And THIS is supposed to be the "family values" party?

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives knew in 2005 that Representative Mark Foley was sending provacative emails to a male page.  Yet, they took no action again Foley, and allowed him to remain as the head of a Congressional caucus that was focusing on children's issues, according to the New York Times.

In other words, Republicans protected a homosexual pedophile. 

The silence from the religious right on this issue is astounding.  Where are James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the rest?

G.O.P. Leaders Knew in Late ’05 of E-Mail

In a recent interview, Sen. Joe Lieberman is asked about longtime friends of his in the Democratic Party (Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, etc) who are supporting Ned Lamont in this November's general election.

He says "Oh, I'll forgive them. I probably won't forget, to tell you the truth."

Oh, how noble of you, Joe! 

I'm sure that they weren't even aware that they needed your forgiveness in the first place.

And just in case you forgot, Joe: You are NOT the Democratic nominee for the Senate from Connecticut.  Connecticut Democrats rejected you in the primary.  Democrats are simply supporting the man who IS the Democratic nominee: Ned Lamont.

And for that, I don't think they need or are asking for anyone's forgiveness.

Lieberman Won't Forget

No other words or commentary necessary.  This particular passage from today's Washington Post article discussing Bob Woodward's new book State of Denial, says it all:

"The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention.

Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported. Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review."

New Book Fuels Election Year Debate Over Bush, Rumsfeld

UPDATE: Courtesy of the Think Progress website, Peter Rundlet, who was a Counselor to the 9/11 Commission, says the Commissioners and their staff were NOT aware of this meeting between George Tenet, Cofer Black, and Condi Rice.

And Mr. Rundlet says that quite possibly, a crime was committed by whoever witheld information on this meeting:

If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know. Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation — questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the Commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the Commissioners and the staff investigating the administration’s actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting. As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick pointed out, “We didn’t know about the meeting itself. I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.”

-snip-

Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. If one could suspend disbelief to accept that all three officials forgot about the meeting when they were interviewed, then one possibility is that the memory of one of them was later jogged by notes or documents that describe the meeting. If such documents exist, the 9/11 Commission should have seen them. According to Woodward’s book, Cofer Black exonerates them all this way: “Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork about the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.” The notion that both the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional Joint Inquiry that investigated the intelligence prior to 9/11 did not want to know about such essential information is simply absurd. At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/

If someone could find my country and give it back to me, I would be much appreciative.

There used to be a time when we said that even the President of the United States was not above the law; was not beyond reproach.

Well, the United States Congress made sure tonight to put the final nail in that coffin.

The United States Senate passed a bill this evening, which is on its way to Bushie's desk for the Master's signature, that will in effect declare Bushie judge and jury, and allow him to deny you, Mr. or Mrs. American citizen, indefinitely, without any justification.

The New York Times lays it out on the line in a wonderfully written op/ed.  From the Times:

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html&OQ=_rQ3D5Q26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=SHOW_ERROR (registration required!)

As if that wasn't enough, the House of Representatives tonight passed a bill that in effect wrote Bush's ILLEGAL warrentless domestic spying program into law.  The fact that the House felt the need to retroactively write Bush's illegal behavior into law, tells you all you need to know. 

Thankfully though, that bill is NOT on its way to the Emperor's desk for signature.  There are major differences that need to be worked out between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_go_co/congress_eavesdropping

I'm shocked, I tell you!  Just shocked! (Not!)

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward (who of course helped uncover the Watergate scandal) says that George W. Bush is lying to the American public about the insurgency in Iraq.

In an interview to air on 60 Minutes, Woodward, who is releasing a new book about Bush called State of Denial, says that "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better. Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know."

Woodward says the Administration has thus far kept secret the fact that in Iraq, so-called "insurgent" attacks against our troops occur an average of every 15 minutes.  He says "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces."

No wonder I didn't believe Dick Cheney when he said the insurgency was in its "last throws."

Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq

 

The Bush Administration has launched a new war, and no troops are required for this one.

Their latest war is against science.

According to the journal Nature, BushCo. has blocked the release of a report that says global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.

This is clearly an Administration that doesn't believe in science; doesn't believe in evidence.

For example, in 2004 it came to light that the White House edited a Department of Health and Human Services Report on racial disparities in health care.  They revised it to make it LESS critical of the racial imbalances in health care, than the original report.

Journal: Agency blocked hurricane report

 

 

No big shocker here. 

