counsel will ask the Ninth Circuit to set aside the ruling and rehear the case

Palmdale, CA - Late yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the sex survey case of Fields v. Palmdale School District. Following the ruling by the court a few weeks ago, the seven parents in the case asked Liberty Counsel to represent them and become lead counsel. Liberty Counsel has taken up the fight of these parents and will soon be filing a petition asking the Ninth Circuit to set aside the ruling and rehear the case.

Writing for the court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the same judge who ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, wrote that parental rights stop at the "threshold of the school door." In the Fields case, the parents objected to sex questions given to children as young as seven. The survey required a "Yes" or "No" answer to questions such as: "Can't stop thinking about sex."

The resolution (H. Res. 547), sponsored by Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., passed by a vote of 320-91. Twenty-two representatives did not cast votes, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The resolution urges the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case "en banc," which means that all the judges in the circuit would participate in the ruling, rather than just the original three-judge panel. The resolution states that "the fundamental right of parents to direct the education of their children is firmly grounded in the Nation's Constitution and traditions." The resolution also states that the Ninth Circuit's ruling "undermines the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children." Rep. Murphy stated: "I believe the Court's decision overreached the issues in the case, overreached in its conclusions, and needs to be overturned." He also stated: "On behalf of every parent in America, Congress calls upon the courts to correct this deplorable injustice."

Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: "Congress rarely passes a resolution condemning a court's ruling. This resolution is extraordinary because the decision by the Ninth Circuit is extraordinary. This resolution expresses the overwhelming sentiment in America that this ruling is deplorable. No one would ever think that when they drop their children off at school, they forfeit their parental rights, but that's exactly what this court ruled. (AMEN! - KOKO) This ruling is the worst assault on parental rights issued by any court. We will ask the full panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit to rehear this case, and we pray that this ruling will become a mere blip on the radar screen that quickly fades away."

Liberty Counsel will ask the full panel of the Ninth Circuit to set aside the ruling. Liberty Counsel is also prepared to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Get Involved Now!This case should alarm all parents! We must not lose this battle. Please help support our efforts to preserve parental rights by giving a year-end contribution to Liberty Counsel.

Now, here's my take why the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling with the 3-panel (liberal) judges was flawed in dismissing the case.

1. The parents considered all this as a privacy violation toward their children and themselves when sex was discussed. It is in their personal and professional (they're parents y'know) opinions that schools shouldn't be discussing sex with their children unless the parents already agreed in the form of a signed consent form made explicit on the fact that sex will be discussed or asked.

2. If the court agreed that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, then why did the school provide a consent form with the full knowledge that 10 of their questions were to be about sex?

3. When is a survey a "provider of information" to the child being asked of? It has nothing to do with the education of that student child. It's a survey, not an education.

4. The school failed to fully disclose all of the questions that will be asked of the students on the consent form. The school is at fault with this aspect.

Whereas without the informed consent of their parents, the young students were instead administered a questionnaire that contained sexually explicit and developmentally inappropriate questions;

5. California schools have used consent forms routinely on the subject matter of sex at schools for the parents to sign (or not). This is required by law in California anyway.

California Gov. Davis Signs Legislative Package of Reproductive Health-Related Bills [Oct 06, 2003] California Gov. Gray Davis (D) on Thursday signed into law a package of six reproductive health-related bills, including a bill that would streamline the state's sex education curriculum, the Los Angeles Times reports (Halper, Los Angeles Times, 10/3). The sex education law (SB 71) ensures that students who receive sex education in schools receive accurate information on abstinence, human sexuality, contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in an age-appropriate manner (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 8/14). According to Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D), who sponsored the bill, the law will require schools that teach sex education or HIV prevention classes to send notices to parents at the start of the school year informing them of the dates students are scheduled to take sex education or HIV/AIDS prevention classes and if they are scheduled to participate in sexual behavior surveys. Under the new law, parents who do not want their children participating in the classes or surveys can return the notification form indicating that they wish to exclude their child from the instruction or survey. However, if the notification form is not returned, parental consent for all classes or surveys is assumed (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 9/15).

This law recognizes the fact that parents do have a greater say on sex and sex education (health) than do schools for their own child, and it was never about preventing all students from sex surveys or sex education classes.

The 3-judge panel is now the laughing stock of California.

Just Google It

You want answers? Just Google it.


THINK BUSH LIED ABOUT WMDs? CLICK ME.




FEELING LUCKY? CLICK ME.

Tell me, whose the "miserable failure" now? Clinton turned out to be the gutless 4-day bombing Commander in Chief wonder boy.

Respectability on Communication for Those Who Cannot Hear in Aikido

It's cross posting time from my Deaf Aikido blog.

