Monday, September 11, 2006

A LIVING MEMORIAL * OSAMA BIN HIDIN'

As the Native Americans reminded us: "No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves."


We all have built into us the capacities for kindness and creativity and beauty. It's a matter of perspective. As Einstein said, "The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe that the universe is friendly." It's our choice.

GOD BLESS THE FALLEN HEROES. Every single one who perished, and all their loved ones, are in our prayers. WE CAN ALL UNITE ON THIS: From Carl of SimplyLeftBehind "I wanted to highlight a really ambitious project that unites blogs from across the political spectrum (even extremists like Michelle Malkin!) to honor those who died on 9/11/01" DCROE We're trying to get the word out worldwide about this, a living memorial to the people who left us. Please spread the word.

For SPIRITUAL SOLUTIONS to the world crises, along with some amazing prayer miracles in the next few weeks, please check out RADICAL PRAYER at my other blog THE PEACEMAKERS* LIGHT OF TRUTH

You can reach my Home page at: LYDIA CORNELL

"Dear Lydia, I have to share something that my wife said after reading your blog. Without sounding flakey…I’m convinced that my wife is correct and that this goes hand in hand with your statement regarding the next frontier being the center or the middle. We both have a strong internal sense of something impending that is difficult to explain. A feeling that many of us are going to be called to stand out for what is right and rescue the Constitution of the USA so that the country can get back to being a democracy. It seems like while America slept, we were slowly and silently robbed of democracy. The irony is the fact that so many people who call themselves Christian as well as conservative played a big role in America silently surrendering democracy to those who regard the constitution as a mere technicality to work around in order to promote their self-serving agenda’s. Respectfully, Dennis Taylor"

And we uncover the truth about Ann Coulter like no one has ever done before at: COULTER KAMPF where you can also find breaking news about hate-speak, extremism, propaganda and smear tactics.

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11
President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered - (Think Progress)

Like many mothers, I have an internal protective instinct and compassion for children everywhere. The minute George Bush declared an urgent need to invade Iraq, I knew in my bones this was a corrupt, sinister and anti-Christian decision. America NEVER starts a war or chooses war, by the way. And Christ commanded us to bless those who persecute us. Now an ASTOUNDING DISCLOSURE: Bush finally admitted the truth — that there were NO ties between Sadaam Hussein and 9/11, and NO ties between Sadaam and Al Queda! Why are they suddenly telling the truth now? And Cheney quietly admitted th truth on a sunday news program yesterday, that there were no WMD. So why did we invade Iraq to the tune of 300 billion dollars, 3,000 U.S. troops dead, 20,000 troops without legs and arms, and countless innocent Iraqi children dead? How can America justify this slaughter? Wouldn't our dollars and deaths be better spent hunting down Al Queda? Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, opium production is rampant and the Taliban is back in full force.




Tuesday night I had the honor of meeting both John Dean and Gore Vidal at a C-Span and Progressive Democrats event at the home of Teddi Windograd, mother of Marci Winograd. Dean's new book "Conservatives Without Conscience" is riveting, and delineates the exact same type of malicious, amoral smear-tactics and personal threats he and his wife Mo received from neo-conservatives that I have received. I will do an extensive article soon about this amazing evening.

9/7/06: REGARDING SLANDER, SMEAR AND THREATS I'VE BEEN RECEIVING: I wrote this letter to Joseph Cannon yesterday regarding the malicious attacks we've received. He posted an article about it here: CANNONFIRE threats-against-lydia-cornell

"Dear Joseph, Thank you for your support in bringing this serious issue to attention. This is how they operate and it's shocking to Democrats because we do not view our fellow man as a stepping stone to power.... There are things I haven't told anyone that have happened to us, which would chill you to the bone."

These people are are a far cry from good conservatives like Barry Goldwater and others we used to know. No peacemaking Progressives treat their fellow man this way — with personal destruction, virulent attacks and death threats. Why do certain extremist conservatives engage in such hateful tactics? How can they call themselves Christian?! I never believed people could really be like this. How sad for America.


DO NOT BELIEVE ABC's FAKE 911 upcoming "docudrama." It is a fabrication and a LIE. ABC's new mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ex-White House anti-terror adviser Richard Clarke and President Bill Clinton are demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

OSAMA BIN LAUGHIN' too. From Cannonfire: Bush vowed vengeance against Osama Bin Laden and any nation which harbored him. Pakistan has announced (according to ABC News) that the leader of Al Qaeda "will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a 'peaceful life.'" Pakistan also harbors A.Q. Khan, nuke-seller to terrorists.

Yet Bush continues to treat Pakistan as an ally, and even gives that nation aid! And ABC is airing a deceit-filled docudrama which accuses Bill Clinton of being soft on Bin Laden!

Where in the world is OSAMA? The news won't cover it, but Bush APPEASED HIM MONTHS AGO BY GIVING UP OUR MAIN SAUDI BASES. AND NOW OSAMA IS IN PAKISTAN, enjoying spa treatments and caviar. Bush has negotiated with a terrorist, not just any terrorist, but the "worst" terrorist — by letting him live a peaceful life. Bush is now bringing out his fake "terrorist" fear-based news, appearing to be the savior, right before the election. It will backfire.

Received a letter from U.S. Army Officer, 1LT Marcus Byrne stationed in Iraq. Please read his letter in prior blog below. And please send him and his troops a care package. We must hold these guys in our prayers and send them lots of chocolate! They are fighting for THEIR lives...God Bless them.

You can send CARE PACKAGES to this soldier, and he says: "Anything me or my guys dont need I try to take out to the Outposts where they cant get to the PX that often."

1LT Marcus Byrne
HHC 501st FSB
Camp TQ, Unit 92868
FPO, AE 09381

1,118 comments:

  1. Osama Bin Hidin, LOL. Now THATS funny.

    But on a serious note I might point out that I have been saying for years now that Osama was in Kashmir, and sooner or later he was going to cross over into Pakistan, where he enjoys huge support from more than half the population, and when he does he will most likely gather an army, overthrow Musharif and seize the nukes.

    I posted these exact words in here, and in TP about 4 months ago or so, and it looks like I was more right than I want to be.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While Bush and the right wing are busy telling us how "insignificant" to the war on terror the man who ordered the 911 attacks is, he is busy preparing to take over a country, its nukes, military and the hearts and minds of its people.

    If Bin Laden takes control of Pakistan and their nukes, then the right will finally have something to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clif and I have discussed this as well and we are both in agreement that just leaving a very dangerous man free to cause more damage particularly in a country with nukes is insane.

    I think Lydia is right, this will backfire on the repugs, there is NO WAY to spin this as being tough on terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clif said "I wonder if Georgie and Dumsfeld, and dead eye and condi think Pakistan is trying to appease Osama"

    I cant understand why the MSM is playing dead on this, they cover Jon Benet to death (who cares) and pakistan is harboring Osama and all the tough guy repugs who pretend they are tough on terror are silent and have NOTHING to say.

    I have said from day one we need to walk softly but carry a big stick, I have said from day one we need to capture of kill the slimy murdering terrorist who killed 3000 US citizens, if another country is harboring him WE GO IN THERE AND TAKE HIM, dead or alive, if they resist us, we deal with them as well, THATS BEING TOUGH ON TERRORISM, not invading another country that had nothing to do with attacking us.

    I am calling out all the tough talking repug HIPPOcrites and asking how they can remain silent when pakistan is harboring OSAMA, tough on terror, HAHA you guys are a pathetic joke!

    9:52 AM

    ReplyDelete
  5. BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11 MOVIE




    By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

    September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

    Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

    The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

    "The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

    The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

    Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

    The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

    Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

    Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

    ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

    "Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

    Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

    The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

    In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

    "How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

    "You don't," O'Neill snaps.

    The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

    Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

    In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

    "It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

    "I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

    "Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

    The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

    The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

    The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

    But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."


    ian.bishop@nypost.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11 MOVIE


    By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

    September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

    Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

    The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

    "The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

    The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

    Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

    The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

    Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

    Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

    ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

    "Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

    Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

    The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

    In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

    "How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

    "You don't," O'Neill snaps.

    The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

    Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

    In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

    "It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

    "I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

    "Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

    The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

    The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

    The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

    But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."


    ian.bishop@nypost.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. Clinton officials rip ABC’s ‘The Path to 9/11’
    Network calls miniseries ‘a dramatization ... not a documentary’
    By Howard Kurtz

    Updated: 9:44 a.m. MT Sept 7, 2006
    Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

    Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

    ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.
    Berger said in an interview that ABC is "certainly trying to create the impression that this is realistic, but it's a fabrication."

    The former Clinton aides voiced their objections in letters to Robert A. Iger, chief executive of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., but the network refused to make changes or to give them advance copies of the movie. They were not interviewed by ABC; it hired as a co-executive producer Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the Sept. 11 commission, but no Democratic members of the panel.

    Among the scenes that the Clinton team said are fictional:

    Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."
    Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.

    Tenet is depicted as challenging Albright for having alerted Pakistan in advance of the August 1998 missile strike that unsuccessfully targeted bin Laden.
    "Madame Secretary," Tenet is seen saying, "the Pakistani security service, the ISI, has close ties with the Taliban." Albright is seen shouting: "We had to inform the Pakistanis. There are regional factors involved." Tenet then complains that "we've enhanced bin Laden's stature."

    Albright said she never warned Pakistan. The Sept. 11 commission found that a senior U.S. military official warned Pakistan that missiles crossing its airspace would not be from its archenemy, India.

    "The Path to 9/11" uses news footage to suggest that Clinton was distracted by the Republican drive to impeach him. Veteran White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who also disputes the film's accuracy, is portrayed as telling FBI agent John P. O'Neill: "Republicans went all out for impeachment. I just don't see the president in this climate willing to take chances."

    Clinton allies have complained that advance copies were sent to a number of conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, but not to liberals. Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."

    ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate."


    their desire to spew lies and propaganda to deceive the masses knows no bounds, wasnt there another fascist who rewrote history and and used spin and lies to deceive the masses, what was his name........oh yeah Hitler, Bush and Rove learned from a master.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 5:25am. Editorials
    A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

    Do you feel outraged and betrayed by the White House?

    Do you feel that the Busheviks are more interested in using terrorists as a tool to maintain power than in fighting terrorism?

    Do you feel mad as Hell at how fear has been used to manipulate Americans in order to cover up for a failed administration in domestic and foreign policy?

    That is what the Dems should get the rest of America to feel; not to think, but to feel in their guts.

    However much we kick and scream about the outlandish, immoral fearmongering of the Bush Administration, it works. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle explained why. It’s because we haven’t strayed far from the fear of a rabbit being chased by a Rottweiler. What the Bush Administration is doing is just barking very loudly – and a lot of Americans are running for cover in fear. It’s a primal tool of demagogues that works, if it goes unchallenged.

    The Democrats need to run ads that simply tell the truth. They’ve already pulled one such add after briefly posting it on the DNC site. That sort of cravenness won’t win elections.

    Rove’s campaign of fear, and his narrative of the dastardly enemy who has to be faced down by turning America into a one-party dictatorship will continue to triumph if Bush’s real agenda and record of disastrous initiatives is not exposed directly, bluntly and in 30 second ads.

    In the spring of 2004, we ran an editorial early that urged John Kerry to come out and define Bush before Rove defined Kerry. John must have not read our editorial. Because first they stereotyped him as an untrustworthy flip-flopper, then they swift boated him. As a result of Kerry’s failure to forcefully define Bush first, he came off looking like the caricature that the Bush slime machine had made him into.

    Right now, despite the tidal wave of anti-Republican sentiment, Bush is going to gain ground with the continued repetition of the appeasement stereotypes of Democrats. This type of demagoguery works.

    The Democrats better start running ads of Bush kicking out the CIA briefer who warned him of 9/11; ads of Bush saying when asked what happened to Osama, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."; ads of Bush saying there is no relationship between Iraq and 9/11; ads of Rumsfeld saying that the Iraq War would be over in six weeks but no more than six months; ads of the broken promises about the Iraq War turning around soon and being in the "last throes of insurgency."

    We could go on and on, but you get the point.

    The American people deserve the truth. They need to feel it in the gut. Because elections are no longer won by what goes on in the head; they are won by what goes on in the heart.

    The Democrats should give it to them.

    Bush is the appeaser; Bush has succeeded in enabling the goal of the terrorists to terrorize us; Bush has failed in defeating al-Qaeda by letting them escape to and live peacefully in Pakistan. Bush has made Iran into a regional power by weakening Iraq.

    It’s time to define the Republicans as not being up to fighting a War on Terrorism.

    And that’s easy to do, because all the Dems have to do is broadcast the truth. But they have to be brutally honest and pull no punches.

    Over and over and over again. Until the truth drowns out the lies.

    And Americans feel the truth in the their guts.

    A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Strange Days Indeed!
    Most peculiar, Mama...

    Bush is Osama's love puppy: Five years after Bush vowed vengeance against Osama Bin Laden and any nation which harbored him, Pakistan has announced (according to ABC News) that the leader of Al Qaeda "will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a 'peaceful life.'" Pakistan also harbors A.Q. Khan, nuke-seller to terrorists.

    Yet Bush continues to treat Pakistan as an ally, and even gives that nation aid!

    And ABC is airing a deceit-filled docudrama which accuses Bill Clinton of being soft on Bin Laden!

    And progressive writers have yet to notice this astounding story! Can you imagine how the right-wing media would react if such a thing happened on a Democrat's watch?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey, Anne Coulter and your sweaty Cheeto-nibbling faggot army.

    You want a fight? Try taking me on. I can kick all your asses with one foot tied behind the other.

    And of course, Tall Texass is the main faggot. Cmon, redneck, why don't you cowboy up and take on a real man, huh? Or is the total extant of your manhood whining, bitch?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Carl good to have you here, we need all the good people we can get to fight the lying thugs, and your right Troll Tex is the main slimeball, he's fowlest and slyest of the bunch, he hides behind a mask of being a dopy semi nice guy but I see through his slime, he is totally transparent just like Coulter and Rove.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Question for the code pink boys.Why did'nt your kind raise all this hell when Michael Moore put out his pack of lies?Could it be you people are hypocrites?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow! Carl is a really,really,really,really tuff guy.I bet the girls at the bowling alley are impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I got a feeling that wasn't Carl.

    Didn't sound like him.

    Now I must say this again.

    Osama Bin "Hidin".

    LMAO.

    I'm sorry, but thats a good one.
    (wish I'd thought of it).

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know its amazing.

    The President announced the presence of secret CIA prisons this week.

    The same prisons he, his administraion and the trolls in here all swore didn't exist.

    Remember debating in here about 3 or 4 months ago with the trolls about whether or not these prisons existed?

    Well, looks like our "theories" proved right again, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ripping the turbans of terrorists is by far more important than the righteous removal of homo Saddam...period!

    ReplyDelete
  17. How come I cant get this blog on Firefox browser anymore???

    WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Faulty memory there worf.

    The "debate" WASN'T about wether they existed.

    It was about another "patriotic" newspaper tipping the enemy off to their existence.
    (You know, letting the terrorists know which countries were helping us, opening our allies up for attacks and ENDING their involvement in helping us. All VERY patriotic and Pro American stuff...)

    I don't remember now, but it was probably the New Yuk Slimes...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Johnny, for some reason it's dropping the "www." part. (on mine anyway)

    Double check the adress line before you try it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And puhleezeee...

    "proved right again"...

    You guys are so rarely right, we let you have those because we feel sorry for you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While I'm at it, "Osama bin hidin" was cliffys line. Of course he probably got it somewhere else too....

    ReplyDelete
  22. I thought you guys hated censorship?

    Now you're standing up for Clintoon and his thugs trying to rewrite history?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't remember Worfs side spliting hysteria when cliffy said that...