Portions of a declassified intelligence report state that the war in Iraq is becoming a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists.

And as the Associated Press notes, the report is at odds with the Bush Administratin's assertion that the world is safer now, because of the Iraq war.

The report says that despite the damage done to al Qaeda's leadership, the threat from Islamic extremism is spreading both in numbers, and in geographic reach.  The report goes on to say "If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."

Intel report: Iraq a ‘cause célèbre’ for extremists

President says NIE leak was political, denies war has worsened terrorism

Wow!  The President of the United States sure knows how to lift the morale of our troops fighting in Iraq.  And he darn sure knows how to comfort the loves ones of those who have died.

Asked about the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq, Bush said that when all is said and done, Iraq will be "just a comma" in history.

A portion of an interview of George W. Bush on CNN:

BLITZER: Let’s move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war–if not already a civil war–We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that’s the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there’s also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.

I'm sure Cindy Sheehan will rest well tonight knowing her son Casey died so that he might be a "comma" in history.  I'm sure this will also serve as a source on encouragement for a soldier in Iraq right now, on his third tour there.

Watch the video, courtesy of Crooks and Liars: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/bush-dismisses-bloodshed-in-iraq-as-just-a-comma

No big shocker here, because many of us in the reality-based community have been saying this for some time now.

But a National Intelligence Estimate completed in April, concludes that the war in Iraq is indeed hurting the war on terror.

The report, which one intelligence official calls "a very candidate assessment that "states the obvious," concludes that the war in Iraq has helped to bring birth to a new generation of Islamic extremist networks.  And contrary to what the Bush Administration wants you to believe, the National Intelligence Estimate says that the war in Iraq has put the United States in a more weakened position relative to the war on terror.

This really is a no-brainer here.  The war in Iraq, and especially the atrocities at Abu Gharib, have become the recruitment poster for Islamic extremists.

I would like to know, though, why this report which was completed in April, is just now becoming public knowledge.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

In an interview to air on Fox News Sunday, former President Bill Clinton FINALLY says what needs to be said: he is the President that actually made the effort to capture Osama bin Laden, while his successor did ZERO.  Nada!

President Clinton said:

"But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.  I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.  Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan -- which we got after 9/11."

The right-wing attack machine has been busy re-writing history and portraying as facts things that never even happened, relative to what President Clinton did to fight terrorism.  And now, he has called their bluff! 

Clinton faults Bush for inaction on bin Laden

Flashback to January 23, 2001: a newly Supreme Court-installed President by the name of George W. Bush witnessed the swearing in of his White House staff.

During that time, he urged his staff to adhere to the highest of ethical standards and avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing. He said "Today, everything is so promising and new. I'm hoping the day will never come when any of us take this place for granted. We must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins careful adherence with the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries define legal and ethical conduct."

Fast-forward to today. According to the Washington Post, the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has concluded that HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson urged favortism in the awarding of contracts. He urged his staff to favor friends of George W. Bush, and personally got involved with contractors he did not like, namely Democratic ones.

The Inspector General has thus far found no direct evidence that HUD staff complied with Jackson's request to favor friends of George W. Bush in the awarding of contracts.

But Jackson urged his staff to violate federal law. It is against the law to award, rescind or deny federal contracts on the basis of political affiliation.

The fact that Jackson urged his staff to violate the law, means that he is no longer worthy or qualified to hold the position of Secretary of Housing of Urban Development.

If George W. Bush meant everything he said on January 23, 2001, he would fire Alphonso Jackson right now.

Probe Finds Jackson Urged Favoritism in HUD Contracts

No Evidence That Staff Complied

Bush Urges High Ethical Standards

Hmmm.....maybe George Bush is on to something when he says the United States doesn't torture people.  His next line should have been "we just outsource it to countries that DO torture!"

Such is the case of Maher Arar, an Ottawa software engineer.  Canadian police wrongly identified Arar as an Islamic extremist.  He was deported to the United States, and the United States sent him on a rendition flight to Syria, where he was tortured.  While in Syria, he was kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months, and forced to say that he trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  But Mr. Arar has never been to Afghanistan.

It's clear that Canada and the United States are at fault here.  Canada for identifying an innocent man as an Islamic extremist, and the United States for sending this man to Syria to be tortured.

This is a perfect example of why torture doesn't work.  The proponents of torture like George Bush and Condi Rice want the American public to believe that torture (read: "interrogation") leads to valuable intelligence.  But as John McCain has pointed out, torture doesn't work, because the person being tortured is just going to tell the torturer what they want to hear; anything to make the pain stop.

Innocent Canadian deported, tortured

Mr. President, You Need Clarity? Here's your Clarity: George W. Meet Maher Arar, Please

 

Today, House Republicans passed what is tantamount to an unconstitutional poll tax.

They passed a voter ID law which will require everyone to present a photo identification before voting in federal elections by 2008.

The bill does stipulate that the ID cards must be provided free of charge to those who need them.

However, as I've noted before here on the blog, a federal judge struck down this very type of bill in Georgia.  Republicans in Georgia tried to implement a voter ID law (which citizens in the state would have had to pay for).  The judge struck it down as an unconstitutional poll tax. GOP lawmakers in Georgia revised the bill to make the IDs free of charge, but the judge in the case said it still places an undue burden on certain vulnerable populations (i.e. the poor, elderly, etc). 

Now, Republicans in Congress what to implement on a national level, was has already been deemed unconstitutional at the state level.  In short, Republicans want to keep certain populations from having access to the voting booth.  Certain populations that, just by coincidence, overwhelming vote for the other party.

This is an attempt at voter supression (which has been more of a problem than voter fraud).

House passes bill to make voters show ID

 

Just last week, George W. Bush, the man who calls himself the President of the United States, said he did not know the definition of 'human dignity.'

As I mentioned here on the blog, during a press conference last week, W said "What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation."

Now, enter Stephen Hadley, Bush's National Security Adviser. Appearing yesterday on CNN's Late Edition, Hadley said "I'm saying that nobody knows what humiliating treatment is. What does it mean?"

This is an Administration without ANY moral compass whatsoever, or any sense of right and wrong.  Whatever they want to do, is what they do. 

White House: deal possible on CIA interrogations

What are your views on Roe v. Wade? 

Did you vote for George W. Bush or Al Gore in 2000? 

Do you support the Bush Administration's 'war on terror?'

You might expect these questions to arise during dinner time conversations on politics, or in political chat rooms and message boards. 

This morning, the Washington Post writes that these very questions were asked of people seeking to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq after Sadaam Hussein was removed from power.

After Sadaam was toppled, people from all walks of life sought opportunities to participate in Iraq's reconstruction, including, according to the Washington Post, "restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers."

Before they made their way to Baghdad, though, they had to pass through the office door of Jim O'Beirne at the Pentagon.

O'Beirne typically screens applicants for possible positions as political appointees within the Defense Department. 

But when it came time for him to get involved in awarding oppportunities to participate in Iraq reconstruction, you might expect him to look for individuals who were experts in Middle East affairs, or those with expertise in post-conflict reconstruction.  NOT!  Instead, he was looking for people with expressed loyalty to George W. Bush.

Two people said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.  And what, pretell, does one's views on Roe v. Wade have to do with their ability to help rebuild Iraq?

And lest we forget, earlier this year the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) said it was launching an investigation into HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson.  During a speech before a Dallas business group in April of this year, Jackson said he rescinded a contract that had been awarded to a minority businessman, after the contractor expressed that he was not a supporter of George W. Bush.

Jackson said during his speech "He didn't get the contract. Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

It's a violation of federal law to deny a contract on the basis of political affiliation. 

Ties to GOP trumped skill on Iraq team

In rebuilding effort, loyalty to Bush administration was paramount

Inspector General Probes HUD Chief Comment

Does Joe Lieberman even know what he stands for anymore?

Last December, he was chiding those of us who disagree with George W. Bush's policies.  He said "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." (Forgive me, oh righteous Joe Lieberman, for thinking that it was George Bush who undermined his own credibility by sending this country into a war based on lies).  But that's just me.

Now, it seems like Lieberman has had a change of heart (At least temporarily.  Just enough change of heart to get him through to November 7).

Lieberman is now defending the very Democrats who he said were going to "undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."  How politically expedient, Joe!

Today, he said "It is wrong for some on the right to imply that some Democrats don't care if the terrorists succeed, or that debating the merits of the president's policies on the war on terrorism emboldens our enemies."  He went on to say "That kind of attack on the motives of our fellow Americans and our right to debate and dissent demeans the freedom we are all fighting for and divides and weakens us as a nation."

So, which is it Joe?  Are those of us who disagree with Bush's policies, particularly this failed, illegal war in Iraq, still undermining Bushie's credibility, to our nation's peril?