It’s amazing how some people actually believe that when you have an English aikido student practicing aikido in Japan the student will invariably "suffer" on missing out what was said by a Japanese aikido instructor would be the equivalent of an American deaf aikido student who misses out what an American aikido instructor said in his dojo. Not so and not quite the same thing. It's apples and oranges here.

However, one high ranking English speaking aikido instructor (5th or 6th Dan, and have written a few books on aikido, I believe) who teaches aikido in Japan actually thinks this way. I had the fortunate opportunity to engage in a forum debate regarding the issue on communication.

From this debate it soon became apparent to me that some people, even in high places in the aikido community, seem to come off a bit dense when it comes to giving proper respect to those who cannot hear and the idea that hearing aikido students “suffer” on an equal footing as deaf aikido students in not being able to understand what was said by an Aikido instructor’s because of his/her foreign language during his/her talks. Balderdash. Just because this aikido instructor is a high ranking aikidoists does not mean he knows the secret of the ying and yang of the world. Read below my comments I responded to (his quotes):

quote 1: Is being deaf really that much of a handicap? At least with respect to Aikido.

My response to quote 1:
It's only a handicap if senseis or instructors insist on talking to those who can hear but do not take into consideration of those who have hearing impairments or are deaf by not providing an interpreter or at least know how to sign (or provide other means of communication). Out west, as in America, as you may know, Americans tend to talk and explain certain concepts (or even stories) about aikido in more technical details rather than solely by examples alone as many do in Japan. If the flow of information through speaking is so important to hearing aikidoist students, why not the same for deaf or hard of hearing aikidoist students? Is this not discrimination? Or ignorance? Perhaps the senseis of the west need to learn not to have the habit of speaking at all? So that all would be on equal footing in receiving the same information from their sensei? Who really need to adjust to the situation? The student or the aikido instructor?

quote 2: My point is that being deaf should be no more of a handicap in Aikido then training in a different language.

My response to quote 2:
In the case for Japan, as I said earlier, I understood what the scenario could entail for a foreigner training in Japan with no understanding of the Japanese language. Observing a technique whether one understands a language or not is different from a sensei or shihan communicating verbally to his/her students. You choose to go to Japan to learn Aikido, which is fine, but you also would have the opportunity to learn the language to speak and listen and grow with them as a hearing person and become more cultured in Japan.

quote 3: In fact those that have are probably far more sympathetic to the problem. And yes I have met and know hearing impaired students of Aikido, Judo, Iaido, you name it.

My response to quote 3:
The question is, did those senseis or sempais talk while on the mat to his/her students? And if there was a Japanese deaf student on the mat, did he or she also enjoyed the same conversational equality between a sensei and his/her hearing students?? That's my question. Why bother talking if it's mainly a visual demonstration of techniques to be followed by martial arts students regardless if they are deaf or not?

quote 4: And yes there is a little bit of disbelief here. Yet another group of special cases, not my vision of what Budo has to offer. Still if you and others feel the need - by all means.

My response to quote 4:
It's the proper acknowledgement about a deaf/hoh aikido student's communication needs if ever a sensei feel the urge to speak as he were. Is aikido not about teaching techniques visually? Why consider them as "special cases"?

quote 5: Main reason is that overcoming the barriers is part of the Budo practice.

My response to quote 5:
Suppose you have a roomful deaf aikido students where a hearing sensei talks to them as if they were hearing people walking around on the dojo mat to and fro and from afar? Would it be an "oxymoron" moment? A total waste of effort. And certainly not a budo moment. Budo is when techniques are performed by the sensei in a visual format would be a better time spent by the observing group of deaf and hearing aikido students.

quote 6: Mike, I think xxxx was saying that training in a country where the language is completely different can be assimilated to being deaf, of course without the actual physical impairment.

My response to quote 6:
I understood that already. It's not quite the same thing on what I was trying to point out.

quote 7: I too train in Japan, and whilst I do speak some Japanese(enough to get me by on the train or in a restaurant), I am by no means fluent though.

My response to quote 7:
And you will have the opportunity to grow in learning Aikido in Japan as would learning the Japanese language over time, one day, you will be able to understand completely the Japanese language. And when that happens, you will not feel left out whenever a Japanese sensei or shihan speaks. You'd have the advantage over deaf Japanese aikido students attending the same dojo where you practice. You have that opportunity (a deaf aikido student does not).

quote 8: There is a misconception that the Japanese do not talk when they teach, that is far from true, many of the Sensei that I have studied under frequently stop and discuss aspects of the technique, or highlight specific points.

