Jihadi Du Jour

With the Democratic wins yesterday, the term "Useful Idiots" comes to mind. For some background on the expression read Thomas Sowell's Useful Idiots, Excerpt:

LENIN is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as "useful idiots." Yet even Lenin might have been surprised at how far these useful idiots would carry their partisanship in later years -- including our own times.

Stalin's man-made famine in the Soviet Union during the 1930s killed more millions of people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust -- and Mao's man-made famine in China killed more millions than died in the USSR. [snip] ... very little was said about them in the Western democracies while they were going on. Indeed, many useful idiots denied that there were famines in the Soviet Union or in Communist China.

The most famous of these was the New York Times' Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer prize for telling people what they wanted to hear, rather than what was actually happening. Duranty assured his readers that "there is no famine or actual starvation, nor is there likely to be." Moreover, he blamed reports to the contrary on "rumor factories" with anti-Soviet bias.

It was decades later before the first serious scholarly study of that famine was written, by Robert Conquest of the Hoover Institution, always identified in politically correct circles as "right-wing." Yet when the Soviets' own statistics on the deaths during the famine were finally released, under Mikhail Gorbachev, they showed that the actual deaths exceeded even the millions estimated by Dr. Conquest.

Read the rest here.

Labels: jewish morons, mikhail gorbachev, military secrets, New York Times, partisanship, robert conquest, soviet union, thomas sowell, useful idiot

Socialize this!

Personalize this!

Radicalize this!

Posted by bernie at 10:50 PM Permalink || |

The New York Times is breaking the news that sensitive documents captured when Saddam Hussein was toppled. The documents outline in detail plans for building nuclear weapons. They also reveal Saddam's connections with Iran and various terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Here's the NYT article.

The New York Times and others seem to be attempting to use this information as a slam on the Bush administration immediately before the mid-term elections. Their argument is that this documentation should never have been put on the internet. They are right. Only it was Congress that authorized their release to the internet.

The part they seem to be overlooking is that this intellegence is irrefutable proof that Saddam Hussein's regime was, indeed, had nuclear ambitions and was actively pursuing nukes. It also provides proof that Saddam Hussein's regime did have a connection with al-Qaida.

It proves there was a legitimate reason to go into Iraq, aside from the reasons that I personally think were reason enough. For instance, having a standing army in the middle of the Middle East.

I think what they are saying is that the Bush administration lied about WMDs before he told the truth about WMDs.

The New York Times, along with John Kerry, the talking heads I'm hearing on television right now, and all the rest of the effete elite hold middle Americans in complete contempt.

They are so wrapped up in their own agendas that they don't seem to realize that the big bombshell is that the intelligence documents were on the internet as opposed to that Saddam Hussein was connected with al-Qaida and other enemies of the United States and was in the process of building a nuclear bomb.

hat tip: In the Bullpen

see National Review Online

Mensa Barbie says this isn't new news. She remembers the New York Times' proclivity for publishing dangerous leaks that breach national security.

Captain's Quarters has a thorough expanation of the intelligence and a points out some of the highlights of the NYT article:

That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.

Ray Robinson has a vivid reminder of Saddam's violent reign and an excellent run down of the Iraqi documents.

MVRWC

Yes, the New York Crimes is friggin’ insane. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and was plotting to build an atomic bomb, but the Bush Administration is bad because those plans ended up online and could help Iran. Iran, who of course is only interested in nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes.” Allllll-righty then.

Theodore's World

But see ... the problem with the NYT thinking (beyond the obvious fact that they're traitors) is that it proves that Bush was RIGHT. The New York Times may think they are reporting another "gotcha" on Bush....but, this is THE gotcha that Bush has for all of the war in Iraq naysayers!!!

Bottom line is as simple as this, the DOCS are proof of Saddam having WMD and how he supported destruction and terrorism.

The Pirates Cove

Here's a thought. The Dems were shown to be completely wrong during the Reagan years vis-a-vis the Cold War and how to end it, which Reagan did. Of course, the Left claims it was Carter (snicker) who really ended it.

Now, the New York Times itself shows that Bush was right, and the Left was wrong. How do they spin this?

The Black Republican says Pay No Attention to the Dictator Behind the Nuclear Curtain.

Conservatives and Liberals alike are trying to figure out how the Democratic Party is going to spin this, and they've come up with some good ideas. But it still strikes me that the morsel people will take away from the story will be: "Saddam had the goods".

My question is: too little, too late? It depends how torqued up New Media can make the otherwise-uninformed portion of the populace between now and Tuesday. Go at it, bloggers.

crossposted at Blue Star Chronicles

Labels: al-Qaeda, Battle of Iraq, Global War on Terrorism, Iran, Iraq, Main Stream Media, New York Times, Nuclear Terrorism, Nuclear Threat, politcs, Saddam Hussein, Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMDs