The New Republic Finally Retracts Baghdad Diarist

The New Republic has finally retracted its Baghdad Diarist, Scott Beauchamp, stories amid a floodgate of excuses and without actually admitting the stories are lies…

Notice Foers qualifiers for the retractions, they are standing by the stories, but…

My favorite it that his wife was the editor of the last piece Beauchamp wrote, and in hindsight TNR realizes this may have been a conflict of interest…

Well the next step if for Foer to admit that the stories were lies and that they were published with one intent, apply political pressure. After that Mr. Foer can openly admit that the results of stories like these is to the harming of our troops who serve abroad.

I really doubt mr Foer is going to do either, however I think every soldier serving in Iraq should file a libel/slander suit against TNR.

Bombshell…TNR ‘fesses up: The Beauchamp stories are bullcrap

By Michelle Malkin • December 1, 2007 03:48 PM

A Christmas gift for the staff of TNR, courtesy of Borderpundit:

1fog.jpg

***
Well, well, well. Ready for your weekend schadenfreude? At long last, TNR ‘fesses up to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle. In an act of grace and professionalism, the magazine has thanked its critics and apologized to the military. No, just kidding about the thanking and apologizing part.

Read the whole thing here and watch TNR’s defenders (and advertisers) weep. The maxi-mea culpa runs more than 10 pages and thousands and thousands of words (self-pitying, rationalizing, messenger-blaming), but this is the belated bottom line: The Beauchamp stories are bullcrap. Franklin Foer’s conclusion:

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

Buh-bye, Franklin Foer.

Stay tuned for more…

Update: Pay special attention to this admission in Foer’s windy piece…

Fact-checking is a process used by most magazines (but not most newspapers) to independently verify what’s in their articles. Beauchamp’s anonymity complicated this process. Because we promised to protect his identity, we were reluctant to call Army public affairs to review his claims. What’s more, the fact-checking of first-person articles about personal experiences necessarily relies heavily on the author’s word and description of events.

But there was one avoidable problem with our Beauchamp fact-check. His wife, Reeve, was assigned a large role in checking his third piece. While we believe she acted with good faith and integrity–not just in this instance, but throughout this whole ordeal–there was a clear conflict of interest. At the time, our logic–in hindsight, obviously flawed–was that corresponding with a soldier in Iraq is logistically difficult and Reeve was already routinely speaking with him. It was a mistake–and we’ve imposed new rules to prevent future fact-checking conflicts of interest.

It was blogger Ace of Spades who first reported on this gobsmackingly obvious conflict of interest and pushed it persistently. He and others were derided as “ludicrous.”

Who’s ludicrous, now?

Update: Foer discloses an instant-message exchange with Beauchamp about the non-existent disfigured civilian female contractor whom Beauchamp claimed he had taunted while on the battlefront in Iraq–supposedly a sign of how war dehumanized him and his fellow soldiers. When challenged, you’ll recall, Beauchamp then claimed that it happened in Kuwait. Before he had gone to war. Here’s the moment of emblematic moment of discovery:

tnr: where did you see the crypt keeper?

Beauchamp: are you there?

tnr: yes

Beauchamp: the last thing i got was “where did you see the crypt keeper”

tnr: yes

Beauchamp: the dfac on falcon or chow hall, as it IS commonly called

tnr: what about kuwait?

Beauchamp: brb [be right back]

Nine minutes of silence

tnr: you there?

Ten minutes of silence

Beauchamp: ok just did a sworn

statement

tnr: about?

Beauchamp: saying that i wrote the

articles

tnr: ok

Beauchamp: theyre taking away my

laptop

tnr: fuck is this it for communication?

Beauchamp: yeah and im fucked

tnr: they said that?

Beauchamp: because you’re right the crypt keep WAS in Kuwait

FUCK FUCK FUCK

***

Update: Check out the comments section at TNR. Scorching…

“When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.” So you took 15 PAGES to say that you were WRONG, and even then lacked the courage to actually confess to error. You long ago added intellectual cowardice, to the usual helpings of intellectual dishonesty, but did you really have to take 15 pages to so clearly prove the points made by your opponents. Could you not simply have said — “We screwed up. We apologize.” Guess not. And I really appreciated this one passage — “Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that.” That was classic on so many levels. Even better than the petty uncalled-foer, drive-by, ad hominem slur against Matt Sanchez. You must be ever so proud of that sleazy, cowardly, remark. I know I would be. Actual STANDARDS in the New Republic. Who would’ve thunk it ? ROTFLOL.

| Posted by brooklyn red
5 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
so you lied?

| Posted by Joe Humphrey
6 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
After four and a half months of utter nonsense about recanting and re-recanting and hearing from many thousands of honest warriors you spend countless words across 14 oages to finally admit that you are standing down from drom the Beauchamp fables. Amazing, simply amazing! You should be ashamed.

| Posted by Chris Christner
7 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
You broke every rule of journalism and in the process slandered our military. At the very least you owe them an apology. If you had a shred of integrity and respect for the reputation of TNR, you’d also submit your resignation. It’s obvious that you waited until the last possible moment to retract Beauchamp’s stories, only doing so now because the new TNR book on Election 08’s just come out. However, regardless of your blame-the-messenger retraction, the Beauchamp affair is still going to hammer your book’s credibility along with that of TNR. As it should.

| Posted by George Croft
8 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
The real culprits are your editors and your management. The anti-soldier stories were “just too good to check” and you eagerly went to press with pure garbage from an anonymous, lying, neophyte writer. Don’t dare blame it all on Beauchamp. He just created the garbage. YOU SERVED IT UP. George Croft Argyle, TX

| Posted by Suspended Disbelief
9 of 72 | warn tnr | respond
Congratulations. You’ve reached the conclusion that the rest of us reached months ago. Good luck with the upcoming staff purge and loss of advertisers.

Flashback: Just wanted to remind you of Foer’s pathetic attempt to “control the story” as exposed in the Army transcripts leaked in October. It’s all about the CYA at TNR:

1silence.jpg

***
Instant reax:

Patterico: “I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the fallout. In fact, I think it may be just beginning.”
Bob Owens (update – and more from Bob at PJM)
Allah and Bryan
Glenn Reynolds

And watch for reax from Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, who started the ball rolling and endured much abuse from the TNRites and the nutroots for calling B.S. and tapping open-source intelligence in the blogosphere–especially among milbloggers–to expose the lies, distortions, and attempted cover-up.

More:

Scott Johnson at Power Line dubs TNR’s evasion and blame avoidance “The Fog of Foer.”
Dan Riehl notes Foer’s snitty ad hominem on Matt Sanchez.
Q&O: TNR pulls the eject handle
Karl at Protein Wisdom rips Foer for continued lack of disclosure:

Foer complains about leaks from the Army, but further fails to inform TNR’s readers of the results of the Army’s official investigation, which found, for example, that Beauchamp admitted he did not witness the targeting of dogs and saw only animal bones near Combat Outpost Ellis (except to imply that Beauchamp was coerced into the latter, though even TNR’s version carefully leaves open the more likely possibility that it was only animal bones).

Foer now admits that having Beauchamp’s wife, Elspeth Reed, fact-checking one of his stories was a conflict of interest, but he fails to note that Foer himself injected her plea for Beauchamp to stand by his stories into a September phone call between TNR editors and Beauchamp – which reads much more like pressuring Beauchamp than any of Foer’s innuendo about the Army – even while admitting doing so put him in an “awkward” position. And while Foer reassures TNR readers there are new policies in place to prevent this in the future, he does not mention that Reeve is apparently no longer in the employ of TNR.

Foer also engages throughout in addressing the suspect stories in a disjointed, fragmented narrative, which allows him to avoid having to account for what Beauchamp actually wrote. For example, Foer never states whether TNR has any confidence at all that Beauchamp saw a “Saddam-era dumping ground,” though even TNR’s prior statements on the case suggest that they know it was not.

Of course, at this point, no one had any reason to believe that TNR would be any more straightforward in its modified limited hang-out than it was in its Potemkin re-reporting or its initial publication of the Private’s fables. The only real surprise was that they did even this much, rather than remaining in their bunker, hoping memories of the smears they published would fade. Had Foer chosen to be more open and honest with its readership — even at this late date – I could have offered more than the sound of one hand clapping.

Is Hillary Clinton a Tricky Dick

Robert Novak is standing by his claims that the Clinton camp made claims that they have dirt on Obama. He does not know if they actually have dirt to smear, but he is certain that they put the word out. Yesterday the Clinton camp accussed Novak of baiting tactics and that Omaba took the bait, Novak is countering that this is more like a Richard Nixon scheme, where he made false claims against enemies, with the intent of manipulating opinion without having any actual dirt on the poor fellows…

WASHINGTON —  Columnist Robert Novak stood by his story Monday that the Clinton campaign is spreading the word that it’s holding back on dishing dirt on Barack Obama, and charged the Democratic frontrunner with playing “Nixon tricks.”

Novak, a FOX News contributor, added that he did not believe there were any Republicans behind the effort — as some have alleged since his column was published Saturday — to force Democrats to fight against each other.

Novak’s initial report said: “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information” about Obama, “but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.”

On Monday, Novak told FOX News that claims that there is actual dirt on Obama might not pass the sniff test.

“This is very similar to the kind of trick that Richard Nixon used to pull, where he would say, ‘I know some very bad information about the communists supporting George McGovern, but I can’t put that out because it wouldn’t be right, but I’m just too good of a guy,’ ” Novak said.

A message left seeking comment from a Clinton campaign spokesman was not immediately returned.

Novak also said he still had no proof that there really is scandalous information about Obama, only that he’s certain that Clinton’s campaign told well-connected Democrats that they had such information.

“Now whether there is any such scandalous information, I don’t’ know, but what I know is I’m confident in my sources, who I trust. We’re told this by Clinton people that there was such information out.”

Obama responded angrily after Novak’s column was published, challenging Clinton’s campaign to come forward with the information, if it exists.

“Sen. Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none. She of all people, having complained so often about the politics of personal destruction, should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics.”

He also denounced the attacks as reminiscent of the “Swift boat” campaign against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, in which his supporters say his military record was attacked with unsubstantiated reports by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group.

Clinton’s campaign has denied any knowledge of the story, and suggested that Republicans might be behind the report. Novak is a conservative columnist.

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said Saturday that Obama was “walking right into a Republican trap.”

But Novak said the claims of Republican involvement are unsubstantiated.

“The whole method of the Clinton campaign is when anything derogatory comes up, they say the Republicans are spreading it. But there was no Republicans involved in any of my reporting on this,” Novak said Monday.

Novak also suggested that Obama could use the information to his advantage, especially in the heated primary battle in Iowa, where Obama and Clinton were statistically tied in polls last week.

“Senator Obama’s only hope is to portray Sen. Clinton as a manipulative, almost Nixonian-type of candidate who would do anything to win and can’t be trusted. Obviously, Senator Obama is in a different position — he must win in Iowa,” Novak said, but, “Iowa caucus-goers might be put off by any kind of allegation of dirty tricks on the part of the Clinton campaign.”

Solar Cycles, Seasonal CO2 Levels, Not Humans – Global Warming

I wonder what Al Gore has to say about this article which clearly shows the cyclical nature of “Global Warming”. As usually the liberal media has surpressed another scientific piece of evidence against Gores assertations that Global Warming is caused by Humans solely.

Moderators note: This is reposted from an essay that Jim sent to me. Jim was the State Climatologist for California for many years, and still does consilting work for the Californiua Dept. of Water Resources on rainfall studies. Jim has a command of simplicity in presentation, as you’ll read below. Jim’s presentation lends some insight into why CO2 increases lag temperature in historical and proxy climate records. Jim has also done another essay I’ve posted which relates The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Sunspots, and Length of Day variances to rainfall patterns in California which you can read here.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Variation
Jim Goodridge
California State Climatologist (retired)
jdgoodridge [at] sbcglobal dot net

11/3/2007

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is commonly modeled with the measurements from NOAA”S Mauna Loa observatory; the annual rate of increase in this data set is 1.4 parts per million.

mauna_loa_co2_trend.png

This increase fluctuates 6.3 ppm on an annual cycle with the highest in May and the lowest values in October.

mauna_loa_co2_yearly_var.png

The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is listed in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as a
declining function of temperature.

co2-h2o_solubility.png

The rising values of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the time of the Mouna Loa measurements could clearly be a function of reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans of the Planet.

The source of heat needed to drive the increasing carbon dioxide from the oceans of Earth into the atmosphere is the Sun. The solar irradiance has been measured from orbiting satellites since 1978. Irradiance was highly correlated with the historic sunspot numbers.

solar_irradiance.png

Schove’s index of sunspot numbers dated from the year 1500. Combining Schoves index with the Royal Belgium Observatory’s measurements an index 1749 a 500-year index of irradiance was developed.

solar_irradiance_departure.png

If we are to believe that the irradiance and sunspot numbers correlate for the 3 sunspot cycles from 1975 to 2005 them it can be assumed that a correlation for the 1500 to 2005 follows. It is common to think of individual sunspot cycles to be independent events. This was not the case during the Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity from 1650 to 1710 when Earth was in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

The sunspot record needs to be examined in its entirety rather than as individual sunspot cycles. The method to do this is by calculating the accumulated departure from the average of all the sunspot numbers of the entire 500-year index. This reveals the cooling during the Maunder Minimum and the current “global warming”. The current warming of 15 watts per square meter began in 1935, based on the sunspot record.

The reason oxygen is 600 times as abundant as carbon dioxide is due to the robustness of microorganisms. The oxygen-carbon dioxide balance on the Planet has for billions of years been a function of the photosynthesis process.

Liberals afraid to Rush the Terrorists

If the liberals in this country really had any balls they would have let our military do its job, instead they try to lam-bast a radio show host, because they can’t accomplish anything in Congress. As Unalienable Rights points out, the three loudest never severed, yet misquote Rush and propagate false news,  in order to further their agenda and take the heat off of their lack of support for our troops.

Democrats: Soft on terrorists, hard on Rush Limbaugh

The Senate has become an increasingly ugly place under Democrat “leadership”, with Democrats trying to replicate all the class of their sleazy, dishonest nutroots supporters. This may be good for fund-raising, but it is not good for the nation. They ought to be ashamed, if only they had any shame.

On Monday, Senators Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama (all three who incidentally avoided serving in the military. Chickenhawks!), along with 38 other Senate Democrats, attacked radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for allegedly insulting members of the U.S. military, based on an utter falsehood, a totally out of context quote spread around by left-wing propaganda website (and Clinton ally) Media Matters (The transcript of Limbaugh’s original comments is here).

Senator Tom Harkin, who ironically has engaged in repeated fabrications about his own military service, clearly a man with no class or honor, decided to take a mean-spirited, compassionless, low-blow shot at Mr. Limbaugh’s past problems with addiction to prescription painkillers, proving only once again that liberal claims of compassion and tolerance are a total fraud.

If only the Democrats had as much interest in defeating al Qaeda as they do in defeating conservative talk radio hosts.

Baghdad Diarist Story Still Not Retracted

The New Republic still has not retracted its stories  or lies about the authenticity of the Baghdad Diarist. They have now been caught on their claim that Beauchamp has been cut off from the world and not allowed to communicate with anyone by the Army. Yet another story buried by the Mass Media.