My response to quote 8:
And since Aikido can be learned visually, so why the need to talk? Whether it's a Japanese language where one cannot understand it to an English language where we (in the USA) can understand by listening, except for deaf aikido students, and enjoy the conversational benefits in listening to a sensei talk. And when there are American deaf aikido students attending an American dojo, why bother talking? Does budo mean only a one way street on respect and acknowledgement? Budo didn't teach disABLED practitioners back then unless there is a history about it that I'm not aware of.

quote 9: I am frequently left sitting as an observer, oblivious to what is being said (in one ear and out the other or worse, completely over my head ), so for us foreigners over here, unless we are fluent, we suffer the same unbalanced information flow.

My response to quote 9:
You have the opportunity to learn the language as you are doing now, until one day you will become fluent. From day one you pick up Japanese words. You accumulate them until one day you understand the instructor. But whether you understand the language or not, if aikido can be instructed visually, then why bother the talking? That's the point I'm trying to get across.

quote 10: For the record, my xxxx is xx (years old) and wears two hearing aids, he keeps them in whilst he does keiko too, taking ukemi along with everyone else.

My response to quote 10:
Wearing a hearing aid(s) is not necessary unless the sensei is the talkative type. But if his hearing aid does not afford him to understand Sensei's verbal instructions, stories, or discussions about the technique, then why wear a hearing aid in the first place? And why would an instructor insist on talking to the rest of the students knowing that there is a deaf student on his mat? It's merely a discriminatory practice committed by the aikido instructor.

All in all going to a different country to learn a martial art and not understand the language spoken there is not the same as being deaf and not hear anything at all, much less have the opportunity to learn the spoken language as could a hearing person. It's a skewed analogy at best. Overcoming adversity is going to a different country to learn a martial art while deaf but never get the opportunity to hear and learn a different language. That's true adversity. Try wearing ear plugs, don't learn to speak the language, and stick with the program and then perhaps a hearing person will understand what overcoming adversity is truly like. Ever try teach aikido techniques to a deaf and blind person? Or a person with cerebral palsy and deaf? It's been done. I'd call that overcoming true adversity in life never mind not being able to hear or understand a different language. It all boils down to acknowledgement and respect to his/her fellow aikido students' needs. Aikido is about harmony, no?

quote 11: The way I'm reading what you're saying, if I have a deaf person in my class, I shouldn't speak to any students out of consideration for the non-hearing person. I guess then that if I have a blind student, I shouldn't demonstrate any techniques either.

My response to quote 11: You can. Just repeat the technique again while a blind student is in contact with you. Nothing wrong with repeating a technique for a blind student. Or even better, let the blind student be your Uke, the receiver of your technique while your students observe your next round of techniques. As in aikido, you blend, and that's how you can solve your problem.

quote 12: And if I have a blind student and a deaf student in the same class?

My response to quote 12:
A deaf student can see your techniques and follows them. No big deal. For a blind student you can show him/her the techniques again but allow the blind student to touch and feel your movements instead. Or at least show the techniques the first time with a blind student first, if possible, for all aikido students to see just so that you don't have to repeat those techniques again for that blind student. Remember, blend.

quote 13: What if I have a student who learns much better with verbal instruction than visually?

My response to quote 13:
That's fine. Flexibility is the key.

quote 14: Should I ignore her needs because that's not really a handicap?

My response to quote 14:
Depends on exactly what those needs are you're talking about. It's good to be aware of any potential needs or at least acknowledge the student's condition in the first place. Each situation is unique. Trying blending.


Now, after all that, what I'm trying to convey is that if an instructor goes on a spiel while on the dojo mat telling a story or a situation or anything else outside of doing demonstrations on techniques then what can the instructor do to insure that his or her deaf student(s) won't miss one of your talks?

Blend and become one. You are the instructor. You figure it out. It's your responsibility. Not the student.

McCain Says Liberals Are Lying

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz - a Republican in Name Only -RINO), recently pointed out that liberals are lying about President Bush on WMDs:

"I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people" about prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.

Gee, you don't think? V.P. Cheney knows liberals are lying through their teeth and their lack of a having enough backbone to be honest with what they said years earlier in their support and vote for going to war.

Hmmm, the old quagmire chicken little game again. I guess it is much more honorable to cut and run, eh?

"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's top voices on military issues.

I guess he doesn't keep tab on this one here, here, here, here, here, here, here or here? Has he forgotten about Kurdistan, too?

Chicken little liberals running amok trying to dodge falling skies. *squawk!*

Operation Doha: The Exposing of Unclassified Iraqi Documents

Opperation Doha (see update at bottom).