    ReplyDelete
  24. From the "Paper of Treason" (footnotes by our good friends at Sweetness & Light)

    Armitage Says He Was the Source in C.I.A. Leak

    By DAVID JOHNSTON
    Published: September 7, 2006

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Expressing regret for his actions and apologies to his administration colleagues, Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, confirmed today that he was the source who first told a columnist about the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case.

    “It was a terrible error on my part,” Mr. Armitage said in an interview. He added, “There wasn’t a day when I didn’t feel like I had let down the President, the Secretary of State, my colleagues, my family and the Wilsons. I value my ability to keep state secrets. This was bad and I really felt badly about this.”

    Mr. Armitage also confirmed that he was the anonymous government official who talked to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in June 2003 about Valerie Plame Wilson, the C.I.A. officer, in what is the first known conversation between an administration official and a journalist concerning her.

    Mr. Armitage, who has been criticized for keeping his silence for nearly three years, said he had wanted to disclose his role as soon as he realized that he was the main source for Robert D. Novak’s column, published on July 14, 2003, which identified Ms. Wilson as a C.I.A. intelligence officer.

    But he said held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. “He requested that I remain silent,” Mr. Armitage, said.

    Expressing irritation over assertions in some newspaper editorials and on some Internet blogs that, by his silence, he had been disloyal to the Bush administration, Mr. Armitage said that he had followed Mr. Bush’s repeated instruction to administration officials to cooperate with the Fitzgerald inquiry.

    “I felt like I was doing exactly what he wanted,” he said...

    Mr. Armitage said he did not tell prosecutors about his conversation with Mr. Woodward until the fall of 2005 because he had forgotten about it. Mr. Armitage said he did not recall the June 2003 conversation until Mr. Woodward called to remind him about it following Mr. Fitzgerald’s news conference announcing of Mr. Libby’s indictment.

    Again, Armitage wanted to tell the truth about this, but Patrick Fitzgerald stopped him.

    And how preposterous it is for Armitage to claim that by clamming up he was doing what President Bush wanted. How many times did Bush state that he wanted anyone involved to come forward?

    And how often did our media and the rest of the lunatic left demand Bush fire Rove and Libby and Cheney because they were obviously the leakers -- and that was what he said he would do?

    But so what? It's on to the next lie for the New York Times and the rest of our one party media. And they never apologize.

    And neither do their lickspittle lackey "prosecutors."

    ReplyDelete
  25. I see in Cindy Al-Sheehani's new book "Peace Mom" she fantasizes about going back in time and killing Dubbya when he was a child.

    How peaceful...

    ReplyDelete
  26. First of all Dolt, Clif's line was Osama been forgotten, get your facts right genius,

    secondly and most important, if your Boy Bush isnt doing anything wrong like violating international law and torturing people then why the hell does he need SECRET prisons answer me that smart guy.

    lastly that 9/11 movie is a rewrite of history to deceive people, its slimy and pathetic and only a partisan foole would support it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Everybody on coffee break or what?

    ReplyDelete
  28. We're not talking about Michael Moores movie Mike.

    We're talking about the one ABC is gonna show on Sunday. You know, the one based on the 9/11 commissions report?

    ReplyDelete
  29. And I'm sure the "secret" prisons were so YOU guys couldn't get ahold of them and make us give them constitutional rights like they were "citizens" or something...

    ReplyDelete
  30. A soldier called in to Rushes show today and had a GREAT idea for the election in November.

    BEFORE you pull the lever for a politician of EITHER party, ask yourself, "Have they made it easier or harder to catch and prosecute terrorists?"

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mike,ABC has been up front calling Path ro 9-11 a "docudrama" can you understand that a "docudrama." Jesus christ man,grab a mitt and get in the game.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I bet these scumbags told a lot of secrets while at the "secret"prisons.

    ReplyDelete
  33. really slinging the BS tonight Dolt, no one ever said they deserve constitutional rights but if its a war the geneva convention applies and they deserve due process, if they are terrorists, present the evidence and put them on trial, but no one deserves to be inprisoned indefinately with out being charged, and no one deserves to be tortured.

    and your claim that one of us would travel half way around the world to try to liberate them is so assinely stupid that it is worthy of your buddy troll tex or coulter herself.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Volt, do yourself a favor and don't bother talking to me.

    Talk against me, talk about me, you can even talk over me.

    Just don't bother talking to me.

    Unless you want to waste your time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. yeah docudrama =BS but a fairly high percentage of Americans believe everything they see or hear on tv, something you fearmongering fools know full well, they should clearly say this is FICTION and the majority of scenes are not true, but the intent is to deceive so you spinmeisters would never do that, in fact for something this powrerful that can sway opinions there should be a pause right in the middle of the movie where they say this is fiction and the majority of the scenes never happened and are not true.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "...and your claim that one of us would travel half way around the world to try to liberate them is so assinely stupid that it is worthy of your buddy troll tex or coulter herself."

    Never said any such thing Mikey...

    Strange though that you even thought of that.

    Since YOU brought it up though, I'm SURE Al-Sheehani and her commie friends Medea, Nadia and Lisa would go in a heartbeat.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I like picking my nose....TEST!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Did somebody say something?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well Mike,

    You got your wish.

    They WERE going to put up a disclaimer saying it was based on the 9/11 commissions report, but now since they're rewriting it to suit democrats, they're saying NOW that it's fictionalized and only PARTLY based on the 9/11 commission report.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I see ya Johnny.

    Didja git Firefox fingered out yet?

    ReplyDelete
  41. And Mike?

    YOU guys are the ones who keep claiming their POW's.

    POW's aren't released until the END of the war.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think so Volt. I finally downloaded the latest version of Fox(to lazy to do it before) and am trying to set it correctly!

    Funny thing is, I seem to get all sites and blogs on the latest version of Firefox except Lydia's.

    However, I played with a few options and it seems I am now able to get Sarah Rush's blog on my favourite browser...FIREFOX.

    Man, I cant stand I.E. :|

    ReplyDelete
  43. For a minute there, I thought God was ripping my turban for failing to follow his program....He's very vengeful ya know!

    Be perfect or suffer miserably.


    Obviously, He's a very hateful and violent cat...... mannnnnnn.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I don't know what caused it but today when I first tried to log on here it was dropping the "www." part. All I got was scrambled HTML.

    Then I noticed the address bar and corrected it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I dont like secret prisons...a scary process that could set a dangerous precedent.

    At least Bush told the truth!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Why all the concern over Path to 9-11? You dont think it might have an impact on the election....do you? The american people cant be that stupid,they know the libs are much stronger about fighting terror....dont they? I think that SOB Kael Rove is behind this.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mike said

    "Who cares" concerning the death of Jonbenet.

    Mike

    If you were snuffed, would you prefer people to say this about you if your murder went unsolved after ten years?

    Hence, your insignificant after a cetain period of time.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Johnny,

    You know those wacky libs, I'm sure Mikey just considers Jon Benet as a late term abortion...

    Nothing wrong with that eh?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Actually Rust, didnt a few Canadians rescue a few Americans from Iran at one point.

    Also, we declared war on Japan before you guy's did.

    Not to mention we fought the German's in Europe while Americans were exporting spam to the Ruskies.


    Hmmmmmmm.....maybe Canadians are the master race....LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Volt

    While I agree there is some media overkill concerning the case, I would never say:

    "who cares"

    ReplyDelete
  51. I know Johnny. Me either.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Well Johnny,

    Seems like a slow night. I'm gonna turn in early.

    Besides, Worf won't talk to me and I'm absolutely heartbroken....

    -Take care!

    ReplyDelete
  53. From now on I demand to be addressed as Master Moo Moo....LOL!

    JUST KIDDING.....I think...LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Take care Volt....tell your kid I said hello.

    Sorry Worf wont play with you.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Worf

    Play with Voltaire...he's very upset!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lydia, Think Progress is being attacked by hackers too, heavily.

    So heavily in fact they posted a thread about it.

    Looks like the right is pissed that ABC is editing the bs in their stupid movie, so the right wing hackers want to silence the blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Scholastic Veers from "Path to 9/11"


    Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it's dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama about the events preceding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.

    “After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues,” said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release.

    The original materials had been criticized for oversimplifications and failures to address flaws in post-9/11 policies, including the invasion of Iraq.

    The new materials, Scholastic said, will stress three issues:

    1. Media Literacy - what is a docudrama; how does it differ from a documentary; what are the differences between factual reporting and a dramatization?

    2. Background to 9/11 - what are some of the causes of unrest in the Middle East and other parts of the world that give rise to attacks on the U.S. and other countries?

    3. Geography and Culture -- there is a long history of conflict in the Middle East. How well do students understand each of the countries involved and what influences their behavior?

    "[D]eveloping critical thinking and media literacy skills is crucial for students," the release quoted Scholastic CEO Robinson as saying. "‘The Path to 9/11’ provides a very ‘teachable moment’ for developing these skills at the high school level."

    The PROPOGANDA Smear Campaign is falling apart

    ReplyDelete
  58. THANK YOU CLIF for posting this. The TRUTH can never be destroyed, because it is real. A lie has to ride piggyback on the truth. It can't exist without the truth.

    This entire administration and its sick attempts at propaganda — this is the most despicable thing they could hoist upon an unsuspecting people. How can they declare America is a democracy, if the very government put in place to protect the American people from totalitarianism, is using propaganda to prevent the truth from coming out and to win elections!
    '
    Truly sick people. They and the hackers here who think they're so clever and "cute" in trying to ruin good people, need our prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Trust me they don't want my prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Lydia that article in Cannofire was great. I liked the way they put your picture in too. Very slick.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A Letter to Ann Coulter

    Dear Ann,

    But for the murder of our husbands on 9/11, we would not have gone to Washington to fight for an independent 9/11 investigation. Our involvement in national security would have begun and ended at the voting booth, like most citizens. But for the initial failure of our leaders and elected officials to create an independent 9/11 Commission to investigate the terrorist attacks, we would not have not been forced to publicly fight for it.

    An important part of that fight required us to demand the attention of our elected officials by speaking out in the media. Sadly, in many cases, such public pressure (and its possible effect on Election Day) is needed to inspire elected officials to do the right thing. That is not my opinion. That's reality. Had President Bush and Congress impaneled an independent commission on their own, we would not have needed to lobby Washington. Likewise, had Congress thoroughly investigated the attacks and not limited its investigation into intelligence-only areas, we would not have needed to fight for the 9/11 Commission.

    We wanted the 9/11 attacks investigated thoroughly and competently so that fewer terrorist attacks would succeed in the future and more lives would be saved on the day of the next attack. When you study the events of 9/11, you learn that many more lives should have been saved, and many damages and injuries could have been mitigated. We wanted to hold the government accountable so that, going forward, our nation would be better prepared for future attacks and disasters.

    Fighting for national security--securing the homeland or wanting to make the nation safe--ought to be an unassailable objective, similar to the Amber Alert, Megan's Law, and providing body armor for the troops. Regardless of who the messenger raising these issues might be, the goals are inarguable because they are pure, true, and right. Will these issues receive more focused attention if the message is delivered by people who speak passionately because they have been personally affected? Yes, absolutely. But it's the issue that is unassailable--not the people espousing that issue. If your conservative Republican friends are on the wrong side of the issues, that's their problem.

    Ann, the Jersey Girls are moms. We have children. Perhaps one day if you have a child, you may understand the sense of duty and obligation that parents feel toward their children to provide them with a safe and secure environment, both in the present and the future. There were many, many times when we wanted to give up. We were tired and frustrated. But we didn't. The reason? Our children. We were left as their sole protectors; we wanted them to know that even though their fathers were brutally killed, they could be and would be safer living in America.

    You complained to many interviewers that they hadn't taken the time to read your book. But did you take the time to look at the Family Steering Committee Web site (www.911independentcommission.org)? You might discover that we shared some of the same disappointments, concerns, and grievances that you have expressed with regard to the 9/11 Commission. The difference is that we made those concerns known while the Commission was doing its work--that is, when it could have made a difference. Why didn't you?

    We could have used some more support back then, when we were fighting against individual commissioners' apparent and very possible conflicts of interest and the need for more hard-hitting hearings. We needed more help in fighting for an extended deadline, so as to remove the Commission's final report from the politics of the 2004 election, and a budgetary increase so the Commission could complete its unfinished work on questions about Able Danger. (You see, I did read your book.)

    But frankly, I wonder how much you really know about the 9/11 Commission. You don't seem to understand that President Bush picked Tom Kean to be the chairman--not the "co-chairman." You don't seem to be aware that Philip Zelikow was the Commission's staff director or of why that position was so important. You also seem ignorant of the fact that Zelikow had served previously on the Bush National Security Council transition team and on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. (Do you even know who the current members of PFIAB are or what PFIAB does? Probably not.) I wonder whether you even know that Zelikow is currently serving as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Special Counsel. Finally, and most important, are you aware that the White House exercised the "final edits" on the Commission's report? Tell me, Ann, how does that add up to a Democratic whitewash?
    Because I was one of twelve family members who lobbied fiercely for an independent commission, I was invited to meetings in the White House and on Capitol Hill. I testified before Congress, as well. I wish you knew about the battle that occurred behind the scenes because then you might not make silly statements such as "nobody could ever debate the Jersey Girls." Ironically, it is because we kept most of those meetings confidential that you probably don't know how nastily certain elected officials behaved behind closed doors. Trust me, we were countered, rebutted, and challenged in almost every meeting we attended. Did we go on the record about those incidents? No. We could have, and I can assure you that some of your conservative Republican friends would not have come off well.

    When I kept my mouth shut about the way a certain Republican official spoke to me merely because it would have made people in your party look bad, was I being "political"? I'm sure there are some Democrats who would say yes. Did that mean I was being manipulated by your right-wing friends? No. It meant that I had a job to do and I found no reason to distract attention from our cause by dragging people through the mud. There was plenty that I could have spouted off about then, and there still is to this very day. But I don't--mostly because my mother and father taught me to rise above bullies rather than stoop to their level.

    You branded the Jersey Girls media whores, a bunch of celebrity-seeking widows who enjoyed their husbands' deaths. Had your friends--including many elected officials in the Republican Party and conservatives in Washington--not put up a fight, and a very nasty fight, we wouldn't have needed to raise public awareness through the media. So if you want to blame anyone for our appearances on television, you should blame your own coterie, not us. We simply wanted to inform the nation about what needed to be done. And we still intend to do that.

    Earlier this year, some of us were invited to appear on television to discuss the verdict in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. We agreed to do that because the U.S. has in custody three individuals with a more direct connection to the 9/11 attacks than Moussaoui. To us, it is important to show the world that we are a nation of laws and that the U.S. can successfully bring terrorists to justice. Does that matter to you, Ann? If so, then you ought to support us in our goal of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, and Khallad bin Attash to trial. Our judicial process should hold these madmen accountable for the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.

    I am truly puzzled by your accusation that we were operatives of or used by the Democrats. We were never paid for television appearances, we did not drive around in limos, we did not have publicists or PR people, and we wrote all of our own press releases, talking points, letters to the editor, statements, and testimony. (I don't know if the 9/11 family members who chose to support the Republican Party can say the same.) At any rate, your statements are false and defamatory, although that is nothing new for you.

    As a public figure I'm in a poor position to hold you legally accountable for your lies. But I will take the time to set the record straight here. The Democrats were nearly the only people in Washington willing to help us. That is not my opinion; it is a fact, notwithstanding a few honorable exceptions, such as Chris Smith and John McCain. We worked with anyone of either party who supported an independent investigation.

    For some unknown reason--and as a seasoned right-wing operative maybe you can enlighten us--most Republicans we encountered were completely opposed to learning any lessons from 9/11. It's a shame, too. After all, the Republican Party has been in total control of Washington for the past three years. Had they made true national security a higher priority, perhaps our cities would be better protected against terrorist attacks and disasters. Again, the sorry conditions in our cities and across our nation are a matter of fact, not opinion. Please don't blame me for that failure. Assign the responsibility where it belongs.