Or, are your fellow Republicans  wrong for suggesting that opponents of the Iraq war want to provide aide and comfort to the terrorists?  That we are more interested in seeing the terrorists succeed that we are in seeing our own country succeed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman.html?ei=5088&en=346aa183fc9fb789&ex=1291870800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate

From today's press conference:

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's -- and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

We are so screwed! The President of the United States doesn't know what "human dignity" means.

I am speechless!

Entire transcript of Bush's press conference at this link to the White House website!  Access it quickly before they start scrubbing Idiot Son's comments from the official record.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

 

With the war in Iraq, it was the Bush Administration which lied to the American public about the threat that Iraq supposedly posed to the United States.  It was BushCo. that inflated intelligence.

Now, it's the United States Congress which seems to have not told the truth, and nothing but.  This time, about Iran's alledged nuclear desires.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that a report recently produced by the U.S. House of Representatives on Iran's nuclear capability, is "outrageous and dishonest."

The IAEA also says the report is outright lying when it says Iran is enriching weapons-grade uranium.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'

IAEA blasts U.S. intelligence report on Iran

IAEA: ‘Outrageous’ inaccuracies in Iran report

House letter ‘dishonest’ in case against Tehran, official says

So, I'm reading an article on MSNBC's website about the coming general election match-up between Michael Steele (an African-American Republican) and Ben Cardin (a White Democrat), when I come across this particularly disturbing part:

'Lesser of two evils'
.J. Mackell, a 19-year-old black Democrat from the Baltimore suburb of Glen Burnie, voted Tuesday for Mfume but said he would probably support Steele and the GOP in November. "He's a nice guy. He's slick," Mackell said.

Another black Democrat, Eric Jackson, also of Glen Burnie, called Steele "the lesser of two evils" because he is black. "I guess if that's the option for more black representation, I'll vote for him," said Jackson, 37.

Okay, just so we are all clear on this: voting for someone just because they are African-American, is just as bad as voting for someone because they are White.

But even more importantly: just because someone looks like me, and shares my same skin color, doesn't mean they represent my interests or my values.

Is making sure we have more African-American representation in Congress a worthy goal? Of course, and its a goal I share. But it's making sure we have the RIGHT African-American representation that matters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823394/from/RS.1/

This commentary from Keith Olbermann, given on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, should be required reading for every American citizen.

This hole in the ground

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space.   And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Read an archive of his commentaries here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

While the planning was underway for the Iraq war, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld apparently threatened to fire anyone in the Pentagon, who mentioned the need for a post-war plan for Iraq (known as Phase 4).

According to Salon.com, Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps, told Virginia's Daily Press: "The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave."

Scheid said that he and his colleagues attempte to write what became known as a Phase 4 plan for Iraq.  Phase 4 was a plan for post-invasion operations, in the event that U.S. soldiers did not leave Iraq immediately after removing Sadaam Hussein from power.

He went on to say "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that.  We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today. He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

There's been a lot of talk lately about the "path to 9/11."

But let's talk for a bit about the path the Bush Administration took AFTER 9/11, specifically when it comes to the 9/11 Commission.

Bush was against the creation of the Commission from the jump start, saying that Congressional intelligence committees (all lead by members of his own party, of course) should handle the investigation into 9/11.

In spite of his oppostion, of course, the 9/11 Commission was eventually created.  And when it came time to testify before the Commission, W had a few demands.

- He would only meet with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission.  He would not testify before the entire commission.

- He would only meet with them for one hour.

- He would only testify if Dick Cheney was allowed to be present in the room with him.

Contrast that with former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore.  They both readily agreed to meet with the ENTIRE commision, separately, and with NO time constraints.

Now, which group of people do you think has something to hide?

Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel

9/11 panel considers Rice subpoena

This comment is utterly disgusting coming from a member of the 9/11 Commission.

This is Republican Commissioner John Lehman speaking on ABC's This Week (from this AM):

"If you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club. Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone for years."

Is he saying that this movie is essentially payback for F911?

Mr. Lehman, allow me to make an important distinction between F911 and Path to 911.

F911 was based on FACTS. THE TRUTH.

Mr. Lehman, you know that scene in Path to 9/11 that portrays Sandy Burger as refusing to give an order to kill Osama bin Laden? It NEVER HAPPENED (as duly noted on an ABC News segment this evening).