Stephen F. Hayes discussed in his November 21, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard magazine detailing his efforts to obtain copies of unclassified Iraqi documents discovered in postwar Iraq. He was able to get some preliminary information, tantalizing although disturbing, via FOIA request that took 2 years and came up with enough information that would sure to galvanize people to put more pressure on the Pentagon to release more of these captured Iraqi documents to the public. It should be noted that many of the more incriminating Iraqi documents were systematically destroyed (or they tried to) by Saddam's minions in the runnup to the Iraq war. The bits and pieces of information among the millions of pages of Iraqi documents uncovered so far provide some tantalizing but disturbing clues about WMDs, al Qaeda and UNSCOM. Stephen F. Hayes explains how he started all this,

I DON'T REMEMBER when I first heard about the project in Doha, Qatar, but I do remember that I was very interested in learning more about it. The effort, led by Central Command with assistance from the Defense Intelligence Agency, is reviewing the detritus of the former Iraqi regime: videotapes, photographs, and many, many documents. One aspect of the effort is something called "Doc-Ex," short for document exploitation. Several intelligence analysts, together with several dozen translators, most of them from Jordan, are sifting through millions of pages of documents unearthed in Iraq after the toppling of the regime......

According to several officials familiar with the project, analysts and translators are still swimming in documents. They often work in two shifts, day and night, but the total manpower devoted to the project is less than 200 people. There have been discussions about outsourcing the work--perhaps to the Iraq Memory Foundation, formerly affiliated with Harvard University--but no final decision has been made.

The list below that was given to Stephen F. Hayes by the Pentagon provide titles of the documents translated so far by several translators. The title itself on each document may or may not mean something of what might be said inside. However, the Pentagon is keeping mum on the actual contents where many of the documents are being worked on and translated in Doha, Qatar and have been entered into a military database known as HARMONY (the list below highlighted titles in red are the more disturbing findings of possible WMD attempts and/or al Qaeda ties):

1. Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Correspondence to Iraq Embassy in the Philippines and Iraq MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
2. Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
3. IIS report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
4. Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan
5. IIS Agent in Bulgaria
6. Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda--reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
7. IIS report about the relationship between IIS and the Kurdish Group Jalal Talibani [sic]
8. Iraqi Mukhabarat Structure
9. Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
10. Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
11. Order from Saddam to present $25,000 to Palestinian Suicide Bombers Families
12. IIS reports from Embassy in Paris: Plan to Influence French Stance on U.N. Security Council
13. IIS Importing and Hiding High Tech Computers in Violation of UN
14. IIS request to move persons, documents to private residences
15. Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
16. Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
17. 1987 orders by Hussein to use chemical weapons in the Ealisan Basin
18. Ricin research and improvement
19. Personnel file of Saad Mohammad Abd Hammadi al Deliemi
20. Memo from the Arab Liaison Committee: With a list of personnel in need of official documents
21. Fedayeen Saddam Responds to IIS regarding rumors of citizens aiding Afghanistan
22. Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
23. Improvised Explosive Devices Plan
24. IIS reports on How French Campaigns are Financed
25. French and German relationships with Iraq
26. IIS reports about Russian Companies--News articles and potential IIS agents 27. IIS plan for 2000 of Europe's Influence of Iraq Strategy
28. IIS plans to infiltrate countries and collect information to help remove sanctions
29. Correspondence from IIS and the stations in Europe
30. Contract for satellite pictures between Russia, France and Iraq: Pictures of Neighboring Countries (Dec. 2002)
31. Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
32. Memo from the IIS to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
33. Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
34. Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
35. Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
36. Correspondence from IIS to MIC regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002)
37. Correspondence from IIS to Iraqi Embassy in Malaysia
38. Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
39. IIS plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
40. Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

These are but only a small sample of what we may uncover out the millions more pages of captured Iraqi documents while translation of these documents plod along.

Right now there ought to be a concerted effort by concerned people to get these unclassified Iraqi documents out into the public . But there are tons and tons of papers needed to be translated where some 200 people are working in a room day and night sifting through these documents for nuggets of information that may provide details of any possible chemical, nuclear or biological weapons and how they may be relationships with the al Qaeda terrorist group.

Earlier captured Iraqi documents have made the case of Saddam's attempt to systematically kill off the Kurds. Prior to the Iraq war scholars were able to analyze details that describes Saddam's repression of the Kurds of northern Iraq based on captured Iraqi documents such as Operation "Termination of Traitors": The Iraqi Regime Through its Documents.

But for recent postwar Iraqi documents they have provided damning details which helped the Duelfer Report. Information gleaned from these documents along with interrogations of Saddam Hussein and the officials of his regime concluded that the former Baghdad government had illegally collected $11 billion, in part by selling the oil below market price and receiving the difference through kickbacks. This was known as the Oil for Food scam. Those documents also says that Mr. Hussein gave oil vouchers to influential people and organizations overseas.

Regardless, based on what Stephen F. Hayes unsurfaced so far today those titles he showed provide a glimpse of a more potentially insidious agenda that Saddam Hussein had in mind regarding WMDs, Iraq, his government and their connection, dependency and support with the al Qaeda terrorist group, if any at all. "Operation Doha" will need people's support to help to push this to the front because America demands the truth. Let's get this "Operation Doha" off and running and soon the liberals will find themselves in their own quagmire of utter lunacy and mass unhinged moments to the detriment of their lying selves about how President Bush lied on WMDs. They ain't seen nothing yet.