    Similarly, one of the reasons we are still fighting for national security reforms (and encountered so much resistance in fighting for an independent commission) is that very few people actually read commission reports. They often sit on bookshelves gathering dust. Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report, along with its accompanying footnotes? Have you read the Robb-Silverman report on the Iraq intelligence failures? What about the Joint Inquiry of Congress report on 9/11? How about the Hart-Rudman report? Or even the Bremer report? Probably not. If you haven't, you should, because I think you would find those volumes illuminating.

    You have expressed outrage that few of your critics actually read your books. You complain that they merely cherry-pick your most inflammatory comments while missing your overall message. Frustrating, isn't it?
    You also wrongly accused us of being in the pocket of former president Clinton. The obvious reason for why we always directed our questions and requests to President Bush was simply because Clinton was no longer in office. The former president had no power to commence an investigation into the 9/11 attacks, nor did he have any power to effect change to make the nation safer after 9/11. That power lay in the hands of President Bush--you know, the guy who in your opinion has supreme authority.

    Ann, I don't want to get into a debate with you. It's not because I am afraid of you or your nasty bullying tactics. I'm not going to debate you because we have many, many more important issues to deal with in our country right now.
    But I will leave you with this: We live in America, the world's oldest democracy. Democracy can prevail (is that what you and your friends really fear?), but that requires hard work, as President Bush might say. Every citizen in this country is entitled to his or her beliefs, and every citizen is entitled to participate. We still have the right to speak our minds to effect change (within the parameters of the law, of course). So don't try to silence the voices of victims or anyone else, merely because you disagree with them or feel threatened by their political choices. In my opinion, your method of using intimidation and insults to "win" a debate is truly unpatriotic.

    Actually, I expect that you will continue to scream and shout and smear as nastily as you want, so long as you think that that kind of behavior sells books. But we have tackled bigger bullies than you and lived through far worse circumstances than your book tour. We're not intimidated by you. We're not running away.

    And under no circumstances will we be silenced by your "godless" rantings and ravings.

    Kristen Breitweiser
    New York City
    June 2006

    ReplyDelete
  62. Wow, I just read Kristen's entire letter.

    I love her statement here: "In my opinion, your method of using intimidation and insults to "win" a debate is truly unpatriotic."

    This applies to certain people on this blog as well. You, who keep trying to destroy all my hard work, are the lowest of the lowest.

    ReplyDelete
  63. But the republicans who tried to stop the independent 911 commission are even lower.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Kristen Breitweiser is my new hero. She has class, dignity and integrity. Unlike Ann Coulter, or any of the lowlifes I have been encountering lately.

    It's hard to follow Christ's command: Bless those who persecute you, return love for hate....but I have to.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Kristian seems to be a better Christain than "Godless" coulterguist

    ReplyDelete
  66. Looks like Bush's Democracy in Iraq is cracking into three parts.

    Draft law on ‘new’ Iraq submitted

    BAGHDAD, Sept 6: Iraq’s dominant Shia alliance submitted a draft of a new law on Wednesday to govern the division of the country into autonomous regions. The United Iraqi Alliance is promoting a ‘law of regional formation’ so that the oil-rich, Shia-dominated southern Iraq can win self-rule on the model of the autonomous Kurdish north.

    “The law will define how the regions are formed and whether it will be done by the governing council or through popular referendum,” said party member Hamid Mualla al-Saadi.

    Sunni lawmakers have vociferously opposed the draft law on autonomous regions, saying it is a prelude to a carve-up of the country, which would leave them with just the resources-poor centre and west of Iraq.

    But in recent days they appear to have softened their opposition, saying they would support the ‘administrative application of federalism’ as long as a strong central government remains.


    I wonder if this was the course he was staying?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Here's what I am astounded by: the hubris, the unmitigated GALL of anyone to presume to have more authority than the people themselves, in Iraq and here. The mere fact that Bush-Rove-Cheney-Rummy actually thought it was up to them to decide the fate of an entire country, up to them to impose their will on the people of Iraq, as if the Iraqis didn't have any will or right to self-determination, or even God looking after their interests (I mean if you're going to believe in God and say God is guiding you, then don't the Iraqis have their own divine protection? Why is it up to the Americans to determine everything for an entire nation? How arrogant of us!

    ReplyDelete
  68. DO NOT BELIEVE ABC's FAKE 911 upcoming "docudrama." It is a fabrication and a LIE. ABC's new mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ex-White House anti-terror adviser Richard Clarke and President Bill Clinton are demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
    -Lydia Cornell

    Wow talk about shamelessly attempting to poison the well! Have you libs already seen the flick, or are you merely repeating dhimmicrat talking points?

    Obviously the first attack on the WTC happened under Bill Clinton's watch, and later he was offered usama on a platter from Sudan and took a pass. Bill Clinton had eight years; George Bush had a year and a half.

    President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year. I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
    -Mansoor Ijaz

    Clinton appointed Janet Reno and indirectly her number two in the Justice Department, Jamie Gorelick.

    According to Former Attorney General John Ashcroft Gorelick helped establish the "single greatest structural cause" for Sept. 11, which was "the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents,"
    -Wikipedia

    Clinton was an especially good liar who shamed the office of the Presidency with marital infidelities, dereliction of duty, and habitual transparent lying.

    Now Clinton, a disgraced ex-President with zero credibility, is throwing a hissy fit and trying to suppress the flick which illuminates his culpability in the 911 attack, thereby ensuring that everyone will be sure to watch it.

    Libs had their turn giggling at michael moore's goofy crock-u-drama, farenhype 911. Now you're gonna hear the rest of the story. Deal, moonbats.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "Lydia Cornell said...
    Here's what I am astounded by: the hubris, the unmitigated GALL of anyone to presume to have more authority than the people themselves, in Iraq and here."

    TT: Yes, Lydia, we elected leaders in whom we vest authority and power. That is the purpose of elections. You elected a leader who would set us on a path to 9/11 and soil the White House in a situation involving an inturn and cigare. That is his and your legacy for voting for him.

    We elected a leader who would bring freedom and civil rights to 50 million people, including the right to vote. And vote they did. The percentage of Iraqi Afghani voters was vastly higher than the percentages of eligible Americans who vote.
    And you are, somehow, upset at this. Would you rather that women still be sentenced to death for being raped, for laughing, and even for voting.


    Lydia: "...as if the Iraqis didn't have any will or right to self-determination, or even God looking after their interests..."

    TT: They never had any of that then, but they do have it now.

    ReplyDelete
  70. ANTI-WAR RANT -- CHICKEN HAWK

    Larry Elder
    Thu Sep 7, 6:49 AM ET



    Chicken hawks: "cowards" who support the Iraq war, but never served in the military.

    An e-mail going around the Internet purports to list "chicken hawks," including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney and others. It includes people like myself, who applied for and received student deferments during the Vietnam War.

    Many oppose the Iraq war in good faith, believing the war ill-advised, while questioning its prosecution. But the anti-war critics' sudden respect for military service simply astonishes. Call them born-again GI Joes. When did military experience become so important?

    Former President Bill Clinton remains rabidly popular among Democrats. The former president continuously offers his opinions about world affairs, including the war in Iraq. But where were the chicken hawk accusers when Clinton ran for president? Recall that Clinton campaigned -- not once, but twice -- against two opponents who not only served, but served heroically and with distinction.

    Clinton first, in 1992, defeated George Herbert Walker Bush. Bush-41 enlisted in the Navy on his 18th birthday, and after completing 10 months of training, he became the youngest naval aviator in the war. On a mission to attack Japanese installations in the Pacific, Bush's plane was shot and the engines caught fire. Bush completed his attack -- releasing his bombs scoring several damaging hits -- then flew several miles out to sea where he bailed out, and rescuers fished him from the water hours later. Bush received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals and the Presidential Unit Citation awarded to the USS San Jacinto.

    Clinton, running for re-election in 1996, defeated Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan. Fighting the Nazis in the hills of Italy in April of 1945, Dole's platoon came under attack. His radioman hit, Dole crawled out of his foxhole to assist the downed man. Nazi machine gun fire tore into his upper right back and arm. His right arm was so badly damaged it was unrecognizable. He was not expected to live. The extensive therapy for his rebuilt arm took about three years and nine operations. Dole, twice decorated for heroic achievement, received two Purple Hearts for his injuries and the Bronze Star Medal for his attempt to assist the downed radioman.

    As for Clinton's own record, his student deferment ended in 1968 following his final undergraduate year at Georgetown. A prominent Arkansas lawyer and former judge interceded, persuading the county draft board chairman to put Clinton's draft notice in a "back drawer" for a while. But in his first year at Oxford, Clinton received a draft notice. Influential friends helped Clinton get into the ROTC -- even though he already had an induction notice -- and Clinton managed to get accepted to the Arkansas ROTC program 11 days before his scheduled induction. The military expected him to attend Arkansas Law School in the fall and begin ROTC after his basic training.

    Clinton, instead, returned to Oxford for the next school year. After the first draft lottery, Clinton's number was so high it was not likely to be chosen. Clinton then changed his ROTC reserve status -- which he had never fulfilled -- back to "ready to serve." In his letter to the Arkansas ROTC, explaining why he reneged on his agreement, he stated that he "loathed" the military.

    Clinton, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, hailed the military record of the party's standard-bearer, Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. In endorsing Kerry, Clinton stirred up the convention with the refrain "Send me" -- contrasting Clinton's own non-service with Kerry's willingness to serve.

    And yes, Kerry did serve honorably. But, according to the Harvard Crimson, Kerry first received four student deferments before graduating from Yale. He then applied for a fifth deferment so he could study in Paris, but the military turned him down. Shortly before he was to be drafted into the Army, Kerry joined the Naval Reserves.

    Filmmaker Michael Moore, former President Jimmy Carter's seating companion at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, once called President George W. Bush "a deserter." How, one wonders, does the filmmaker feel about the service record of the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean?

    Dean, during a military physical, carried with him X-rays and a letter from an orthopedist noting a back condition called spondylolisthesis. U.S. military doctors classified Dean 1Y -- a medical deferment. Yet Dean spent the next year pouring concrete and enjoying skiing in Aspen.

    Do those who call non-military war supporters "chicken hawks" wish to confine the Iraq debate to only current and former members of the military? This excludes over 90 percent of living Americans. But, for the sake of argument, let's confine the Iraq war debate to those who served in the military, active and reserve, current and retired. Polls show 70-80 percent of military personnel supported Bush's re-election.

    We are at war against Islamo-fascism. Reasonable people can debate the validity and prosecution of the war in Iraq. But reasoned debate and cheap shots are two different things.

    Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk-show host and author. His nationally syndicated radio program airs 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. PST and can also be heard on X-M and Sirius satellite radio. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his web page at www.larryelder.com.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The FOOLE said;

    Wow talk about shamelessly attempting to poison the well! Have you libs already seen the flick, or are you merely repeating dhimmicrat talking points?

    Too bad the repugs DID the VERY same thingy when a purported docudrama about Reagan was going to be aired....


    HYPOCRITS-repugs...synonyms

    ReplyDelete
  72. But spewing fictional lies IS a repug tradition...

    The tape Jerry Falwell SOLD to raise money about Bill Clinton was FULL of lies.....

    And Ken Starr had a lot of fiction he spewed about White Water....but only found a blow-job after wasting 40 million dollars....

    The repugs "claim" to be the fiscal responsible party and spend like drunken sailors on crack.....

    They "claim" to be Christian...but IGNORE the basic tenants preached by Christ.....

    They pushed(some still do) the fiction of Saddam's WMD's in 2002...

    They sent Colin Powell to the UN to read fiction to the world....

    They "claimed" we would be greeted with parades and flowers....good fiction before the war...too bad 2661 American soldiers got their flowers at their FUNERALS

    They claimed that it would only cost 1.7 Billion Tax payers dollars...too bad they were just talking about the FIRST DAY....the cost to date $312,792,815,644....

    They claimed "mission accomplished" in 2003....too bad they forgot to tell the Iraqi's....

    They "claimed" the insurgency was in it's last throws in 2004...and 2005...but in 2006 they finally want to talk about the growing insurgency....

    They "claim" freedom was on the march...too bad they forgot to add ...at the point of a gun into places like Abu Ghraib..and Gitmo......

    Repugs claim a lot, and use fiction to support their claims... so why should ABC not use fiction to aid them in their "fictional" truths?

    ReplyDelete
  73. PNAC neo-con REPUGS...good christian HYPOCRITS( and sometimes just outright liars also)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Clif, name five lies from Ken Star's report.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Tiny Gaharan inTexan said;

    Former President Bill Clinton remains rabidly popular among Democrats.

    He was a rather good president unlike the foole who dead eye uses for a frontman

    The former president continuously offers his opinions about world affairs, including the war in Iraq.

    which he supports BTW


    But where were the chicken hawk accusers when Clinton ran for president?

    Clinton NEVER promoted a pre-emptive INVASION...stupid...a chicken Hawk is somebody like YOURSELF a repug idiot who was too gutless to serve(when they could have volunteered) but now advocates others do now, especially in a Illegal war like Iraq is.


    Recall that Clinton campaigned -- not once, but twice -- against two opponents who not only served, but served heroically and with distinction.

    GWHB so disconnected from the American people that sometimes it was hard to tell who was aflicted with the brain wasting disease..Reagan..or Bush 41, and Bob Dole...a man who makes Gore look exciting.....falling off the stage just before the election didn't help his cause either.


    Larry's REAL problem was CLINTON WON TWICE.....

    ReplyDelete
  76. NOT the report STUPID the propoganda he wasted the 40 million on...for over 6 years....the report is not the problem...the unending investigation when HE knew he had squat...but was still fishing. The blow hjob was the best thing that ever happened for him...AND YOU KNOW IT foole

    ReplyDelete
  77. Wanna know WHY the repugs need fiction like ABC is gonna show for them, well reality has a way of making fiction the only way repugs can claim any real accomplishments good nowadays

    A massive suicide car bomb very near the US embassy embassy in Kabul has left at least 3 dead, including Coalition soldiers.

    The resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan have begun actually taking and holding territory from time to time in the south.

    On Monday, Taliban had deployed a bomb that killed 17 in an attempt to kill the local police chief.

    Just a few days ago, They killed 4 Canadian troops and injured 9.

    Afghanistan's poppy crop is up 40% this year over 2005, posing severe problems of narco-terrorism on the Colombian model.

    Some observers think the Taliban are taking back over southern Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "clif said...
    NOT the report STUPID the propoganda he wasted the 40 million on...for over 6 years....the report is not the problem...the unending investigation when HE knew he had squat...but was still fishing. The blow hjob was the best thing that ever happened for him...AND YOU KNOW IT foole

    7:33 AM"

    Kind of like the Fitzgerald fiasco. He knew that Armitage was the leaker from Day One, foole.

    You got suckered into that one.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Afghanistan is especially important to Washington because it is the only plausible way to bring natural gas down from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. The Turkmenistan alternative is being used to push Delhi away from any flirtation with an Iranian pipeline.

    As Afghanistan falls again into substantial chaos, India is being forced to reconsider, and to seek to draw on Iran's Yadavan fields, with a pipeline coming down through Pakistani Baluchistan and over to the Indian border.

    The turn for the worst in Afghanistan may explain the sudden warming of relations between Delhi and Tehran. Indian PM Manmohan Singh called up Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and stressed the need to fast track the pipeline project, which had seemed dead earlier this summer. (Last spring the pro-Iranian minister of petroleum had been fired, and some assumed it had been in part as a result of American pressure).

    By deserting Afghanistan to run off to war in Iraq, Bush ensured that it would risk falling again into social turbulence, and thus helped seal the fate of the Turkmenistan pipeline through Herat (wouldn't the Taliban just blow it up?)

    In turn, that may have ensured that Iran would be able to sidestep US sanctions by dealing, not only with China, but also with India.

    And that may mean that Bush let the big fish get away by getting bogged down in Iraq, which is turning out not to be any prize for him, either.