During an interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes back in 2004, Richard Clarke told of being pressured by Bush to find a link between Iraq an 9/11. And he says that the Bushies were stuck in a cold war mentality, thus not comprehending the emerging threat from Al Qaeda.

This is part of the REAL "path to 9/11." But something tells me this is not reflected in ABC's propagandist movie.

From CBS:

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

-snip-

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-02.htm

I'm a very compassionate person here.

So to our Republican friends, allow me to save you from yourselves.

Courtesy of the Washington Post, it has come to my attention that you are planning an all-out sleeze fest for the final 60 days of this fall campaign season, looking for dirt on Democrats everywhere.

Well, you've been down this road before (i.e. 1998). And past practice has shown that when you attacked Democrats on personal issues, you own houses weren't exactly in order.

Does the name Henry Hyde ring a bell for you, my Republican friends? It should. He was the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when that Committee launched impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton for a consensual sexual relationship with another adult.

If you remember Henry Hyde, you might also remember that while he was sitting in judgement of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, it came to light that Henry Hdye had had his own extracurricular activities. Yes, he cheated on his wife as well, while he was in his 40's. But he wrote it off as a "youthful indiscretion." Yes, Henry Hyde believes that when you stray from your marriage vows in your 40's, it's just a "youthful indiscretion." In other words, no big deal.

Let me drop another name on you. Bob Livingston. Remember him? He was elected by House Republicans to succeed Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House. This was in the midst of the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Well, old Bob never actually got to be Speaker of the House. You see, it was revealed that he had his own extracurricular activities too. And so he left his position.

So you see, the moral of the story is this: whether it's your personal life, or your business dealings, etc...your own houses aren't exactly a shining example for others to follow. You might want to keep that in mind as you undertake this 60 day sleeze fest.

One of the most amazing headlines I've ever read:

In a pivotal year, GOP plans to get personal

Millions to be spent digging up dirt, ‘defining’ Democratic candidates

Can you tell that the desparation is settling in within the GOP rank and file?  They are so petrified at the possibility of losing control of Congress, that according to this morning's Washington Post, the GOP plans to spend the final 60 days of this fall campaign season, digging up dirt on Democrats and getting personal.

From the Washington Post:

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall.

I guess this should be no surprise coming from the Party that has no ideas at all.  They have no solution for Iraq (note: "stay the course" is NOT a policy).  They have no plan to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and help lift people out of poverty.

And so they are going to do what they do best: the politics of personal destruction.  Amazing though, that they would even think of going down this road, when their own houses are not in order.

Once upon a time, in the year 1998, there was a President named William Jefferson Clinton.

And he was accused by some of his detractors of acting TOO AGGRESSIVELY against suspected terrorists, namely those in Al Qaeda.

Example, taken from this CNN article:

Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 by the GOP after he launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Intelligence indicated bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp when U.S. missiles were fired at it, just weeks after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

-snip-


A few months later, the accusations of Clinton's use of the military arose anew when the United States and Britain launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq. That operation came as House debated Clinton's impeachment.

Cohen testified he was called to the House on the day the operation began to defend Clinton against a "boiling" rage.

"I put my entire public career on the line to say that the president always acted specifically upon the recommendation of those of us who held the positions of responsibility to take military action," he said. "And at no time did he ever try to use it or manipulate it to serve his personal ends."

Now, the conservatives who accused President Clinton of acting to agressively against terrorists, say he DIDN'T DO ENOUGH.

From the mouth of Gov. George Pataki during the 2004 Republican Convention:

"You know the history. Osama bin Laden declared war on America -- and then came the attacks -- the first World Trade Center, the embassies, the USS Cole, hundreds dead, thousands injured. How I wish the administration at that time, in those years, had done something. How I wished they had moved to protect us. But they didn't do it."

So, I call upon our friends in the Republican Party to make up their mind once and for all. Which is it? Did President Clinton act too agressively, as you claimed during the 90's?

Or did he not do enough, as you now claim in order to provide political cover for George W. Bush?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57276-2004Sep2.html

On September 10, 2001 the super-secretive National Security Agency intercepted Al Qaeda operatives boasting (in Arabic): "the match begins tomorrow" and "tomorrow is zero hour."

However, it was not translated until September 12, one day after the United States was attacked.

Here are two questions I would like answered by my government.  (You know, the government that CLAIMS to represent me?)

1. Why was this communication not translated on the same day it was intercepted? What good does it do to intercept communication between members of Al Qaeda, if you aren't going to translate it in a timely manner?