Operation Doha. "Keep saying it."


Hat tip: Generation Why.


UPDATE: Watch out for Michelle Malkin getting into the action about liberals lying about how Bush lied on WMDs with links with one about where the WMDs went.

Saddam versus Milosevic on Court Trials

Number one reason why we shouldn't allow The Hague or the International court to try their hands on dictatators charged with war crimes or crimes against humanity is that they take much too long and when convicted it is never a death sentence. Even Milosevic requested an 8-week break due to his health concerns, or so they say. It has been going on for nearly 4 years with the trial at The Hague. It's laughable. Compared to war criminals from WWII at the Nuremberg Trials which convicted 22 former Nazi officers in less than a year with most of them getting executed.

Today Voice of America has the up and up in comparing Saddam's trial to that of Milosevic. Biggest difference? Milosevic is defending himself while Saddam has a cadre of international lawyers (two of them found murdered already). And, oh, if convicted Saddam will most likely get executed and that there is immense pressure to speed along the trial process as humanely and fair as possible and not let it drag out like Milosevic' own mockery of a trial that has already tarnished The Hague's reputation.

Democrats Gone Wild

A video clip of "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq." It is subtitled, however; not completely but enough to see what Democrats said in 1998, 2002, and 2003 in comparison to today with Democrats lying about how Bush lied about WMDs when they all had access to the same information as President Bush before they could vote on it in Congress to go ahead with Iraq.

Here's a larger list of quotes from Democrats back in 1998 (pre-George W. Bush for those who are not politically astute) as an alternative option to the video.

Are these lefty looney liberals lazy or what? Are they not serious on wanting to make sure by checking up on facts about what was said on the WMDs in support of attacking Iraq back in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 by Democrats ? Heck, here is your chance with President Clinton who was practically waving his hands and arms in 1998 that we should attack Iraq with his famous quote in 1998:

Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Nuclear, eh? Not yellowcake? But nuclear? Face it liberals, with you going with the "Bush lied" meme simply does not hold water. Not only does it not hold water, it makes you look like a full-blown idiot like a deer caught in the headlights before getting mowed down. Step off of the road pronto before you get smashed.

Hat tip: DEFCON


UPDATE: Here's a Bush-Clinton-Perot presidential debate in October 19, 1992 that's telling of Clinton's stance about Iraq.

CLINTON: Let's take Mr. Bush for the moment at his word -- he's right, we don't have any evidence at least that our government did tell Saddam Hussein he could have that part of Kuwait. And let's give him the credit he deserves for organizing Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. It was a remarkable event.

But let's look at where I think the real mistake was made. In 1988 when the war between Iraq and Iran ended, we knew Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, we had dealt with him because he was against Iran -- the enemy of my enemy maybe is my friend.

All right, the war's over; we know he's dropping mustard gas on his own people, we know he's threatened to incinerate half of Israel. Several government departments -- several -- had information that he was converting our aid to military purposes and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

But in late '89 the president signed a secret policy saying we were going to continue to try to improve relations with him, and we sent him some sort of communication on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait that we still wanted better relations.

So I think what was wrong -- I give credit where credit is due -- but the responsibility was in coddling Saddam Hussein when there was no reason to do it and when people at high levels in our government knew he was trying to do things that were outrageous.

LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a moment -- a minute, I'm sorry.

BUSH: Well, it's awful easy when you're dealing with 90-90 hindsight. We did try to bring Saddam Hussein into the family of nations; he did have the 4th largest army. All our Arab allies out there thought we ought to do just exactly that. And when he crossed the line, I stood up and looked into the camera and I said: This aggression will not stand. And we formed a historic coalition, and we brought him down, and we destroyed the 4th largest army. And the battlefield was searched, and there wasn't one single iota of evidence that any US weapons were on that battlefield. And the nuclear capability has been searched by the United Nations, and there hasn't been one single scintilla of evidence that there's any US technology involved in it.

And what you're seeing on all this Iraqgate is a bunch of people who were wrong on the war trying to cover their necks and try to do a little revisionism. And I cannot let that stand, because it isn't true.

Yes, we had grain credits for Iraq, and there isn't any evidence that those grain credits were diverted into weaponry -- none, none whatsoever.

(APPLAUSE)

And so I just have to say, it's fine. You can't stand there, Governor Clinton, and say, well, I think I'd have been -- I have supported the minority, let sanctions work or wish it would go away -- but I would have voted with the majority. Come on, that's not leadership.