Snorting at The New Republic, take two: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is not incommunicado

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 5, 2007 08:05 AM

the new republic
Sinking ship

Paging Franklin Foer, paging Franklin Foer….

Contrary to The New Republic’s claim that fabulist Scott Thomas Beauchamp is forbidden by the military from contacting the magazine or any other media or anyone else in the outside world, Blackfive blogger Laughing Wolf, embedded in Iraq, met face-to-face with him. LW writes that “he is not being held incommunicado in an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney.”

Bob Owens is waiting, waiting,waiting:

Just how long does it take to pen a retraction?

I only ask because it’s been roughly a month since The New Republic had their first solid chance to interview Scott Thomas Beauchamp since he returned from duty at COP Ellis.

Since then, he’s been online–hence, available–at least several days every week, including today. Beauchamp even had time to talk with Laughing Wolf from Blackfive as recently as September 30. Why not TNR?

Is Scott not talking to Franklin Foer, or is Franklin Foer simply unwilling to print what Scott has to say?

Or is Foer hiding under his desk, praying for all this to just go away and hoping his advertisers don’t get wind?

***

Earlier this week: Snorting at The New Republic.

Flashback: Franklin The Duck…

Bush Anzar Memo Without the Liberal Mis-Translation

Pajama Media has performed an actual translation, not a comptuer literal translation, and is reporting that the liberal spin that has been put on it, in order to call for Impeachment of Bush, is completely inaccurate and a lie. What else is new from the liberal left or the liberal media.

Juan Cole is calling for the impeachment of George Bush over the transcript of a private conversation the President had with former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar in 2003. But startlingly enough, it could be the exoneration of Bush. PJM’s senior editor Jose Guardia translates the memo in its entirety from Spanish and comments.

by Jose Guardia

Much is being made of the scoop by Madrid’s daily El País of the – until now top secret- transcript of a conversation between Bush and Spain’s former PM Jose Maria Aznar during their meeting in Crawford in March 2003 as the Iraq war was about to start. Editor & Publisher has a machine translation, which is quite atrocious. If you can read Spanish, the full text is here.

Several areas of interest emerge in this memo, but perhaps the most interesting is this part concerning negotiations being conducted with Saddam. Bush told Aznar:

“The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.”

All the information on WMDs? What would that imply to Bush and to Aznar? And this was coming from Egyptian Intelligence in direct communication with Saddam. Wouldn’t the normal person assume from that that Saddam had WMDs or at the very least was seriously engaged in creating them? Why would he wish to preserve this information if he didn’t have any forbidden weapons programs is something that war critics should reconcile. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this leak will now stop saying that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Can’t have it both ways. But I won’t hold my breath.

That is the astonishing revelation in the memo, but Bush’s critics entirely ignore it.

The part being ballyhooed by them is that Bush was planning to go into Iraq under any conditions.

But even that is wrong. What the transcript doesn’t say in accurate translation, no matter the headlines, is that Bush was going to invade even if Saddam complied. What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not – many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.

Here’s the relevant section:

Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on I’ll try to use the softest rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that by then Saddam is dead or has flown. But these possibilities won’t exist until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there are big chances that he’ll get killed.We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do with great precision and focalizing our targets to the biggest degree possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. … We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are working already in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.

If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war as much a possible; that they were concerned of its human toll and that they were quite confident that they would obtain a second resolution. It was the threat that they would act if there wasn’t a second resolution that made them quite confident that there would be one.

At one point Bush explicitly says: “I don’t want war. I know what wars are like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wifes of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.” That doesn’t sound like someone hell-bent to going to war no matter what.

Both Bush and Aznar showed they wanted to work with allies; Bush even wanted to soften the rivalry with Chirac, thinking he was being ill-advised. He even asked Aznar to send the French president his best wishes, since Aznar was going to meet him in the next days.