    It is like the Aesop's Fable where the dog with a piece of meet in its mouth crosses a bridge and sees its reflection, and hungers for the reflected meat, but in grabbing at the mirage, drops the piece already in its mouth, and ends up with nothing.

    From Juan Coles Blog also

    ReplyDelete
  80. Looks like the idiot in chief blew it again, but in this blow job..no body feels better and we all lose again.

    Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal

    The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.

    (snip)

    But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

    Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”

    Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the judge advocate general of the Army, made the same point, and Rear Adm. Bruce E. MacDonald, the judge advocate general of the Navy, said military law provided rules for using classified evidence, whereby a judge could prepare an unclassified version of the evidence to share with the jury and the accused and his lawyer.

    Senate Republicans said the proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence was one of the main points of contention remaining between them and the administration.

    “It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”

    ReplyDelete
  81. Tiny Garahan inTexan said;

    Kind of like the Fitzgerald fiasco. He knew that Armitage was the leaker from Day One, foole.

    No son there was MORE than ONE preson talking to the press, and since the CIA asked the Justice Departmenmt to check it out a GOOD prosecutor like Fitz..would talk to EVERYONE involved, before forming an opinion as to what really happened...too BAD LIBBY LIED to him eh?

    ReplyDelete
  82. And there was Roves statement that Plame was fair game...which make the outing seem calculated..which means a political hack job, which is all rOVE IS REALLY GOOD AT.

    ReplyDelete
  83. So al Qaida -- or what's left of it -- releases a five-plus year old tape of bin Laden with two of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the baddies just transfered to Gitmo. Right in time for the president's big kangaroo court role out.

    If you didn't know that bin Laden and Bush were the two polar opposites in the global battle between good and evil, you'd think the two were coordinating their media blitzes.

    And on the subject of al Qaida, don't miss James Fallows piece on bin Laden and Co. in the current issue of The Atlantic. Good stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I saw a piece last night on CNN that President Clinton was protesting on the way he was portrayed.

    It never stops with these self-righteous conservatives. I'm hoping for a really good comeuppance very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  85. NOBODY wants to listen to the limpman tiny mind...why do you always spew feces like that?

    ReplyDelete
  86. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties

    WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
    Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida
    , according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts
    President Bush's justification for invading
    Iraq.

    Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

    Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.

    The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

    It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

    The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

    It discloses for the first time an October 2005
    CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

    Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

    (snip)

    Sen. Carl Levin , D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

    The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller , D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

    The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts , R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

    ReplyDelete
  88. I've been browsing around that cannonfire site and its a pretty cool site. Pretty hardcore and its got a lot of great links on it.

    I don't like the way it displays comments, too jumbled together, but the site is very cool.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Full Report(pdf file) here

    ReplyDelete
  90. Senate Intel Committee Bloodies Bush's Nose


    Larry C Johnson

    WOW! WOW! and Wow! Message to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney--read it and weep baby. Cheney's newly appointed biographer, Stephen Hayes, is blown out of the water. Bottomline, Saddam rebuffed cooperation with Bin Laden, tried to capture Zarqawi, and did NOT repeat NOT train foreign terrrorists at Salman Pak. The Senate Intelligence committee today released Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments and The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress as part of its long awaited and long promised Phase II report about the accuracy of the intelligence and it is ugly for the Bushies.

    I will do more detailed analysis in the coming days. Here's the down and dirty on the questions about Iraq's links to terrorism:

    1. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Aq'ida to provide material or operationa support.

    2. Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative.

    3. . .Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provded two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000. . . .No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war.

    4. Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.

    5. . . .Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.

    6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Ira, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

    7. Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike. . .

    8. No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Lifelong conservative Marine assails Bush policies

    Some conservative Republicans disagree with President Bush's policy on Iraq, reports Byron Pitts, CBS News. Pitts talks to retired marine Col. Jim Van Riper about his views on the Iraq war and President Bush. Riper is a lifelong conservative Republican and he is disappointed in President Bush's handling of the war.


    Col. Riper is so disappointed at the president's failed policies that he hopes the the Democrats win control of the House. Riper thinks that the Democratic House may be able to "tie this administration in such knots that it can do no more Damage."

    Watch the video

    ReplyDelete
  92. Lydia, watch your back.....if you are not careful those you trust will turn on you and you will be standing alone to explain yourself,leaving you in a great deal of trouble while the true offender walks away. There are many things you have no idea are taking place. Start checking out facts for your self. I think you know what I am referring to....Take care and cover yourself before it is to late to fight back.... VH a friend

    ReplyDelete
  93. clif said...
    So al Qaida -- or what's left of it -- releases a five-plus year old tape of bin Laden with two of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the baddies just transfered to Gitmo. Right in time for the president's big kangaroo court role out.


    I am still wondering when people will notice that Bin Laden released a video tape just THREE DAYS BEFORE the 2004 Presidential election.

    Election day was November 2nd, 2004.

    Bin Laden mysteriously releases a Video Tape threatening Americans on October 29th, 2004.

    Just 3 days before the election.

    Bin Laden wanted to remind Americans that they need a tough President like Bush to protect them from him, so just 3 short days before Americans went to the polls to elect a President, Bin Laden releases a video tape to frighten Americans into voting for George Bush.

    3 days.

    :|

    3 short days.

    Osama Bin Laden.

    George W Bush's best friend.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Senate Intel Committee Bloodies Bush's Nose


    Larry C Johnson

    WOW! WOW! and Wow! Message to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney--read it and weep baby. Cheney's newly appointed biographer, Stephen Hayes, is blown out of the water. Bottomline, Saddam rebuffed cooperation with Bin Laden, tried to capture Zarqawi, and did NOT repeat NOT train foreign terrrorists at Salman Pak. The Senate Intelligence committee today released Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments and The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress as part of its long awaited and long promised Phase II report about the accuracy of the intelligence and it is ugly for the Bushies.

    I will do more detailed analysis in the coming days. Here's the down and dirty on the questions about Iraq's links to terrorism:

    1. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Aq'ida to provide material or operationa support.

    2. Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative.

    3. . .Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provded two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000. . . .No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war.

    4. Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.

    5. . . .Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.

    6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Ira, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

    7. Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike. . .

    8. No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  95. What is the REAL prospects for sucess in Iraq?

    NONE

    read and weap repug neo-con fooles....time is ticking and it ain't ticking in Bush's PNAC neo-con clown masters favors anynore, but in fact has PASSED them by.....

    President Bush strutted confidently last year in advance of the December Iraqi elections, brashly predicting that U.S. victory is just around the corner. Then, in the spring, after the bombing of the Golden Dome in Samarra, the president shifted to a kind of gritted-teeth forced optimism as the shaky government of Prime Minister Maliki took shape amid intensifying sectarian violence. Now, as Iraqi deaths mount at the rate of 3,000 per month, Bush has all but abandoned talk of victory and is reduced to issuing scary pronouncements about what failure in Iraq would mean. But most of what the president warns is wrong.

    Bush’s argument that Iraq would fall into the clutches of al-Qaida, in particular, is utterly stupid: first, because al-Qaida is only a tiny part of the Sunni-led Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation; and second, because the Shiites and the Kurds, who make up perhaps three-quarters of Iraq’s population, would never allow what Dick Cheney calls “al-Qaida types” to seize control of Iraq.

    The president’s dire warnings on Iraq come far too late to matter. He might, or he might not, be able to scare voters. But he isn’t scaring the establishment.

    What’s happening in Washington now is that the establishment political class—and that includes the military, moderate Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the jabbering pundits and op-ed writers, and the bulk of the thinktank denizens—are coming to grips with the stark fact that the war in Iraq is over. And that the United States has lost. It’s beginning to sink in, but it won’t be confronted directly by the political class until after the November elections. After that, all hell is going to break loose. If the Democrats win back Congress, it will happen faster—but even if the Republicans hang on, the gusting winds on Iraq now buffeting the White House will gather strength to become a full-fledged, Category 5 hurricane.

    There was an inkling of that impending doom in the 66-page report released by the Defense Department last week, called “Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq.”

    "The security situation is at its most complex state since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom"—meaning since the invasion of March, 2003—according to the Pentagon report. The United States is facing both the continuing Sunni insurgency, which it described as “potent and viable,” and a proliferation of sectarian militias and ethnic killings. In a stunning indictment of its ability to provide security and economic stability, the Defense Department added: “Local illegal armed groups are seen as the primary providers of security and basic social services.” These groups, it said, have become “entrenched” in both east (Shiite) and west (Sunni) Baghdad. And it concluded: “Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq.”

    The notion of entrenched militias dividing Baghdad into east and west, of course, immediately raises the specter of Beirut during its 1975-1990 civil war, and such fears are increasingly shared by Iraqis, says the Pentagon. It notes that not only in Baghdad but in the mid-Euphrates region south of Baghdad and in the area around Basra, Iraq’s port city in the south, there are sharply rising fears of all-out civil war among Iraqis.

    Casualties in Iraq, the Pentagon says dryly, have increased 51 per cent since the last report was issued in May 2006. Attacks against U.S. forces have doubled since 2004, to a staggering 800 attacks per week, causing 17-20 casualties (killed and wounded) among U.S. and other coalition forces per day—that is, 20 Americans, Brits and others killed or wounded every single day.

    For all its blunt talk, the Pentagon report still drastically understates the situation on the ground. Anthony Cordesman, a conservative military analyst and Persian Gulf expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, issued a scathing 15-page indictment of the Defense Department’s own bleak report this week, saying that the Pentagon “does not identify the need to shift U.S. strategy to deal with the growing risk of civil conflict.” He adds that by ignoring the vast political problems that plague the government of Prime Minister Maliki, the Pentagon is “lying by omission.” And he calls the section on Iraq’s nonexistent economy, with estimates of unemployment as high as 60 per cent, “over-optimistic rubbish.”

    In spite of the massive, ongoing effort to secure Baghdad—the second such big push since last spring—the carnage continues without letup, from massive attacks that kill scores to violent outbursts that leave a dozen here and a dozen there dead to the endless one-by-one killings that leave bodies scattered all over Baghdad every morning. According to the Pentagon’s report, although the violence is centered in Baghdad, it is spreading, with the pace of attacks up significantly in Kirkuk, Mosul and Diyala.

    A brief tour of Iraq’s three main communities makes the point even clearer.

    The Sunnis, who have been the heart of the resistance to the U.S. occupation since at least the fall of 2003, are virtually unified now. A critical piece of news, overlooked but for a brief mention in the Washington Post, is that fully 300 Iraqi tribal leaders—mostly Sunni, but including some Shiites—met in a town south of Kirkuk, to issue a demand that Saddam Hussein be freed. One of the leaders, whose tribe numbers 1.5 million, said: “If the demand is not satisfied, we will lead a general, sweeping, and popular uprising.” Such a threat would mean, in effect, that the Iraqi insurgency would be adopted officially by the entire tribal leadership of western and central Iraq. This is not al-Qaida. This is Iraq.

    The Shiites, meanwhile, are entering the early stages of a fratricidal splintering. Although they have long been divided, current trends would indicate that the Shiite bloc in Iraq is about to collapse. Until now, the Shiites have been the tent pole holding up the entire U.S. enterprise in Iraq—so, if they splinter, it signals the end of the U.S. occupation. It’s a kaleidoscope: The Mahdi Army of Muqtada Sadr is restless, seemingly ready to launch another uprising, as it did in 2004—and Sadr’s army itself is seriously beset by divisions, with armed, rogue elements throughout. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is pressing hard for partition of Iraq—which it calls “federation”—and one of its leaders (who happens to be the Iraqi education minister) laid out a scenario for full-scale civil war. “Federation will cut off all parts of the country that are incubating terrorists,” he said. “We will put soldiers along the frontiers.”

    Deepening the divisions among the Shiites even further, a new warlord is emerging, Mahmoud Hassani, who has built private armies in Najaf, Karbala, Basra and Baghdad, and who is violently opposed to SCIRI and to Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Hassani, who also opposes the United States and who hates Iran, is emerging as a nationalist Shiite leader who could upset the whole Shiite apple cart.

    And the pesky Kurds are openly threatening secession. Massoud Barzani, who is the real power in Kurdistan, said defiantly this week: “If we want to separate, we will do it without hesitation of fears.” Should the Kurds launch their widely expected operation to seize Kirkuk and Iraq’s northern oil fields, it will trigger a major escalation of civil war in Iraq.

    Bush isn’t acknowledging these realities. The Pentagon is only hinting at them—though the generals know what’s going on. But inside the political class, an awareness of realities in Iraq is dawning. Last week, James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton, two consummate political insiders who happen to lead a hush-hush task force on Iraq called the Iraq Study Group, were in Baghdad, where (according to my sources) they got a heavy dose of reality. The Baker task force—which I wrote about in The Washington Monthly—includes top-level luminaries, including Robert M. Gates, Vernon Jordan and William Perry. Returning from Baghdad, Baker’s elite group, which also includes dozens of Iraq experts, met this week to consider a draft plan to exit Iraq, Jack Murtha-style, or alternatively, to stick around for another 12 months and then end up getting out anyway. Increasingly, after the elections, that will be the stark choice forced on the White House—by Washington’s political elite, by the precipitous drop in public support for the war and by the growing antiwar movement that has set up shop at Camp Democracy on the Mall.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Another article


    It's impressive how much perception and punchy analysis John Robb at Global Guerrillas can pack into a single post (and how many alliterative 'p's I can pack into a single sentence). Working from the (safe) assumption that the Iraq campaign is lost, he cautions against embracing a host of what-might-have-beens.

    "We are now at the start of a long process of rationalization over the US defeat in Iraq. The most common of these rationalizations include: if only we had '...not disbanded the Baathist army,' '...sent in more troops,' or '...become better at nation-building.' However, in each case the approach is one dimensional, since we tend to view ourselves as the only actors on the stage. The actions and reactions of the opposition are discounted and explained away as fluff and background noise (those pesky terrorists...)."

    I italicized the passage above because it's a realization that hits me between the eyes each time I watch cable news or visit the warblogs, where you get the impression that the War on Terror pits George Bush posed defiantly at the presidential podium versus an angry horde of swarthy nobodies who intend us harm. It's billed as if it were a Clash of Wills, in which victory will be achieved by being resolute and perservering. It's become pathetic how much faith the warbloggers still put in the power of highflown rhetoric and vision, getting their batteries temporarily recharged by Bush's latest proclamation or Newt Gingrich's expectorated gob of newsprint. The warbloggers are still waiting for a Great Leader to Rise to the Occasion and rouse the American people to "commit to victory." I think it's too late for words to work any magic here or abroad, and I'm dead cert that the way to mobilize the will of the American people is not by shoehorning the War on Terror into previous wars (WWII, the Civil War), drawing bogus analogies and trying to convince us that the long sacrifice and loss of life then should serve as a noble example now. It's particularly noxious coming from politicians who bugged out of Vietnam service, and yet want to parade around in their soft middle age in a Patton helmet or Lincoln stovepipe hat.

    Forget the History Channel analogies. Robb:

    "The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not our maximalist goals in Iraq could ever have been achieved given the capabilities of the opposition and the limited levels of commitment we were able to bring to to bear on the problem. I suspect the answer is no. The goals didn't match our capabilities and there weren't any simple tweaks to our strategy that would have changed the outcome. This was a difficult way to learn this lesson, but given our tendency towards rationalization, I doubt that it will be learned at all."

    I'm afraid he's right. Twenty, thirty years from now a new generation of right wingers and armchair warriors will be contending that we could have won in Iraq had it not been for Michael Moore and prissiness over torture. Pundits and politicians prefer to argue and conjecture in maximalist terms, because it lends them more stature in their own minds. Robb writes, "[T]he simplest explanation for the outcome in Iraq is that we were just beaten by a better opponent (the Israeli's seem to be getting this, why can't we?)." Because such knowledge cuts too deeply into the pride of the American psyche. It's also too painful to consider that the U.S. is beatable. We'd rather believe that we beat ourselves, and then scapegoat liberals as the losers who made us lose.