Ok. Fast forward when Clinton was President and his remarks on Saddam Hussein's WMDs in a February 17, 1998 speech but see (in blue) the above remark and below (in blue) on how both Presidents wanted to see diplomatic solutions or improve relations with Saddam prior to striking Iraq:

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions. By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds.

We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this 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.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

The above quote in purple provides the most damning evidence of President Clinton's belief on what would happen if we don't act upon in getting Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions. Clinton believed that more WMDs exist among Saddam's copious palaces and elsewhere. In the last paragraph above provides his internal belief that Saddam will in fact use his WMDs once given the chance.

So, President Bush lied about WMDs? How else would we enforce Saddam? More sanctions? Yeah, right. The only thing left is to go back in and finally get rid of Saddam. Those UNSCOM workers would take years and years just to investigate one of Saddam's palaces that's about the size of Washington D.C. that President Clinton quoted in the above speech I provided.

Oh, please, you lefty liberal loonies. Take a look at Clinton's quotes one more time when Clinton's own WMDs information were the same as President George W. Bush'. Stop with the inanities that Bush lied about WMDs.


STOP THE INANITIES!

Clinton + Iraq + 1998 = Bush Did Not Lie on WMDs

Ok you guys, try this very simple Google test. Type in Clinton, Iraq and 1998 into the search bar and you'll see that Clinton and the Democrats believed very much that WMDs were in Iraq and that Saddam had plans for them. Let's refresh you idle minds of that time when Democrats during the Clinton administration believed that Saddam had WMDs and how, because of the constant refusal of allowing WMD inspectors, President Clinton resorted to 3 days worth of missile attacks with help from the United Kingdom. Of course, all during the time leading up to the impeachment vote on the Lewinsky scandal. Lefty liberals have very, very short memories when it comes President Clinton attacking Iraq for their WMDs.....yes, WMDs. If Clinton said there were WMDs, how can Bush lie about WMDs? Are you saying Clinton purposely lied, too?

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin for the Google connection

From FAS, here is a list of links specifically designed for those "forgetful" lots when it comes to announcing WMDs to the world by President Clinton starting with Sandy Berger (gasp!) in a time line approach (also in no particular order) beginning with latest with Berger. Did you guys forget that we had UN **WEAPONS** inspectors in the first place?:


PRESS BRIEFING BY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SANDY BERGER December 16, 1998 7:18 P.M. EST -- "The objectives of this military action are to attack his weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery production capability and to attack his military capability to threaten his neighbors and, in so doing, to degrade both. And the mission will continue until such time as we believe the objectives have been completed.... there is no artificial deadline for this action. The President expressed the sensitivity that we have to the holy month of Ramadan .... But, as I say, there is no -- I'm not going to specify how long this will go on. Now that UNSCOM is not on the ground to help detect WMD and to be a deterrent against WMD reconstitution, we will seek to do, through air strikes, some of that work. And, by hitting his military infrastructure, we can reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors. If, at some point, Saddam Hussein were to decide to allow UNSCOM back in and to cooperate with it fully, that would be a welcome development. I think it is a highly unlikely development. But the fact of the matter is, UNSCOM has been ineffective for some time. ... We've learned from previous episodes that the longer the time between CNN reporting that we're thinking about acting and actually acting, the more time Saddam Hussein has to disperse his forces, the more time he has to move things that we would like not to be moved. And, therefore, the element of surprise here, of tactical surprise, was extremely important .... what the United States says matters in the world. And the credibility of our word, and the fact that we will carry out what we say we will do, is important."

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT CLINTON December 16, 1998 6:00 P.M. EST -- Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

STATEMENT BY PRESS SECRETARY JOE LOCKHART White House Briefing - December 16, 1998 5:10 P.M. EST -- At the direction of the President, United States military forces have launched a substantial military strike against Iraq.


DoD News Briefing December 16, 1998 -- Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen [Also participating in the briefing was Gen. Henry H. Shelton, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has clear military goals. We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations.

TEXT: AMBASSADOR BURLEIGH'S SECURITY COUNCIL REMARKS 16 December 1998 -- "Iraq bears full responsibility for the consequences of this military operation," US Ambassador Peter Burleigh told the UN Security Council December 16 explaining the military air strikes underway by the United States and Great Britain in response to Iraq's continued refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.

State Department Briefing -- 16 December 1998 -- IRAQ Secretary Albright's Activities/Meetings/Contacts with Foreign Ministers / Congress Chairman Butler's Report/Iraqi Non-Compliance Other Options/Comprehensive Review/Prospects for Military Action/Timing Other Countries Support/Consensus for Military Action Status of Embassy Personnel/Dependents at US Embassies in Region Middle East Peace Process and the Situation with Iraq

White House Briefing PRESS BRIEFING BY JOE LOCKHART -- 1:25 P.M. EST December 16, 1998 -- Q Joe, experts such as Scott Ritter and others have said this Butler report could have come at any time. Are you saying it's an absolutely total coincidence that it's all coming to a head on the day of the impeachment MR. LOCKHART: You were asking me a question that goes to decision-making, and I've told you I'm not going to get into that area.