2. The American public might not have ever know about this intercepted communication, had it not been for Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. Sen. Shelby divulged the information about this intercepted communication, to Fox News' Carl Cameron.

The Bush apologists have called news organizations like the New York Times "treasonous" for divulging details about the domestic spying program, saying it could harm national security.

Yet, why is it ok for a Republican Senator to tell someone from Fox News that we were listening in on Al Qaeda the day before 9/11? And that we did not translate their communication until the day after the attacks?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40886-2004Aug4.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/06/20/zero-day-usat.htm

I bet this won't be in ABC's propagandist movie.

This is part of the TRUE path to 9/11: another goodie from Richard Clarke's interview with Joody Woodruff on March 28, 2004:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America. And had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11th, we would have acted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: He's saying he didn't have the information.

CLARKE: Well, let's contrast the performance of that administration when they had word from George Tenet that some attack was going to take place somewhere, with the performance of the Clinton administration in December of 1999 when they had similar information.

In December 1999, the president ordered daily meetings of the FBI director, the attorney general and the head of the CIA and the secretary of defense in the White House, with the national security team, to shake out any information and prevent the attacks. And they were successful in doing that.

Presented with even more frightening information, President Bush did not choose to do that, did not choose to get personally involved, except getting those morning intelligence briefings.

The principals committee, the top secretaries of the departments, met according to the Associated Press, over 100 times from the beginning of the administration to September 11th. One of those meetings, one of those meetings, was on terrorism.

All I'm saying is that this wasn't a priority for them.

It was reported that during the transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations, outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Burger arranged 10 briefings for his successor, Condi Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Mr. Burger made a point to attend the briefing on terrorism, and he told the Bushies: "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

You might think that such a dire warning would have spurned the new administration into action, but it did not.

On January 25, 2001, just days after the new administration took office, White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke (who has served multiple presidents) sent a memo to National Security Adviser Condi Rice, "urgently" asking for a principles-level meeting to discuss Al Qaeda.

He was rebuffed in his request, but FINALLY got his meeting on September 4, just days before 9/11.

Read the de-classified memo from Richard Clarke to Condi Rice here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

Other Links:

http://www.avatara.com/operationignore0.html

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001120

http://amysrobot.com/archives/2004/03/transcript_of_r.php

For our friends on the other side of the aisle, this is part of the REAL "path to 9/11." 

I wonder if that will be in ABC's right-wing propagandist "docudrama?"

But that's just me!

The past few days have been an extremely busy news cycle.  So much chaos, it's hard to put everything into perspective.  (Controlled chaos, anyone?)

Here's some absolutely required reading:

1.  Well color me surprised!  Despite the Bush Administration's claims to the contrary, there was NO link between Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda.  (Some of us might say that we knew this before March 2003, but that's just me!)

A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee confirms what many of us in the reality based community already knew: Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden weren't exactly the best of friends, and there was no relationship between the Hussein and bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist group.

The Senate Intelligence Committee examined pre-war intelligence, and it says that despite the BushCo's insistence of a link between Hussein and Al Qaeda, the intelligence community had already concluded there was no relationship.

It's no wonder the Republicans wanted to delay this report.  They knew what it would say. And they knew that it undercut BushCo's rationale for going to war in Iraq.

You might remember when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid shut down the Senate, and forced it to go into a rare closed door session.  Well, the reason Sen. Reid forced the Senate into closed session, was to demand that Senate Republicans quit dragging their heals on this report.

Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link

Long-awaited analysis also finds that anti-Saddam group misled U.S.

 

2.  Also  in the news, The Nation magazine has a wonderful piece on former CIA covert officer Valerie Plame, whose identity was leaked by members of the Bush Administration.

And, what a shocker, the evidence is unmistakable that she was indeed a covert CIA officer.  She was not some desk clerk, as some of our conservative friends in lala land have professed.

From The Nation:

In the early 1990s, she became what's known as a nonofficial cover officer. NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. They might claim to be a businessperson. She told people she was with an energy firm. Her main mission remained the same: to gather agents for the CIA.

In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with Joseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer--before 9/11--word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group.

There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists--in America and abroad--looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi émigrés to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world. Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled throughout the world to debrief them. Often it would take a JTFI officer only a few minutes to conclude someone was pulling a con. Yet every lead had to be checked.

What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA

 

It seems as though members of the White House staff were given the antibiotic Cipro just around the time of the 9/11 attacks on our country.  Of course, Cipro is frequently given to people who have either been exposed to, or have, anthrax.  And of course, the anthrax attacks occurred one month after September 11.