This is the gist of it. Clearly this is not an equivalent to the Downing Street memo, but a leak from a Zapatero administration official to a friendly, anti-Bush, anti-Aznar newspaper in the hope of embarrassing the two, and atrociously translated to make it all look worse. But I’m sorry to say they only embarrassed themselves. No matter how much you spin it, the transcript shows exactly the opposite of what critics think it says. In layman’s terms, they got hoisted by their own petard.

Full text of the top secret transcript of the conversation between US President George W. Bush and Spain’s Prime Minister José Maria Aznar at Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, as printed in the Madrid daily newspaper El País on September 26, 2007 (translation: José Guardia)

President Bush: We are in favor of pursuing a second resolution by the Security Council, and we would like to have it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [March 24 or 25, 2003].

PM Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum of the EU Summit resolution [in Brussels on Monday, February 17, 2003]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.

Bush: It could be on Monday afternoon, considering the time difference. Next week, in any case. We envision a resolution that doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that doesn’t mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to comply with his obligations. Such a resolution could be voted for by many. It would be similar to the one for Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].

Aznar: Would it be submitted to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?

Condoleezza Rice: Actually, there wouldn’t be a parallel declaration. We are thinking about a resolution that is as simple as possible, without many details about compliance that could be used by Saddam Hussein as steps not to comply. We are talking with Blix [chief of UN inspection] and others in his team about items that could be in the resolution.

Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.

We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.

Aznar: It’s very important to have that second resolution. It will be very different to act with or without it. It will be very advisable to have a sufficient majority in the Security Council backing that resolution. In fact, having that majority is more important than whether some country vetoes. We think that the resolution should, among other things, clearly state that Saddam Hussein has squandered his opportunity.

Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better to mention than “the necessary means.”

Aznar: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, hasn’t disarmed – we should summarize all his non-compliance and make a more elaborate message. That, for example, would allow Mexico to change [its opposition].

Bush: The resolution will be made in a way that can help you. I don’t care much about the actual content.

Aznar: We’ll send you some text.

Bush: We don’t have any text. We only have one goal: that Saddam must disarm. We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer. After all, he has had four months in this last stage, and that’s more than enough time to disarm.

Aznar: Such text would help us to be in a position to introduce the resolution [at the Security Council], to be its co-authors, and to convince many people to sign it.

Bush: Perfect.

Aznar: I’m meeting Chirac next Wednesday [February 16]. The resolution will be circulating by now.

Bush: I think this is a great idea. Chirac knows the situation perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it all to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is “Mister Arab,” and the truth is that he’s making their lives impossible. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We certainly have different points of view, but I’d like that to be all. Give him my best regards. True! The less rivalry he feels there is between us, the better it’ll be for us all.

Aznar: How will the resolution and the report by inspectors work with each other?

Rice: Actually there won’t be a report on February 28; the inspectors will submit a written report on March 1, and they won’t appear before the Security Council until March 6 or 7, 2003. We don’t have high hopes about that report. Just like on previous occasions, they’ll cover their bases. My impression is that Blix will be more negative now about the Iraqis’ intention. After they appear at the Security Council, we forecast a vote one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to convince that they’re complying. It won’t be true and it won’t be enough, even though they’ll likely announce the destruction of some missiles.

Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.

Aznar: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on board as possible. Be a little patient.

Bush: I’ve run out of patience. I won’t go further than mid-March.

Aznar: I’m not asking you to have infinite patience. I’m just asking you to try as hard as possible to make everything work.

Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that it’s US security at play and that they must act according to their friendship to us. [Chilean president Ricardo] Lagos must know that the Free Trade Agreement is pending ratification in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised. And Putin must know that his position is endangering Russia’s relationship with the United States.

Aznar: Tony [Blair] would like to wait until March 14.

Bush: I prefer March 10. This is like the good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t mind being the bad cop and letting Blair be the good cop.

Aznar: Is it true that there’s a chance that Saddam will go into exile?