    In other words Dumsfeld's strategy does NOT work, it has failed in Afghanistan, and has failed in Iraq, and is not going to work in Iran any better. And his failures have undermined the US military and will affect the military LONG after dumsfeld is gone. The middle east is going to be less stable, at the same time our military is attempting to recover from Dumsfeld's mismanagement and incompetence.(And Bush's failure as commander in chief to take care of the troops and military). The PNAC Neo-con clown posse sold the US a fairy tale which did not survive the first day of combat(there were no parades and the only flowers were for the killed troops at their funeral). They persisted in their delusions long after reality had undercut them, by spin, distortions, distractions, and sometimes out right lies.(Like the insurgency is in it's last throes). Or the Iraqi government will stand up(hiding inside the green zone) and we will stand down.

    Even now they try to hide the truth, spin the bad news and distract with a lie propogated by ABC. Too bad the troops in Iraq will not benefit from their lies and spin this time any better than they did not benefit by their lies and spin in 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  97. You're right on the money Clif.

    CNN is reporting right now that there were NO TIES between Saddam and 911, or between Saddam and Al Quaida.

    Of course, only 1 3rd of the country is stupid enough to believe Bush and Cheney's rhetoric but its nice to see CNN out there putting the truth out publically.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I just learned that President Bush will be addressing the Nation Monday night, during the airing of the ABC propaganda film, "The Path to 911".

    Sounds like he may be announcing a war on Iran.

    Stay tuned peeps.

    ReplyDelete
  99. 9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply
    Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity
    By Michael Powell

    Updated: 8:11 a.m. MT Sept 8, 2006
    NEW YORK - He felt no shiver of doubt in those first terrible hours.

    He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed al-Qaeda had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001, were as stated on the screen.

    It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora.

    He wondered why 110-story towers crashed and military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded, much less cashiered.

    "To me, the report read as a cartoon." White-haired and courtly, Griffin sits on a couch in a hotel lobby in Manhattan, unspooling words in that reasonable Presbyterian minister's voice. "It's a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives."

    Such as?

    "There was massive complicity in this attack by U.S. government operatives."

    If that feels like a skip off the cliff of established reality, more Americans are in free fall than you might guess. There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the widespread belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 in order to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

    Distrust near Ground Zero
    Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act."

    You could dismiss this as a louder than usual howl from the CIA-controls-my-thoughts-through-the-filling-in-my-molar crowd. Establishment assessments of the believers tend toward the psychotherapeutic. Many academics, politicians and thinkers left, right and center say the conspiracy theories are a case of one plus one equals five. It's a piling up of improbabilities.

    Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, has studied the collapse of the twin towers. "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints," Eager says. "Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down."

    But the chatter out there is loud enough for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to post a Web "fact sheet" poking holes in the conspiracy theories and defending its report on the towers.

    Yeah, as if . . .

    The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" has stopped looking for truth from the government. As cacophonous and free-range a bunch of conspiracists anywhere this side of Guy Fawkes, they produce hip-hop inflected documentaries and scholarly conferences. The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. There's nothing like a triple, Google-fed epiphany lighting up the laptop at 2:44 a.m.

    Did you see that the CIA met with bin Laden in a hospital room in Dubai? Check out this Pakistani site, there are really weird doings in Baluchistan . . .

    The academic wing is led by Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota (Fetzer's an old hand in JFK assassination research); and Daniel Orr, the retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. The movement's de facto minister of engineering is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University, who's studied vectors and velocities and tested explosives and concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition, sped by a thousand pounds of high-grade thermite.

    ‘Possible war criminal’
    Former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger is a senior military affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon -- or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be. Catherine Austin Fitts served as assistant secretary of housing in the first President Bush's administration and gained a fine reputation as a fraud buster; David Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter. Fitts and Bowman agree that the "most unbelievable conspiracy" theory is the one retailed by the government.

    Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss; he describes President Bush as a "dysfunctional creep," not to mention a "possible war criminal."

    CONTINUEDThe 9/11 truthers share a lieutenant colonel's love of acronyms. They divide themselves into LIHOPS and MIHOPS and differences are not trifling. LIHOP stands for "Let It Happen On Purpose," which means someone inside the U.S. government intentionally let the terror conspiracy go. MIHOP means "Made It Happen On Purpose," and its gradations center on whether Bush was in or out of the loop (a surprising number believe he was clueless) and whether the Mossad or British intelligence was dealt into the deal.

    Morales, 57, who came out of the Lower East Side housing projects, spent days at Ground Zero performing last rites for the dead, many little more than a collection of body parts.

    "I didn't presume to know who did it," he says. "There was a lot of shucking and jiving. I wonder at what point massive incompetence crosses over into negligent homicide."

    To make sense of the truth movement's anger, you need to hit the rewind button to early 2001, with the hindsight of today. There was, as the 9/11 Commission hearings made clear, a bad moon rising. Warnings kept coming of a "high probability" of a "spectacular" terrorist attack. A national security adviser warned Condoleezza Rice there were terrorist cells, probably al-Qaeda guys, in the country. CIA chief George Tenet said the "system was blinking red."

    A presidential bulletin on Aug. 6 had a catchy title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Bush did not discuss it again with Tenet before Sept. 11.

    So give the truth movement, many of whom are based in New York City, their props. They may be paranoid, but something nasty came our way. They pore over the paper trail with a Sherlock Holmesian intensity, alert to intriguing discrepancy.

    Such as:

    Former transporation secretary Norman Mineta told the commission he arrived in the presidential operations center -- under the White House -- at 9:20 a.m. on Sept. 11 and found Vice President Cheney. When an aide asked Cheney about the hijacked plane fast approaching the Pentagon, Mineta says the vice president snapped that the "orders still stand." Mineta assumed the orders were to shoot the plane down. Conspiracy theorists interpret this to mean: Don't shoot it down.

    Cheney later said he was not in the operations center until after the plane hit. The commission never mentioned Mineta's contradictory version.

    In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. But the government recently released tapes claiming to show the FAA did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed.

    That would mean the FAA repeatedly lied. It would also mean, as Griffin points out, that the entire military chain of command stayed quiet about huge inaccuracies for four years "even though . . . the true story would put the military in a better light."

    More mysteries pile up. The 9/11 Commission says Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37. But Honegger says clocks stopped at the Pentagon at 9:32. Then there's the collapse of the twin towers, which Jones, the physics professor, timed at just short of free fall. Griffin cites firefighters, including a captain, who said in hearings and on tapes from that day that they saw flashes and heard the sound of explosions before the collapse.

    It's like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire," Honegger says from her home in California. "They guided and secretly protected it to justify their global agenda."

    Let's put aside the could-anyone-do-something-that-spectacularly-twisted? question and touch on practicalities. Isn't the problem with big ugly conspiracies -- from the Gulf of Tonkin to My Lai to the 1961 Pentagon plan to provoke a war by attacking Americans and blaming it on Castro -- that they are too big and ugly to keep secret?

    Griffin shrugs. History is littered with government black-bag jobs. "How do you know they can't keep big secrets? Can you be sure you know what you don't know?"

    ReplyDelete
  100. If you want to distill the previous article down to one paragraph, here it is:

    "It's like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire," Honegger says from her home in California. "They guided and secretly protected it to justify their global agenda."

    ReplyDelete
  101. Worf said "Sounds like he may be announcing a war on Iran.

    Stay tuned peeps."

    No Worf, I dont think he will "ANNOUNCE" a war, I dont even think he has the brass balls to try that, I think he will use his speech and that piece or propaganda BS to try to deceive people and make his case for a war, its another play on fear and emotion, fear tactics are all these losers have left.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hey peeps.

    Listen up!

    One of the 911 widows that Ann Coulter attacked will be on Larry King tonight at 9 est.

    CNN is announcing it as "911 widow FIRES BACK".

    ReplyDelete
  103. You may be right Mike, I am just guessing of course. But my gut tells me that as of this moment, Bush is planning on annoucing some sort of aggression towards Iran.

    Events may change between now and then, but I got a feeling that he wants to use the second night of the mini series (once viewers are sufficiently enraged at all Arabs again) to announce some sort of aggression towards Iran.

    Guess we'll see Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Two weeks ago the President said "Saddam did have ties to Zarqawi"

    Today, the Senate Intelligence committee said "No Sir, He did NOT".

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  105. Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link
    Long-awaited analysis also finds that anti-Saddam group misled U.S.
    Updated: 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
    WASHINGTON - There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.

    Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

    The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

    It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

    The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

    It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

    Partisan reaction
    White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was “nothing new.”

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was “a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts” to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

    The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, “exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks.”

    ReplyDelete
  106. What I find interesting is the fact this report came out on a Friday, and not a Monday.

    Friday is a dead news day.

    They call it "garbage day" cause no one pays attention on Friday.

    ReplyDelete
  107. One of the many sobering lessons of the Third Reich was the failure of Germany's intellectual elite to stop the rise of Hitler. Starting in 1933, with Hitler's assumption of power, German poets, philosophers, playwrights, artists and scientists--including Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann, Walter Benjamin, Stefan Zweig and thousands of others--seeing the writing on the wall, packed up and found new homes.
    Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information

    ReplyDelete
  108. But worfeus that report will be hanging out waiting for the sundat morning news shows...and will be around next week, and the week after that, and around in November....which is what the repugs fear...truth and voters equal their losses.

    ReplyDelete
  109. And Bush is speaking during the part of the ABC 9-11 'docudrama" which looks at his role...think it was just a coincidence he wants to speak after ABC lies about Clinton's role and usurps the showing of HIS numerous failures.

    Typical Rove, lie then spin.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Kristian Breitweiser was great on Larry King live, made the comparison with the anorexic ranting lying plagiarist all the better......too bad Anny Tranny doesn't take her own advice, Just take the money and shut it's pie hole, That's right , unless the lying plagiarist is screeching fecal brain droppings, it gets Nada.

    ReplyDelete
  111. clif said...
    But worfeus that report will be hanging out waiting for the sundat morning news shows


    You're right about the report being around Sunday and next week Clif. I was just pointing out the clear attempt by the right wing to stifle the reports impact and "toss it out with the trash" on a Friday night.

    Dana Milbank of the Washington Post confirmed that sentiment about an hour after I said it live on MSNBC by stating that the republican leadership held up the bill and it was only released after Repblican Senator Chuck Hagel demanded it be released, but they tossed it out on a Friday trying to bury it with the trash.

    They didn't want people to notice this one. This one is Bi-Partisan, and rebukes Bush's claim that Hussein met with Bin Laden.

    A claim Bush made AGAIN just two short weeks ago.

    Man, republicans who still believe this hogwash have got to be the stupidest people on the face of the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  112. People can sit there and bitch and moan about how Bill Clinton "lied" to the American people about a stupid blow job, but its amazing the stupidity of these same people who sit there and let Bush lie abotu a war that has killed as many of our people as 911.

    And he is STILL lying.

    Just two short weeks ago Bush repeated his lie that Zarqawi met with Hussein.

    If this is not an impeachable offense, then there are no impeachable offenses.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Iraq post-war plan muzzled

    Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, an early planner of the war, tells about challenges of invasion and rebuilding.

    Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

    In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

    Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

    Scheid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis in Newport News, made his comments in an interview with the Daily Press. He retires in about three weeks.

    Scheid doesn't go so far as calling for Rumsfeld to resign. He's listened as other retired generals have done so.

    "Everybody has a right to their opinion," he said. "But what good did it do?"

    Scheid's comments are further confirmation of the version of events reported in "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," the book by New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor.

    In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.

    On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans.

    On Sept. 11, 2001, he said, "life just went to hell."

    That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to "get ready to go to war."

    A day or two later, Rumsfeld was "telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.

    "Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan ... Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq."

    Scheid said he remembers everyone thinking, "My gosh, we're in the middle of Afghanistan, how can we possibly be doing two at one time? How can we pull this off? It's just going to be too much."

    Planning was kept very hush-hush in those early days.

    "There was only a handful of people, maybe five or six, that were involved with that plan because it had to be kept very, very quiet."

    There was already an offensive plan in place for Iraq, Scheid said. And in the beginning, the planners were just expanding on it.

    "Whether we were going to execute it, we had no idea," Scheid said.

    Eventually other military agencies - like the transportation and Army materiel commands - had to get involved.

    They couldn't just "keep planning this in the dark," Scheid said.

    Planning continued to be a challenge.

    "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. "We won't stay."

    Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

    Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

    "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "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."

    Why did Rumsfeld think that? Scheid doesn't know.

    "But think back to those times. We had done Bosnia. We said we were going into Bosnia and stop the fighting and come right out. And we stayed."

    Was Rumsfeld right or wrong?

    Scheid said he doesn't know that either.

    "In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."

    Even if the people who laid out the initial war plans had fleshed out post-invasion missions, the fighting and insurgent attacks going on today would have been hard to predict, Scheid said.

    "We really thought that after the collapse of the regime we were going to do all these humanitarian type things," he said. "We thought this would go pretty fast and we'd be able to get out of there. We really didn't anticipate them to continue to fight the way they did or come back the way they are.

    "Now we're going more toward a civil war. We didn't see that coming."

    While Scheid, a soldier since 1977, spoke candidly about the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he remains concerned about the American public's view of the troops.

    He's bothered by the nationwide divide over the war and fearful that patriotism among citizens will continue to decline.

    "We're really hurting right now," he said.

    ReplyDelete
  114. The Lies of George Bush Exposed


    Part II (The findings on terrorism can be found at my initial post.)
    Consider for a moment that a Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee released the reports today that are so damning to the lies Bush and Cheney repeated ad nauseum for the last three and a half years. What the hell is in the three additional reports that they don't want to release until after the November elections? It is difficult to imagine the truths still to be told.

    These reports make clear that the case for war in Iraq was manufactured by ignoring the intelligence. However, this is not only an indictment of Republicans; it is an indictment of every Democrat who voted for going to war. Can't these people read? If the National Intelligence Estimate reflected a clear, unanimous opinion, then the Democrats could argue, "we were mislead by the intelligence". Hell bells, folks, the NIE consistently had dissenting opinions. That means there was NO AGREEMENT among intelligence analysts. Shame on every Republican and Democrat who were too goddamn lazy to read the NIE!

    The first report, Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments destroys every lie advanced by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to advance their case for starting a war in Iraq. These findings also show how bankrupt are the claims of Laurie Mylroie (who argued vociferously that Mohamad Atta met Iraqi agents in Prague), Stephen Hayes (who insists that Al Qa'ida and Saddam were in cahoots), and Christoper Hitchens. They are wrong.

    The first section deals with the WMD issues. Here are the conclusions from the report:



    1.Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Information obtained after the war supports the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) assessment in the NIE that the Intelligence Community lacked persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

    2. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq's acquisiton of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program. The findings do spport the assessments in the NIE of the Department of energy's Office of Intelligence and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that the aluminum tubes were likely intended for a conventional rocket program.

    3. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are "highly dubious".

    4. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons" and that "all key aspects of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War."

    5. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilites for producing biological warfare (BW) agents.

    6. Concerns existed within the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) prior to the war about the credibility of the mobile biological weapons program source code-named CURVE BALL. . . .

    7. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons (CW) production."

    8. Postwar findings support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq had missiles which exceeded United Nations (UN) range limits. The findings do not support the assessment that Iraq likely retained a covert force of SCUD variant short range ballistic missiles (SRBMS).

    9. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq had a developmental program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological agents: or that an effort to procure U.S. mapping software "strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." Postwar findings support the view of the Air Force, joined by DIA and the Army, in an NIE published in January 2003, that Iraq's UAVs were primarily intended for reconnaissance.