EXCERPTS: GORE COMMENTS ON IRAQ STRIKE 16 December 1998 -- Vice President, interviewed by CNN's Larry King late December 16, explained why the United States felt obliged to strike at Iraq's Saddam Hussein earlier in the day. "We tried to make this inspection regime work, and Saddam would not cooperate. In fact, he obstructed the inspectors. And so we are going to take the other alternative available to us, to use our military todegrade his ability to get weapons of mass destruction and threatenhis neighbors. We'll make an assessment whenever this military actionis completed. If, at some point in the future he decides to try to continue to threaten his neighbors and get weapons of mass destruction, we may have to do it again." (IN TOTAL OF FOUR PARAGRAPHS GORE MENTIONS "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" 4 TIMES).

TRANSCRIPT: ALBRIGHT INTERVIEW ON LARRY KING LIVE 16 December 1998 -- Secretary of State Albright says there is "a military reason for having a sustained and substantial attack" on Iraq over a period of three or four days. "People were worried about a pin prick," she said during an interview on CNN's Larry King Live program late December 16. "This is not a pin prick. The effect of this is in order to degrade Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability, his ability to develop and deploy the weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors."

TRANSCRIPT: ALBRIGHT BRIEFING ON IRAQ AIR STRIKES 16 December 1998 -- Secretary of State Albright defended the US air strikes against Iraq in a December 16 briefing, but also stressed that "our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people.

TRANSCRIPT: COHEN ANNOUNCES SHARP INCREASE IN GULF FORCES 16 December 1998 -- President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has "clear military goals," Secretary of Defense Cohen declared December 16. "We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction...to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors," and "to demonstrate the consequences of flouting internaitonal obligations."

TEXT: STATE DEPT. ISSUES TRAVEL WARNING ON KUWAIT 16 December 1998 -- The Department of State late December 16 warned US citizens to consider whether they should travel to Kuwait in light of U.S. military action undertaken against Iraq and the potential for retaliatory action.

TEXT: STATE DEPT. ISSUES TRAVEL WARNING FOR ISRAEL, WEST BANK 16 December 1998 -- The State Department has warned US citizens to "consider whether they should travel" to Israel and the territories it occupies in light of the US military attacks on Iraq. It has also ordered dependents of US foreign service personnel to leave the region.

TEXT: STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES WORLDWIDE CAUTION ON IRAQ 16 December 1998 -- The State Department late December 16 issued a worldwide caution on Iraq, saying that "In light of the military operations against Iraq and the potential for retaliatory action, the Department of State urges U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad to review their security practices, to remain alert to the changing situation, and to exercise much greater caution than usual.


News Reports

THE UN SPECIAL COMMISSION REPORTS NO PROGRESS WITH IRAQ By Judy Aita USIA 16 December 1998 -- The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) overseeing the destruction of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq reported late December 15 that Iraq has not fully cooperated with UNSCOM weapons experts since inspections resumed in November and, in fact, imposed new restrictions on the commission.

US/IRAQ ATTACK Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- THE UNITED STATES HAS LAUNCHED A MILITARY ATTACK AGAINST IRAQ FOR BAGHDAD'S FAILURE TO ALLOW UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS TO CARRY OUT THEIR WORK. THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE AT ABOUT 5:08 P-M (WEDNESDAY) FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

CLINTON / IRAQ ATTACK Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS DEFENDED HIS DECISION -- IN A TELEVISED ADDRESS TO THE NATION -- TO USE FORCE AGAINST IRAQ, AND INDICATED THE TIMING OF THE ACTION WAS NOT LINKED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT VOTE AGAINST HIM THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY.

U.S. launches 'substantial' air strike against Iraq : 16 Dec 1998 (AFPN) - U.S. forces launched a "substantial" air strike against Iraq in the early morning hours of Dec. 17, responding to Iraqi resistance to U.N. weapons inspections.

U.S.-UK MILITARY STRIKE PUNISHES IRAQI PATTERN OF OBSTRUCTION By Jacquelyn S. Porth USIA 16 December 1998 -- Secretary of Defense Cohen says the United States -- joined by Great Britain -- launched "a serious and sustained" military strike against Iraq December 16 to degrade Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's capability to threaten his neighbors with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missile systems to deliver them.

CLINTON HAD "NO CHOICE" IN ORDERING STRIKES ON IRAQ, BERGER SAYS By Wendy S. Ross USIA 16 December 1998 -- The United States had no choice but to begin air strikes against Iraq because the chief of the United Nations Commission in Iraq (UNSCOM) had reported to the United Nations that it "is not able to function," says President Clinton's National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger.