Bush: Yes, there is. There’s even a chance that he’ll be assassinated.

Aznar: An exile with some kind of guarantees?

Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.

Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.

Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.

Aznar: We need you to help us with our public opinion.

Bush: We will do all we can. On Wednesday, I’m going to talk about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace system that you already know about, and about weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll put Iraq’s history in a bigger context. That may help you.

Aznar: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish citizens. We are changing the last 200 years of the country’s politics.

Bush: I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.

Aznar: That’s better than good.

Bush: I made the decision of going to the Security Council. In spite of some internal disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we needed to work with our friends. It will be great to have a second resolution.

Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.

Bush: I’m optimistic because I believe I’m doing the right thing. I am at peace with myself. We have the responsibility of facing a serious threat to peace. It irks me tremendously to contemplate the insensitivity of Europeans toward the suffering that Saddam inflicts on the Iraqis. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned, distant, and Muslim, many Europeans think that all this doesn’t matter. I will never forget what Solana [European High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy] asked me once: why do Americans think that Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I must admit that I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.

Aznar: He shares your ethical concerns.

Bush: The more Europeans attack me, the stronger I am at home.

Aznar: We should try to bring together your strength with the support of Europeans.

A Tale of Two Iraqs

The lies the liberal left has clung to over the attrocities that have occured in Iraq keep growing. People reporting or telling stories of the battlefield, who were not on the battlefield have run rampant. Like the Baghdad Diarist, fictional accounts making our soldiers look bad and creating fuel for the enemey, Jesse McBeth, is found guilty of faking war records. This conviction misses the most important thing, how many soldiers died because of his lies.

His sentence is a mere 5 months. Now the important thing to remember, is not only did McBeth not serve in Iraq, he was kicked out of Boot Camp after only 40 days, for being UNFIT.

Now how about a trial for all those that have reported this as being true. The media, just as with the Baghdad Diarist, did not conduct due diligence in their reporting efforts. They have slandered American Soldiers and used the media to find them guilty. They have helped recruite more terrorists, by providing the ammunition to attack the US Military.

How about people like Murtha who cried at the top of his lungs, that our boys are the evil murding bastards of the world.

How about the rest of Congress who stood by and let this happen.

There should be more trials and investigations into how these stories became Fact. The anti-war liberals have used every trick in the book to dupe the American Public, in order to gain support and pressure the Bush into withdrawing from Iraq.

These are the true terrorists. They are terrorizing the American People into complacency. They are stripping our military of their ability to act as it should during a war. They are supporting the enemy. Last I knew that was called Treason.

Five Months for POS Jesse Adam Macbeth

antiwaryoutub_mn.jpgUn. Freaking. Believable.

Jesse Adam Macbeth, told lies that may have caused the deaths of many Americans serving in overseas.

Via The Blotter: A Washington man, whose claims to have slaughtered civilians as a U.S. Army Ranger in Iraq were seen by millions on YouTube, admitted in federal court in Seattle today that he was a fake and a liar.Jesse Adam Macbeth, 23, pleaded guilty to charges he faked his war record.

“He was in the Army for 40 days before he was kicked out of boot camp for being unfit,” said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey C. Sullivan. “He was never in Iraq.”

Not only that but, he became a propaganda tool for the Enemy.

Macbeth’s story of killing men and women as they left a Baghdad mosque included claims that he was a U.S. Army Ranger and had received the Purple Heart for injuries suffered in combat in Iraq.His interview was translated into Arabic and distributed in the Middle East, said the U.S. attorney.

“Macbeth’s lies fueled hostility to our servicemen in Iraq and here at home,” Sullivan said.

But he now says he’s, “Sorry!”

The judge must believe this POS now, because he only gave him five months in prison.

Macbeth, the phony U.S. soldier who claimed to have committed atrocities, was sentenced to five months in jail.

Also See : Hot Air and Blue Crab Boulevard.