    It is important that the average American understand the meaning of intelligence judgments in an NIE. If the community agrees on an issue it is very important. If there is no agreement, then other agencies dissent and present their views. If you are a policymaker or legislator the presence of dissent is the ultimate FLASHING YELLOW LIGHT.

    Now we know that on almost all critical judgments concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction there were key dissents. The CIA drafters at the National Intelligence Council almost always were wrong. The failure at the CIA was confined primarily to the National Intelligence Council. However, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was always right. Any policymaker or politician who tries to argue that they were acting on the intelligence is either a liar or a lazy incompetent. Despite the view of the CIA, there were sufficient dissenting views in the NIE to give any member of Congress reason to question the case for going to war. The dissents expressed by INR, the DIA, and the Department of Energy were sufficient warnings of potential problems to anyone interested in probing what the intelligence actually said.

    It is astonishing at this juncture that there has not been a major shake up at the National Intelligence Council (NIC). In fact, those responsible for the sections with the most errors are still on the job and, in one instance, given more authority. The principal drafters of the October 2002 NIE were Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Proliferation; Lawrence K. Gershwin, the National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology; retired Army Maj. Gen. John R. Landry, National Intelligence Officer for Conventional Military Issues, and Paul R. Pillar, NIO for the Near East and South Asia. Walpole oversaw the entire effort but had specific responsibility for nuclear issues. Gershwin handled issues related to biological weapons, Gordon focused on chemical weapons, and Pillar dealt with the issues pertaining to international terrorism. Only Pillar got it right.

    Although Christopher Hitchens has insisted that Wissam al-Zahawie was proof that Joe Wilson, who reported that there was no evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium, was wrong, the Senate report concludes (see page 54):

    The purpose of a visit to Niger by the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, Wissam al-Zahawie, was to invite the president of Niger to visit Iraq.

    No uranium. Chris, I suggest you spend less time drinking and more time getting your facts right. Joe Wilson is no liar. You are. Joe Wilson correctly noted in his 2003 July op-ed that the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger was bogus. Now, a Republican Intelligence Committee confirms that finding.

    The findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee are clear-- the Bush Administration shopped for intelligence to support its case to go to war and ignored volumes of intelligence that undermined their argument. In the coming days enterprising bloggers will cull through the public statements of Bush officials and clearly demonstrate that they chose to ignore intelligence. This was picking and choosing. They seized on conclusions that supported their pre-determined views and ignored dissents expressed by other intelligence officials.

    Our sons and daughters who went to war in Iraq based on the lie that Iraq was tied, somehow, to the attacks on 9-11, were betrayed by George Bush and his government. The truth is there for all willing to see.

    ReplyDelete
  115. September 08, 2006

    Clinton's Artless Equivocation on 'The Path to 9/11'

    By Dennis Byrne

    If the worst criticism of President Bush is that he lied to us about Iraq, then we just got a whopping reminder of Bill Clinton's extraordinary talents for deception.

    In a letter to ABC's chief Bob Iger, Clinton's attorney, Bruce Lindsey, alleges that the network's program, The Path to 9/11 is "factually and incontrovertibly" inaccurate in suggesting that the Clinton administration let Osama Bin Laden slip through its fingers. Clinton's defenders, from their high horses, arrogantly have demand that the program be edited to their satisfaction, or be pulled entirely.

    Bristling at evidence that Clinton and his administration were wavering and indecisive, the letter asserted that the president aggressively tried to "take a shot at Bin Laden." It cites the 9/11 Commission Report for supposedly giving credit to Clinton for approving "every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

    This is close enough to the truth to make the "I-didn't-inhale" and "I-didn't-have-sex-with-that-woman" Clinton think he can get away with it. But it is far enough away from the truth to be classified as, if not a bold lie, an artless equivocation.

    As usual, Clinton figures that the rest of us are too stupid or lazy to look it up for ourselves. And having read the complete report when it came out more than two years ago, I think it is an inescapable fact that a vacillating, equivocating administration had more than one opportunity to take out terrorist mastermind Bin Laden, but blew it.

    A good place to look is the report's "Chapter 4: Responses to Al Qaeda's initial assaults," Section 4.5, "Searching for Fresh Options." There you have details of how Bin Laden was ready to be plucked, but someone in the administration either ignored or nixed it. Or put it on an endless "you-decide, not-me" merry-go-round.

    For example, the report said the CIA was receiving "reliable" reports that Bin Laden would be in the Sheikh Ali hunting camp in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar until at least midmorning of Feb. 11, 1999. The military was targeting him for a hit with cruise missiles, and only needed a green light. Yet, no missiles were launched, to the disappointment of field agents and the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit. By Feb. 12, Bin Laden had moved on, and the golden opportunity passed.

    Still, the CIA hoped that Bin Laden would return to the popular camp, but Richard Clarke, the nation's counterterrorism chief, may have blown it by calling the United Arab Emirate to express his concern about the their officials associating with Bin Laden at the hunting camp. Being no fools, the terrorists within a week had "hurriedly dismantled" and deserted the camp, the report said.

    In May, 1999, the report said, the administration may have missed the best and last opportunity to hit Bin Laden with cruise missiles as he was moving in and around Kandahar. "It was a fat pitch, a home run," a senior military official told the commission, confident of the intelligence and the possibility of minimal "collateral damage." The report picks up the story:

    "He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, 'We all just slumped.' He told [the commission] he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad game. Bin Laden 'should have been a dead man' that night, he said."
    From there, the story gets cloudy. Some told the commission that former CIA Director George Tenet nixed the strike, believing the chance of the intelligence being accurate was only 50-50. (He may have been the only one who thought the odds were that bad.) Tenet told the commission he didn't remember the details. Berger's memory at this historic moment also turned sketchy. "Berger remembered only that in all such cases, the call had been Tenet's. Berger felt sure that Tenet was eager to get Bin Laden. In his view, Tenet did his job responsibly," the report said. It quoted Berger: "George would call and say, 'We just don't have it.'"

    Judge for yourself, but to me this sounds like Berger tying to "pin the tail on Tenet."

    The report added this tidbit about the administration's inaction: "Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field, the [CIA's] Bin Ladin unit chief wrote: '...having a chance to get [Bin Laden] three times in 36 hours, and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry.'" [Emphasis added.] The field officer opined that it was Tenet who was pushing for an attack, but was standing alone, with Berger adopting the cover-your-ass attitude that it was Tenet's decision, and "we'd go along" with whatever it was.

    To be sure, the administration's approach was hesitant, if not overly cautious. Why? They were reflecting Clinton's policy, put into writing in several Memoranda of Notification that he wanted Bin Laden captured and treated humanely, but not killed, unless it was in the process of capture. He even personally edited one memorandum, making it more "ambiguous," the report said. "...[I]t is possible to understand how the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill Bin Laden."

    There should be no disagreement on this: Lindsey's letter to ABC is mere word play. It is couched in equivocations such as Clinton "authorized the use of force" and that the president and Berger had authorized Tenet to "get" Bin Laden. None of it means that Tenet was ordered to kill Bin Laden when he had a chance.

    Ahmed Shah Massoud, an Afghanistan Northern Alliance commander who offered to kill Bin Laden for the United States, put the capture-not-kill-decision more succinctly: "You guys are crazy." Lt. Gen William Boykin, a founding member of the elite Delta Force, told the commission, "...opportunities were missed because of an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

    If they weren't describing the Clinton administration, then who?

    A full reading of the report makes clear that the Clinton administration understood the seriousness of the Bin Laden threat, but failed to act decisively. In this, when ABC said "general indecisiveness" allowed the 9/11 attacks, it was correct to include the Clinton administration.

    And why the indecisiveness? Rack it up to the idea that he need to prosecute, not kill, terrorists; that someone who has literally declared war on us should be tried with all the rights of American citizens. Maybe we should have tried negotiations instead.

    Email dennis@dennisbyrne.net or post a comment at http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com.
    Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/clinton_i_wasnt_soft_on_bin_la.html at September 09, 2006 - 06:59:31 AM CDT

    ReplyDelete
  116. Hello Lydia. :)

    This is my first time here (I am very sorry to say!) I came here from Cannonfire blog after reading Joe's blog about the threats you have been receiving from friends of that... non-human thing, Coulter! I CANNOT stand that creature one bit!

    I will post a blog on my blog asking people to give you support and any help you need! I have friends who are computer security experts (I've worked in IT for a long time).

    That crap really angers me! You have my support (for whatever that's worth)! :)

    Oh! My blog is Loaded Mouth. Ummm... as you can guess by the name... it can get a bit rough over there! ;) LOL If you do a search for 'Coulter' there, You may end up blushing furiously (or maybe laughing out load!) LOL

    http://loadedmouth.com/

    In all honesty, we try hard to be fair and honest there. We can't stand hypocrites and liars. We have given a hard time to anyone (left, centre or right) who deserved it. :)

    I have been working hard on the Disney/ABC Republican propaganda film travesty of 9/11! That disgusts me!

    I wish you all the best! And please, if we can be of any help, just ask! :)

    Take care, and be well. :)

    PS. Take no notice of that Coulter creature. It's just jealous. You are obviously human, after all. It can't bear that! Same gous for that Malkin creature too, BTW. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  117. Liars or Fools?

    A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

    Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."" Washpost

    The report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) makes a lot of things clear, but the thing it makes the most clear is that a number of people in Washington in New York who facilitated the acceptance of "sources" proffered by the Iraqi National Congress (INC - Chalabi) were either liars or fools.

    I would nominate the former DCI Woolsey for membership in one or the other of these groups. Woolsey has been a member, perhaps founding member would be the right term, of the neocon group since he and Richard Perle were senate staffers together many years ago. How this neocon came to be nominated for the post of head of the intelligence community (DCI) by Clinton is an interesting illustration of the way the neocons pursued power by inserting themselves into all sides of party competition. According to the report, Woolsey repeatedly "sponsored" sources provided by Iraqi exiles and facilitated their more or less forced acceptance by the agencies, especially DIA. He did this by calling the Directors of the agencies and vouching for these people. Such a procedure ensured that the HUMINT operators and analysts who had to deal with these phonies were at a profound disadvantage since they had to justify to their top bosses their opinion that Woolsey was "pushing" bogus information. Before the war, I was on a news panel TV show with Woolsey during which he made a point of saying that whatever I said "did not matter." He was right. What he said is what mattered.

    Then there is Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard. Hayes has written repeatedly on the subject of the Saddam/Al-Qa'ida (AQ) connection. First he wrote an article in that magazine, then wrote a book about it. In both he asserts that a long string of unconfirmed reports found in the files of the IC about possible connections must prove an organizational and operational relationship because there are so many of them. This reasoning is on the basis of the old saw, "where there is smoke, there must be fire." Any fool knows that a multiplicity of bad information proves nothing if none of the elements is correct. The IC receives masses of reports every day. They are all appraised for the reliability of their sources and the veracity of the information. All of Hayes' tidbits, gleaned from IC holdings, had been judged BAD by IC analysts but he cited them anyway as proof. Why did he do this? Like all the neocons, Hayes is a man of superior intellect and education who "knows" the truth about the world, tyrants, the destiny of mankind, etc. He knows what the truth is so therefore he knew "proof" when he saw it. I nominate him for "fool."

    The media should "examine" their collective conscience, if they have such. (Sorry for the RC terminology there) CNN in particular "sold" these two men to the world. Fox, I will not speak of. It would be pointless.

    The Republican Party and the Bush Administration, even people in the VP's office, should consider "dumping" these men, and many others, before they are dragged down with them.

    Pat Lang

    ReplyDelete
  118. Freshie said

    "We have given a hard time to anyone (left, centre or right) who deserved it. :)"

    Ahhhhhhhh......someone with a sense of balance; I love it!

    Lets just see how fair this symbol of human perfection is?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Joe Conason: White House Guilt in CIA Leak Case Remains

    The revelation the Richard Armitage first disclosed Valerie Wilson’s identity as a covert CIA operative doesn’t change the fact that it was Karl Rove and Scooter Libby who used that information in an attempt to punish Ms. Wilson for her husband’s criticism of the Bush administration

    To observe the Washington press corps is to wonder why so many people who don’t remember what happened yesterday and can’t master basic logic are expected to analyze politics and policy. The latest developments in the Valerie Plame Wilson case—as revealed in “Hubris,” a new book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn—proved once more that the simplest analysis of facts is beyond the grasp of many of America’s most celebrated journalists.

    What Corn and Isikoff report is that the first official to disclose Valerie Wilson’s covert identity as a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak in June 2003 was Richard Armitage, who then served as deputy secretary of state. Unlike other Bush administration figures who were involved in leaking Ms. Wilson’s identity, such as Karl Rove and Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Armitage was known to be unenthusiastic about the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    From those two facts, many commentators have deduced that Rove and Libby are guiltless, that there was no White House effort to expose Valerie Wilson, and that the entire leak investigation was a partisan witch hunt and perhaps an abuse of discretion by the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald. The same pundits now proclaim that Armitage’s minor role somehow proves the White House didn’t seek to punish Ms. Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, for his decision to publicly debunk the presidential misuse of dubious intelligence from Niger concerning Iraq’s alleged attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium.

    But whatever Armitage did, or says he did, in no way alters what Rove and Libby did in the days that followed, nor does it change their intentions. It’s a simple concept—two people or more can commit a similar act for entirely different reasons—but evidently it has flummoxed the great minds of contemporary journalism.

    In this instance, Armitage says he was merely “gossiping” with Novak, who seems to have been primed to question him about the Wilson affair. But both Rove and Libby sought to undermine Joe Wilson’s credibility—and perhaps to victimize him and his wife—by revealing her identity to two reporters. Rove gave that information to Time reporter Matt Cooper, who got confirmation from Libby. And Libby provided the same poisonous tip to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

    Almost from the beginning of his investigation, Fitzgerald has known about the blabby Armitage, who promptly came clean to his boss. But Fitzgerald understood that the Armitage confession was of limited relevance. It didn’t discourage the special counsel from conducting a thorough probe that uncovered the secretive effort, emanating from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, to discredit Joe Wilson and use his wife’s two decades of dangerous devotion to her country as a weapon against him. Indeed, the only reason Armitage knew about Valerie Wilson was that he had read a negative dossier on Joe Wilson prepared at Libby’s behest.

    Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation, has responded on his blog to pundits who now exonerate the White House. “Rove’s leak (to Robert Novak and Matt Cooper) and Libby’s leak (to Judith Miller and Cooper) were part of a campaign to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson,” he wrote. “That’s no conspiracy theory. The available evidence proves this point.”

    In an article published in The Nation on Sept. 5, Corn says the available evidence also proves that Valerie Wilson was not only a genuine CIA undercover officer, but that she was in charge of operations seeking proof of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, she ran the Joint Task Force on Iraq, part of the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division. She worked overseas using a “nonofficial cover.” By disclosing her identity, the Bush officials ruined her career and endangered the sources she had used in the president’s service. “Hubris” also suggests strongly that her alleged role in dispatching her husband to Niger has been exaggerated.

    All this is contrary to the dominant right-wing perspective in Washington. So now we will see whether those who were so thrilled by the Armitage scoop are honest enough to confront more significant and embarrassing facts. But the fundamental issues have not changed.

    Rather than confront Joe Wilson’s accusations directly, the White House went after him and his wife—and then lied about the involvement of its senior officials in disclosing her identity. The perpetrators of these unpatriotic acts have yet to be punished, and the president has failed to uphold his own professed ethical standards. It is a simple matter, and yet still too challenging for the national press to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Juan Coles Take

    A Senate intelligence report reconfirms that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, nor between him and Abu Musab Zarqawi.

    Actually, the US Government released a document showing that Iraqi intelligence became positively alarmed about reports that al-Qaeda might be in Iraq, and put out an APB on them! (The URL for that document set at Ft. Leavenworth no longer works; I'd appreciate it if any reader has an update).