ALBRIGHT SATISFIED WITH WORLD SUPPORT FOR US ACTION IN IRAQ By Jane A. Morse USIA 16 December 1998 -- Secretary of State Albright says she is "very satisfied" with the support expressed by the international community for the US decision December 16 to take military action against Iraq.

IRAQ / DIPLOMACY Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- BEFORE THE LATEST ATTACK ON IRAQ BEGAN, THE U-S STATE DEPARTMENT SPELLED OUT THE REASONS FOR THE AIRSTRIKES, SAYING THERE WAS NO HOPE OF IRAQI COMPLIANCE WITH U-N RESOLUTIONS.

CLINTON SAYS "WE HAD TO ACT AND ACT NOW" AGAINST IRAQ By Wendy S. Ross USIA 16 December 1998 -- President Clinton says he ordered a strong, sustained series of US air strikes against military and security targets in Iraq ecember 16 because Saddam Hussein "failed to seize" his last chance to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

THE UN SPECIAL COMMISSION REPORTS NO PROGRESS WITH IRAQ By Judy Aita USIA 16 December 1998 -- The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) overseeing the destruction of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq reported late December 15 that Iraq has not fully cooperated with UNSCOM weapons experts since inspections resumed in November and, in fact, has imposed new restrictions on the commission.

Terrorist attack warning hikes Persian Gulf threat level by Linda D. Kozaryn American Forces Press Service 16 Dec 1998 -- The threat of a terrorist attack against U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf in the next 30 days has put American service members in the region on Threat Condition Charlie -- the second-highest threat level.

PENTAGON / IRAQ -- WED UPDATE Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- A SENIOR U-S DEFENSE OFFICIAL SAYS THERE IS ABOUT A "50-50 CHANCE" THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL ATTACK IRAQ TODAY. THE COMMENT FOLLOWS A U-N REPORT THAT SAYS IRAQ IS NOT KEEPING PROMISES TO ALLOW FREE INSPECTIONS OF PLACES THOUGHT TO HIDE BANNED WEAPONS.


Domestic Criticism

Scott Ritter on Bombing Iraq Channel 4 News Wednesday 16th December 1998 -- ..."I'm dead set against this military strike. I think Iraq must be held accountable but I think a military strike even of a three-day nature, a massive strike that will inflict grievous harm on Iraq, will not solve the disarmament issue..."

Six Senators Write Clinton, Overthrow Saddam 16 December 1998 -- Despite your clear expression of the need for "a new government" in Baghdad, Secretary of Defense Cohen has stated that you were "not calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein". Earlier, General Anthony Zinni, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), reportedly stated that "I don’t see the parts [of the Iraq Liberation Act] that make it sensible," adding that he sees no "viable" Iraqi opposition.


Domestic Responses

LOTT-IRAQ Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- IN WHAT IS BELIEVED TO BE AN UNPRECEDENTED ACTION, U-S SENATE MAJORITY (REPUBLICAN) LEADER TRENT LOTT ANNOUNCED HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT AMERICAN MILITARY STRIKES ON IRAQ - IN PART, HE SAYS, BECAUSE THE TIMING IS SUSPECT. AN UNUSUAL, SHARPLY WORDED STATEMENT, IS SKEPTICAL OF WHITE HOUSE ASSURANCES THE ACTION IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO DELAY THE PENDING IMPEACHMENT VOTE.

TEXT: HELMS SAYS SADDAM "LEFT THE U.S. NO CHOICE BUT TO STRIKE" 16 December 1998 -- Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (Republican-North Carolina) said December 16 he is "convinced that Saddam Hussein has left the United States with no choice but to strike Iraq."

CONGRESS-IRAQ Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE PREPARING FOR AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE WHILE TENSIONS WITH IRAQ RISE. IF MILITARY ACTION OCCURS, THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WILL FACE A DILEMMA OF DEBATING CHARGES IN THE CLINTON SEX SCANDAL WHILE THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTING U-S TROOPS.

CONGRESS / IMPEACHMENT Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- THE U-S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS MEETING THURSDAY. BUT MEMBERS WILL NOT BE DEBATING IMPEACHMENT CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON. THEY WILL BE SHOWING THEIR SUPPORT FOR U-S TROOPS INVOLVED IN MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ.

CONGRESS/IRAQ/IMPEACHMENT WRAP Voice of America 16 December 1998 -- THE U-S ATTACK ON IRAQ HAS PUSHED BACK THE LOOMING VOTE IN THE HOUSE (OF REPRESENTATIVES) ON IMPEACHING PRESIDENT CLINTON (FOR THE MONICA LEWINSKY AFFAIR).

Read more here