This begs the question: did the White House have insider information?  Did they know, one month in advance, that anthrax would be used as a weapon to kill people in this country?

From the website of Judicial Watch:

Evidence obtained through Judicial Watch and confirmed by multiple press reports suggest that White House staff had been given doses of the powerful antibiotic Cipro at the time of the September 11 terrorist attacks, one month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.

At the heart of Judicial Watch¹s investigation is the treatment of those in power versus ordinary citizens. Judicial Watch currently represents hundreds of postal workers from the Brentwood Postal Facility in Washington, D.C. It was through this facility that the anthrax-laced letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy were processed.

At the same time staff from The White House and Capitol Hill were treated with antibiotics, postal workers handling contaminated mail were ordered to continue working without medical care. Two of those workers died from inhalation anthrax, while dozens more suffer, even today, from a variety of ailments resulting from the attacks. Thus far, a total of eight postal workers have died since September 11.

JW Sues Bush Administration For Anthrax Docs
Seeks Documents About Terrorist Attack that Killed At least Five

During an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, George Bush said "One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."  In other words, as he once warned us before, he's propagandizing the American people.

Here's a crazy idea, Bushie.  Maybe you're having a hard time connecting the war in Iraq to the overall war on terror, because there IS no connection.

Let's examine the facts here.  Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on this country on 9/11.  You've admitted that yourself. 

Before March 2003 (when you invaded a sovereign country), we never heard like "The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq."  Why?  Because Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. Just in case I need to break it down to you further, Bushie, you turned a sovereign country into a haven for terrorists.  You told the terrorists to "bring it on" and they did.

Bush: 'We Don't Torture'

President Tells Katie Couric That Connecting Iraq To War On Terror Is Hardest Part Of His Job

 

 

When George W. Bush attended former President Bill Clinton's presidential library dedication in November 2004, it seems he had one thing on his mind: how a submarine could wipe out the Clinton library.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Clinton, recounts in a new book that as George Bush received a tour of the brand new Clinton library, he commented to a tour guide "A submarine could take this place out."

OK, who's with me on this one: we need to add an amendment to the Constitution that ANYONE running for President MUST be referred to a mental health provider for an examination. We don't need people THIS bat shit crazy carrying the nuclear football and having the codes.

But it seems like Bushie wasn't the only one acting weird on that day.

His brain, Karl Rove, was also in attendance. And when his tour guide joked to him "You're not such a scary guy" Rove responded "Yes, I am. I change constitutions, I put churches in schools."

At Bill library, Bush sounds sub-versive

Truly required reading for today:

1. Americablog has a terrific piece on how the GOP Congress blocked President Bill Clinton from fighting terrorism.  When President Clinton asked the GOP controlled Congress for more authority, such as conducting eavesdropping, Republicans like Orrin Hatch were flat out against it.

AmericaBlog even has the link to an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the so-called party of security and safety to give him the tools he needed.

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation

2.  Today, the Associated Press is running an article on how Republicans are distancing themselves from George W. Bush, and in some cases their party as a whole, in order to ensure their viability in the upcoming mid-term elections.

From a portion of the AP article:

Consider Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking House Republican struggling to hold onto her seat in an evenly split district in central Ohio, near Columbus.

In 2004, her campaign Web site featured a banner of her and Bush sitting together, smiling. But in her latest television ad, Pryce is described as "independent." The spot also highlights how she "stood up to her own party" and the president to support increased federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research.

Republican ads show distance from Bush

 

Good news for all of America!

According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans is at a 32-year low. Currently, 31.9% of Americans say they are Republicans, compared with 37.2% in October 2004, and 34.5% at the beginning of this year!

Meanwhile, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats has increased (albeit slightly), from from 36.1% at the beginning of this year, to 37.3% right now.

Number of Republicans declines to 32-month low

Has someone in the Pentagon finally joined the reality based community? 

The Pentagon is finally admitting what many of us have known for some time now.  In a report, the Pentagon says that conditions exist for a civil war in Iraq (well, some of us might go a little further and say that civil war has already started). 

The report, which is required by Congress, also says that overall attacks in Iraq have risen by 24% (to 792 attacks per week) and that daily Iraqi casualities have risen by 51%, to approximately 120.

"Mission accomplished," Bushie?

Pentagon: conditions for civil war exist in Iraq