    Senator Pat Roberts, chair of the intelligence committee, actually went so far as to say of his own committee's report that there was no evidence that Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress knowingly provided false information to the US government, nor that it was acted on. Roberts' philosophy seems to be that you might as well deny it all, there is no percentage in admitting the truth.

    Intriguingly, the report says that the Defense Intelligence Agency warned the Pentagon off the INC on the grounds that it had been penetrated by a foreign intelligence agency, which might be using it to play the US.

    The foreign country that had penetrated Chalabi's group? Iran.

    What is really delicious is that it suggests that the influential Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute who ceaselessly promoted Chalabi, like Richard Perle, David Rhode, and Michael Rubin, were duped by Tehran into doing its bidding.



    ************************************

    And their PNAC neo-con minions are either TOO stupid ot dishonest to admit they were HAD by Iran and it's operative Chalibi, and did their bidding by Taking out Saddam and left Iran as the regiuonal Muslim power.

    Good repug operatives in a few years will try to blame Clinton for this also, just as ABC is currently doing...

    ReplyDelete
  121. This from LOUDED MOUTH

    Senator John Kerry statement to Taylor Marsh. Says it all really.

    What I find most stunning in all of this is that now five years after the real 9/11 – as if any fiction could somehow make more searing what each and every one of us lived with our own eyes and ears – is that we need less revisionism about the past and a hell of a lot more reality about what’s going on now. Right now.

    Instead of the fiction written to excuse the invasion of Iraq by exploiting the 3,000 mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who were lost that day -- they were attacked and killed not by Saddam Hussein but by Osama bin Laden – we need the truth.

    Here’s a little truth: The President pretends Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. It is not now, and never has been. His disastrous decisions have made Iraq a fuel depot for terror – fanning the flames of conflict around the world.

    The terrorists are not on the run. Worldwide, terrorist acts are at an all-time high, more than tripling between 2004 and 2005. Al Qaeda has spawned a vast and decentralized network operating in 65 countries, most of them joining since 9/11. The Taliban now controls entire portions of southern Afghanistan, and just across the border Pakistan is just one coup away from becoming a radical jihadist state with nuclear weapons. The Middle East is more unstable than it has been in decades. Hezbollah flags fly from rooftops in Shiia slums of Sadr City and Iran is rebuilding Southern Lebanon. We have an Iraqi Prime Minister sustained in power by our forces, who will not speak against the Hezbollah terrorists, who will not say that Israel has a right to exist, and who will not condemn the Iranian nuclear program, who will not even as a national leader support the national army over the Shiite militia. In other words, the Iraq government that the administration cites as the front-line force in the fight against terrorism won’t even take our side when we are fighting terrorists. No American soldier should be asked to stand up for an Iraqi government that won’t stand up for the values and interests that draw them into battle every day. Oh, and the 9/11 commission recently gave our government a failing grade on implementing intelligence reforms.

    I love watching movies, but with the world looking the way it is right now I think this is a good time to stick with just the facts. After Iraq, we've all had enough fiction to last a lifetime.

    Senator John Kerry


    Combined with Pat Langs comments about how well the Fronts for Iran played dead eye and his Fooles, we can see the PNAC neo-cons are getting played right and left by the "enemies" they claim to be fighting(but do not seem to be doing too well)....But the PNAC neo-con clown posse is much better than any opition in the war on terra...right wingnuts?

    Osama got Bush and Dumsfeld to fail in Afghanistan,

    And Chalibi got Dead eye and the Pnac Clown posse to knock off Saddam setting up the Shiites for power in Iraq....

    And these idiots claim to be smart?

    ReplyDelete
  122. If these clowns are this stupid..hopefully they will not try and make financial deals with China, like borrow a lot of money. This would result in our having to PAY interest which the Chinese might use to fund an expanding Military to enable it to become the Asian military power...oh right TOO LATE on that also.


    Boy if I didn't KNOW better I would think they were setting the US government up.

    ReplyDelete
  123. But they ARE the people who controls the Government(right now).

    Too bad they SEEM so incompetent.

    ReplyDelete
  124. They seem to have undermined our allies...and emboldeneded our enemies in the middle east...and are working towards borrowing so much money from CHINA that the interest payments would be enough for the Chinese to pay their defense budget with US Taxpayers In terest payments....for a long time. Because they FOOLES have NO plan to pay off the debt they ran up with China........Just MORE tax cuts which MEANS more borrowing......

    ReplyDelete
  125. Lucky for them ABC is running a fictional based movie, to distract the voters from their total incompetence..and Blame Clinton again....I wonder how they will Blame Clinton after this November?

    ReplyDelete
  126. With all their blame Clinton the last 6 years...you would think Bill Clinton has had MORE power than the Idiot, dead eye and Dumsfeld since Jan 2001..........seems the reichwingnuts really are that insecure...after all...because THAT is the way they spin everything, Fear and Blame clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  127. No Clif, you would think the way the Neo Cons are spinning things, that Bill Clinton was president AFTER 9/11 and that it happened on his watch, when the truth is.......................Bush has been president during 9/11 as well as for the last 6 years or so and not only has he done nothing to make our country safer, his arrogant foolish policies and self serving agendas have made our country MUCH LESS SAFE, he has over extended and weakened our military, he has let the real terrorists who attacked and murdered 3000 Americans ride off into the sunset in a country with nukes to plan and inspire more attacks as well as possibly foment a coup in a country where he enjoys over 50% of support, or the majority and could seize those nuclear weapons, he has done nothing to secure our borders or ports or to develop emergency plans, and he has continually lied to the American people about spying on them, about the justification for the invasion and war in Iraq and about the secret prosons and torture and what is his response, is it to secure our borders to make us safer, or to get Osama and the real terrorists.......NO HIS RESPONSE IS TO TRY AND SLANDER AND BLAME BILL CLINTON.

    I guess for a man who has failed in life at every they have ever done Blaming others and slandering their opponents to deflect the issues from their failures and incompetence is all they know how to do, pathetic as ever........hey heres an idea how bout shooting for success and smart policies for once.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Cliff

    I do like Clinton, however, I will not dismiss his negligence regarding intelligence over the Osama matter; which seems to have been served up to him on a silver platter.

    Lets face it.....no one enjoy's their mistakes being pointed out. However, Bush changing his tune concerning the importance of Osama is most alarming.

    Im looking forward to the ABC special.

    As usual, I will keep a very open mind.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Johnny moo moo is incapable of being brainwashed....period!

    ReplyDelete
  130. Interesting that the lefties can't take ANY criticism about their fair haired boy.

    MY understanding was that the movie showed BOTH sides in an unflattering light.

    Nice to know WHO is trying to do the censoring...

    ReplyDelete
  131. your just a spinning fool Dolt, dont you ever get dizzy from spinning so frantically and furiously, the ONLY reason someone would make a movie like this with false scenes trying to portray Clinton as weak on terrorism is for political gain otherwise it would have been 100% accurate and anyone that says different is a FOOL!

    ReplyDelete
  132. Mikey,

    Then WHY does it also show Bush in a bad light?

    ReplyDelete
  133. You guys accuse US of trying to stifle free speech, but YOU'RE the ones who organize big protests and rallies on the web and elsewhere to shut people up.

    When YOU guys express a view we disagree with we simply tell you what we think of your opinion, or if that isn't an option, change the channel.

    When WE express an opinion YOU disagree with YOU guys get people kicked off the air.

    Dr. Laura is a good example...

    There IS an "OFF" button on the radio or TV by the way. And beyond that you have at least MY permission to change the friggin channel.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Too bad you closed your MIND when you bought into the reichwingnut spin like this SH*T

    Johnny Moo Moo said;

    I do like Clinton, however, I will not dismiss his negligence regarding intelligence over the Osama matter; which seems to have been served up to him on a silver platter.

    No PROOF just Internet feces spewed by the same psychopaths who defend the PNAC neo-con clown posse, which have been proven liars, fooles and spinmeisters, but not really competent to protect the USA and Now are getting Canadian soldiers KILLED because the were to interested in invading Iraq to Properly fight the war in Afghanistan.

    Nice of them to pass the Buck in Afghanistan to Canada and its military. Like they try to pass off their refusal to deal with the Osama problem in the winter, spring and summer of 2001, until Osama sent his minions to die in the US.

    Too bad they are enabling China to become the next power in Asia...and ignoring the raging problem of the Terrorists in Pakistan...and refusing to fight correctly in Afghanistan...because the PNAC neo-con clown posse HADF to attack Iraq...and NOW DO NOT KNOW what to do, so they get the idiot to claim stay the course is the correct policy...even though it has FAILED up to now...and has CREATED the Fiasco of an Iraqi civil war and the disintegration of Iraq into 3 autonomous regions...which empowers Iran even MORE, looks like the idiot and the fooles who pull his strings are just Dumb and Dumber....but in real life not just a movie

    ReplyDelete
  135. Voltaire said...

    Mikey,

    Then WHY does it also show Bush in a bad light?


    You have already WATCHED the movie?

    Otherwise YOU do not know this.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Nice to know WHO is trying to do the censoring...


    Clinton ET AL want the TRUTH, not the fiction written by an apologist for the reichwing, and directed by a person with a connection to a christian group who wants to demonise both Clinton and Hollywood, and create propoganda films for the christian right....Bush wants to preempt the Monday night showing with a speech.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Voltaire said...

    You guys accuse US of trying to stifle free speech, but YOU'RE the ones who organize big protests and rallies on the web and elsewhere to shut people up.


    Free speech is what a rally is all about son.

    And protest is Free speech also..

    ReplyDelete
  138. When YOU guys express a view we disagree with we simply tell you what we think of your opinion, or if that isn't an option, change the channel.

    Or get fooles like Limpman, coulterguist, O'Liely hannity Faux lie corp to spew propoganda to discredit

    the truth....with reichwing lies spin and propoganda......and the federal government UNDER Bush hads been PAYING supposedly independant press to spew their propoganda for them.....real; open there son.

    ReplyDelete
  139. No Volt i'm tired of the propaganda and lies, if the movie honestly portrayed Bush or Clinton in a bad light then thats fine by me, but if there are fictional scenes that portray them in a bad light that are not true that can influence people then thats BS brainwashing/mind control like the lies leading up to the Iraq war when they used cherry picked intelligence or used word association like using saddam and Al Qaeda or terrorist in the same sentence to try and inply a link.

    I am willing to bet there are NO FAKE SCENES PORTRAYING BUSH IN A BAD, in fact i'll bet those scenes are real, there are so many things he did wrong you cant leave them out.

    This movie is about trying to infleunce and sway people for the election by trying to portray democrats as weak on terrorism and national security, nothing more!

    ReplyDelete
  140. There IS an "OFF" button on the radio or TV by the way. And beyond that you have at least MY permission to change the friggin channel.

    FOOLE

    changing the channel does NOT stop the propogation iof fiction as FACT...it is simply an appeasers way of saying do not worry if we are being lied to and lead down the wrong path...historically as well, as politically...which is the reason the US is in the dire straights we are currently in...reichwingnut PNACneo-con spin and lies laid out as truths...and FOOLES LIKE YOU playing the idiot apologists

    ReplyDelete
  141. That movie was created by a Reich wing organization to influence the weak minded who do not think for themselves and believe everything they see and here on tv.

    BTW, Dolt, you HIPPOcrites say you are all for free speech if it agrees with your talking points, if it does not then you are not for free speech you make every attemt to silence dissent (which id freedom of speech being exercised) by branding it treason or support of the enemy, you also hack bloggs and bloggers in a attempt to silence people and take away their free speech.

    you would prefer the media to just spew your twisted talking points, when the do stray from the Reich Wings koolaid you label them as treasonous or in league with the ememy.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Thats pretty good there Mike.

    If it shows Clinton in a bad light it's OBVIOUSLY untrue and MUST be corrected.

    If it shows Bush in a bad light
    well, we KNOW that part is true....

    ReplyDelete
  143. "clif said...

    Voltaire said...

    Mikey,

    Then WHY does it also show Bush in a bad light?

    You have already WATCHED the movie?

    Otherwise YOU do not know this.



    Cliffy, Then HOW do YOU know it portrays Clintoon badly? I mean since YOU'VE never actually seen it either...

    ACTUALLY as I'm sure we BOTH know, it WAS screened in DC earlier and there are reviews and opinions already out there.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Hey Col.Klink,for a self described "adrenalin junkie" (wink,wink,nod,nod) you sure do spend an inordinate ammount of time sitting on you ass at a keyboard.Whats up with that? I stop by this blog once or twice a day for a couple minutes and I cant remember a time when you were'nt here justa cuttin anda pastin.Whose sparkin your old lady while you're sitting there blank eyed looking at your monitor? Something to think about sport.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Yes BUT FOOLE I Have seen the out takes which are in dispute(thus I have seen the disputed parts abot Bill Clinton. Sandy Burger, and Madaline Albright) and have seen the scenes compared directaly with the 9-11 commission and Heard commission member STATE the scenes are fake...AND ABC has admitted "some fictionalisation" was added during filmimg...so spin away FOOLE , but you another repun PNAC neoc-on apologist playing the foole minion right now and will recieve nothing but a bill for the debt as time goes on.....remem,ber the debt the idiot repugs in congress and the white house are running up DAILY?

    Have YOU seen scenes about BUSH?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Lying again Dolt I said if the movie falsely portrayed clinton "OR" Bush in a bad light then it is reprehensible.

    I also said "I am willing to bet there are NO FAKE SCENES PORTRAYING BUSH IN A BAD, in fact i'll bet those scenes are real, there are so many things he did wrong you cant leave them out."

    saying "I am willing to bet" is stating my oppinion not fact and unless you are willing to come out of the closet and admit you are against free speech and people who disagre with you should be able to state their opinion then you are a liar.

    its all spin with you and your kind Dolt, I never said "I KNOW ANUTHING", I said I am willing to bet, which means it is my opinion not fact, you dishonestly tried to portray it that I stated a fact why is that Dolt, is spin and lies all you know?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Well Dusty when I take a break I stop in here while resting.....so GFY

    ReplyDelete
  148. Dolty Said;

    Dr. Laura is a good example...

    This Dr Laura?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Dolt also tried to spin things like I said it was ok if the movie falsely portrayed Bush in a bad light but not ok if it did the same to Clinton, another lie by desperate Neo Con spinmeister.

    ReplyDelete
  150. BTW dusty I am going back outvbside to do more yard work, but will check in later...FOOLE

    ReplyDelete
  151. And Mike?

    "Labeling" is not the same as demanding they shut up or actively working to silence them.

    "Labeling" is also someone else actively using THEIR right to freedom of speech.


    I'll try to educate you some here Mike,

    You have "freedom of speech" only insofar as you may say whatever you like. You DO NOT have "freedom from criticism or repurcussions".

    That is because that "criticism" is MY or OTHERS "freedom of speech".

    Also, if say someone with whom you do business disagrees, he may decide to stop doing business with you, as is HIS right. That would be a "repurcussion".

    Now the MEDIA is a little different. Media personalities have their own followings, one group may like this person, others may like another person. But when the ones who dislike one personalities opinion organize and deluge sponsors with vitriol, and get that person taken off the air then they HAVE stifled THAT PERSONS "freedom of speech", since THAT PERSONS following can no longer watch or listen to them. All YOU had to do was turn the dial. But that's not good enough. YOU don't want ANYONE espousing a different opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I hope that the final cut of the movie is as accurate as possible. Any factual errors will only serve to allow its lib detractors to dismiss the substance of the entire movie.

    Witnessing these libs, who now howl about a fictional movie with factual errors, is a study in hypocrisy. They are angry not because of its inaccuracy per se, but because it skewers their hero, slick willie.

    Where were these self-righteous soldiers of "truth" when bogus crockudramas were released like farenhype 911, bowling for columbine, etc., made by asshats like michael moore, oliver stone, and spike lee?

    ReplyDelete
  153. The events in the movie never happened Mike.

    Sandy Berger NEVER blocked an attempt to kill Bin Laden. In fact, they slammed 50 missiles into an Al Quaida training camp they thought he was in, missing him by just a few hours.

    Harvey Keitel, the lead actor on the film was on TV last night denouncing the movie in which he stars. 2 retired FBI agents quit due to the out and out fabrications being pushed by the film. The other 911 commision have condemned the film, and pointed out the the claims that Clinton was sidetracked were unfounded, and that events in the Oval Office depicted in the film never took place.

    Its a crock of right wing crap, prepping Americans to hate Arabs again so we can invade Iran and trust the President.

    The clowns in here supporting it are goosesteppers and nothing more.

    If Bush walked into their dining room, took a crap on their table then told them it was meatloaf, they'd carve it up, pour some ketchup on it, and gobble it up.

    You can't help people like that.

    They won't see till they want to see, and it doesn't look like they want to anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  154. From TP.

    The docudrama was written by avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh, who once spoke on a panel entitled: “Rebels With A Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” But the ideological slant behind this movie goes far deeper than Nowrasteh.

    Research conducted by a reader at Democratic Underground has revealed that the Path to 9/11 was the result of a project hatched out by a small group of evangelical activists who sought to “transform Hollywood from the inside out.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Worf said "The events in the movie never happened Mike.

    Sandy Berger NEVER blocked an attempt to kill Bin Laden. In fact, they slammed 50 missiles into an Al Quaida training camp they thought he was in, missing him by just a few hours.

    Harvey Keitel, the lead actor on the film was on TV last night denouncing the movie in which he stars. 2 retired FBI agents quit due to the out and out fabrications being pushed by the film. The other 911 commision have condemned the film, and pointed out the the claims that Clinton was sidetracked were unfounded, and that events in the Oval Office depicted in the film never took place.

    Its a crock of right wing crap, prepping Americans to hate Arabs again so we can invade Iran and trust the President.

    The clowns in here supporting it are goosesteppers and nothing more.

    If Bush walked into their dining room, took a crap on their table then told them it was meatloaf, they'd carve it up, pour some ketchup on it, and gobble it up."


    So True Worf, I have been following this closely I know the scenes are false, BTW did you watch CNN last night, good stuff first Larry King then they had on an "are we safer now under Bush"

    ReplyDelete
  156. And as for their claims it wasn't going to be sold as history?

    Harvey Keitel, the STAR of the film, said that when he was offered the film, the script he was handed said "ABC HISTORY PROJECT".

    HISTORY PROJECT.

    Not "docudrama".

    HISTORY.

    And that he said, is why he didn't question it until he saw the finished product.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I saw that as well Worf, its a piece of brainwashing propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Yea I saw Larry King. I watched as Kristen tour Frau Coulter a new one live on national television.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Yeah right.

    And Sandy Burglar NEVER stuffed classified documents down his pants either...

    Talk about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat,
    You guys swallow whole all the Clinton gestapo crap and then make it a conspiracy every time Bush farts.

    ReplyDelete
  160. And don't let the poor little clowns in here tell you that it's just the left condemning this movie.

    Its not.


    The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden.

    Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.


    John Podhoretz
    Conservative Columnist
    Fox News Consultant

    ReplyDelete
  161. Does the movie show Sandy Berger stuffing all those secret documents down his pants at the National Archives?

    ReplyDelete
  162. The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”

    James Taranto
    OpinionJournal, 9/7/06

    ReplyDelete
  163. Col.Klink musta went to check on his old lady.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Hi FF! (and where ya been btw...)

    The BS is getting REAL deep in here and I could use a hand cleaning out this stall....

    Grab a shovel!

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  165. One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene].

    But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

    Hugh Hewitt
    Conservative Commentator
    9/6/06]

    ReplyDelete
  166. When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

    Chris Wallace
    Fox News Sunday anchor

    ReplyDelete
  167. Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception
    Less than 72 hours before ABC's "The Path to 9/11" is scheduled to air, the network is suddenly under siege. On Tuesday, ABC was forced to concede that "The Path to 9/11" is "a dramatization, not a documentary." The film deceptively invents scenes to depict former President Bill Clinton's handling of the Al Qaeda threat.

    Now, ABC claims to be is editing those false sequences to satisfy critics so the show can go on -- even if it still remains a gross distortion of history. And as it does so, ABC advances the illusion that the deceptive nature of "The Path to 9/11" is an honest mistake committed by a hardworking but admittedly fumbling team of well-intentioned Hollywood professionals who wanted nothing less than to entertain America. But this is another Big Lie.

    In fact, "The Path to 9/11" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision.

    Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Televisionindustry." As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's "global training network" in film industry jobs "so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," according to a YWAM report.

    Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled "Untitled History Project." "TFI's first project is a doozy," a newsletter to YWAM members read. "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).

    The following month, on July 28, the New York Post reported that ABC was filming a mini-series "under a shroud of secrecy" about the 9/11 attacks. "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project,'" the Post noted.

    Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to
    write the script of his secretive "Untitled" film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham.

    Nowrasteh's conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too "politically incorrect" to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo -- both friends of Nowrasteh -- announced they were "partnering" with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as "A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center."

    Since the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1992, Horowitz has labored to create a network of politically active conservatives in Hollywood. His Hollywood nest centers around his Wednesday Morning Club, a
    weekly meet-and-greet session for Left Coast conservatives that has been graced with speeches by
    the likes of Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens. The group's headquarters are at the offices of Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a "think tank" bankrolled for years with millions by right-wing sugardaddies like eccentric far right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (Scaife
    financed the Arkansas Project, a $2.3 million dirty tricks operation that included paying sources for
    negative stories about Bill Clinton that turned out to be false.)

    With the LFF now under Horowitz's control, his political machine began drumming up support for Cunningham and Nowrasteh's "Untitled" project, which finally was revealed in late summer as "The Path to 9/11." Horowitz's PR blitz began with an August 16 interview with Nowrasteh on his FrontPageMag webzine. In the interview, Nowrasteh foreshadowed the film's assault on Clinton's record on fighting terror. "The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests," Nowrasteh told FrontPageMag's Jamie Glazov. "There simply was no response. Nothing."

    A week later, ABC hosted LFF co-founder Murty and several other conservative operatives at an advance
    screening of The Path to 9/11. (While ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, Clinton administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets were denied them.) Murty returned with a glowing review for FrontPageMag that emphasized the film's partisan nature. "'The Path to 9/11' is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support
    it and promote it as vigorously as possible," Murty wrote. As a result of the special access granted by ABC, Murty's article was the first published review of The Path to 9/11, preceding those by the New York Times and LA Times by more than a week.

    Murty followed her review with a blast email to conservative websites such as Liberty Post and Free Republic on September 1 urging their readers to throw their weight behind ABC's mini-series. "Please do everything you can to spread the word about this excellent miniseries," Murty wrote, "so that 'The Path to 9/11' gets the highest ratings possible when it airs on September 10 & 11! If this show gets huge ratings, then ABC will be more likely to produce pro-American movies and TV shows in the future!"

    Murty's efforts were supported by Appuzo, who handles LFF's heavily-trafficked blog, Libertas. Appuzo was instrumental in marketing The Path to 9/11 to conservatives, writing in a blog post on September 2, "Make no mistake about what this film does, among other things: it places the question of the Clinton Administration's culpability for the 9/11 attacks front and center... Bravo to Cyrus Nowrasteh and David
    Cunningham for creating this gritty, stylish and gripping piece of entertainment."

    When a group of leading Senate Democrats sent a letter to ABC CEO Robert Iger urging him to cancel The Path to 9/11 because of its glaring factual errors and distortions, Apuzzo launched a retaliatory campaign to paint the Democrats as foes of free speech. "Here at LIBERTAS we urge the public to make noise over this, and to demand that Democrats back down," he wrote on September 7th. "What is at stake is nothing short of the 1st Amendment."

    At FrontPageMag, Horowitz singled out Nowrasteh as the victim. "The attacks by former president Bill Clinton, former Clinton Administration officials and Democratic US senators on Cyrus Nowrasteh's ABC
    mini-series "The Path to 9/11" are easily the gravest and most brazen and damaging governmental attacks on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans since 9/11," Horowitz declared.

    Now, as discussion grows over the false character of The Path to 9/11, the right-wing network that brought it to fruition is ratcheting up its PR efforts. Murty will appear tonight on CNN's Glenn Beck
    show and The Situation Room, according to Libertas in order to respond to "the major disinformation campaign now being run by Democrats to block the truth about what actually happened during the Clinton years."

    While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It's almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Sorry Dusty but I have been busy putting the last post together for you neo-con idiot apologists here.....

    ReplyDelete
  169. Well there ya go Clif and Mike.

    Conservatives are criticizing the movie as well...




    What's that?

    Criticizing only?

    Their NOT calling for a rewrite?

    They haven't organized a huge movement against the movie?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Its clear Mike and Clif, that anyone on the right with a working brain of their own has denounced or is denouncing this movie as a fabrication.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Must have a small yard 'eh cliffy?

    ReplyDelete
  172. The poor worms that hang out in this and other blogs defending the movie are pathetic, and laughable.

    They squirm in their own discomfort.

    ReplyDelete

  173. “I do have a problem if you make claims that the program is based upon the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report when the actors, scenes and statements in the series are not found in and, indeed, are contradicted by our findings.”


    Jamie Gorelick
    9/11 Commissioner

    ReplyDelete
  174. Conservatives are "criticizing" the movie....

    They're NOT screaming at the top of their lungs?

    They're NOT stomping their feet?

    They're NOT holding their breath till their faces turn blue?

    ReplyDelete
  175. Voltaire said...

    Must have a small yard 'eh cliffy?

    Just about three acres son,

    ReplyDelete
  176. Some scenes in the film complete fiction.

    The mischaracterizations tended to support the notion that the president was not attentive to anti-terrorism concerns. That was the opposite from what the 9/11 commission found.


    Richard Ben-Veniste
    9/11 Commissioner

    ReplyDelete
  177. There were plans, not an operation in place.

    Secondly, Osama bin Laden was never in somebody’s sights.

    Thirdly, on page 114 of our report we say George Tenet took responsibility for pulling the plug on that particular Tarnak Farms operation.


    Tim Roemer
    9/11 Commissioner

    ReplyDelete
  178. Director Defends Accuracy of Path to 9/11: ‘We Have Our CIA Consultants and Clinton Has His’

    Path to 9/11 graphic ABC is defending the multiple inaccuracies in Path to 9/11 by stressing parts are fictionalized and not entirely based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But that’s not the position of director David Cunningham.

    According to Cunningham, critics are simply taking scenes out of context or relying on a competing set of experts. Here’s what Cunningham told The Crimson White, a University of Alabama newspaper:

    “A lot of these critics haven’t seen the whole thing or, in some cases, any of it,” Cunningham said.

    “We have these CNN pundits who haven’t seen it who are taking scenes out of context as examples [of factual inaccuracies in the film].”

    Cunningham also pointed out that the critics, many of whom are Democrats, are just telling their side of the story.

    “We have out [sic] CIA consultants and Clinton has his. It’s kind of a ‘he said, she said’ situation right now,” Cunningham said.

    Cunningham added that “the talk of ABC possibly pulling the show ‘is just a rumor right now.’”

    ReplyDelete
  179. Ah a quote from the builder of the "wall".

    I suppose if I'd have put an ENTIRE country in as much danger as SHE did, wouldn't want them portraying my actions either.

    And of course the commission was SO fair she got to sit on it instead of IN FRONT of it.

    ReplyDelete
  180. If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that

    Richard Miniter
    Conservative Author and Commentator

    ReplyDelete
  181. NYT: FBI agents warned Disney/ABC that film was inaccurate A YEAR AGO, Disney/ABC refused to fix it


    Disney/ABC was told about the errors a year ago and refused to correct them. You want libel? You got libel. This is an intentional tort now, full-blown malice.

    Two retired F.B.I. agents said today that they had rejected advisory roles on the disputed ABC mini-series, “The Path to 9/11,” because of concerns about the program’s accuracy.

    One of the agents, Thomas E. Nicoletti, was hired by the producers of the mini-series in July 2005 to oversee its technical accuracy, but left after less than a month because of scenes he believed were misleading or just false....

    Chief among Mr. Nicoletti’s concerns were scenes that placed people at places they had not been present at and scenes that depicted events that were out of chronological order.

    “There were so many inaccuracies,” he said.

    Mr. Nicoletti said he asked the producers to make changes, but was rebuffed. “I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy,” Mr. Nicoletti said. “And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.”

    ReplyDelete
  182. "clif said...

    Voltaire said...

    Must have a small yard 'eh cliffy?

    Just about three acres son,



    Well then Clif, you do "yard work" very quickly...

    ReplyDelete
  183. Hey! It's probably a GOOD thing he didn't pull that trigger whilst stuffing classified documents down his britches....

    ReplyDelete
  184. Well son when your DRAINING oil to replace it befor eyou mow...you remove the drain plug and wait.....for....the ....oil ...to...drain...out....
    of......the.....bottom....of....the ....motor.....and....I....am.....doing
    .....that.....right....now........son.

    ReplyDelete
  185. People from both sides are coming out in hoardes, condemning and or criticizing this film.

    The STAR OF THE FILM has condemned it.

    All 911 commission members have condemned it except the one being PAID to make it.

    Conservative authors, commentators, pundits and bloggers are condemning or criticizing it.

    Former Presidents, dignitaries and officials have condemned it.

    The bellycrawlers in this blog will squirm and cry and make their innane jokes just show their true discomfort with being discovered to be far right fringe loons, nothing more.

    They are to be pitied for they are truly pathetic. A lost little fringe of Volksturm, still defending their master as Berlin burns in the rubble.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Worfeus in their pathetic little minds it is 1937...not 1944...which historically it seems to be

    ReplyDelete
  187. Early 1944, just before the D-Day invasion....which shouyld tell the fooles that we are not winning the war in Iraq...or Afghanistan....but providing Osama what he wanted...a chance to get the US in his backyard and replay the 1980's all over again, too bad they took ther bait, but forgot the fight.

    And giving Iran...Iraq for free was just STUPID

    ReplyDelete
  188. All YOU guys see is the far right because there is NO ONE to the left of you OR to the immediate right...

    That should be a clue as to exactly HOW far out there you are.

    ReplyDelete
  189. PNAC neo-con repug clown posse stupid....but stupid just the same.

    ReplyDelete
  190. But like ole Forest Gump said...STUPID is as STUPID does, so I guess they really can not help themselves....

    ReplyDelete
  191. Voltaire said...

    All YOU guys see is the far right because there is NO ONE to the left of you OR to the immediate right...

    That should be a clue as to exactly HOW far out there you are.


    Yo BOZO, I was FOR McCain...before HE drank the Kool aid....and am a admirer of Chris Shays......

    But the repus went SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO far reich, than anything else seems left wing to THEM

    ReplyDelete
  192. Clif said "Voltaire said...

    Mikey,

    Then WHY does it also show Bush in a bad light?

    You have already WATCHED the movie?

    Otherwise YOU do not know this.

    10:50 AM"

    Hmmm interesting question i'm willing to bet these fools have watched it.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Israel's Olmert says he is ready to meet Abbas

    Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Saturday he was ready to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to advance progress on a stalled Middle East peace "road map".

    But he stressed to British Prime Minister Tony Blair that at the top of the agenda was securing the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by militants from the Gaza Strip in June.
    "I assured Prime Minister Blair that I am ready to work closely with Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Abbas to implement the road map," Olmert told a news conference after meeting Blair.
    Olmert added that the road map called for the dismantling of Palestinian militant groups.


    Must be ONE of those appeasers the reichwingnuts are screaming about....ya thunk?

    ReplyDelete
  194. They very well may have Mike.

    After all, ABC distributed hundreds of copies of the "finished product" to conservative pundits, commentators etc, BEFORE announcing as they did last night that the movie was "still being edited".

    The right wing fringe in here may have had access to it too.

    ReplyDelete