Wednesday, September 13, 2006

The Swift Boat Connection of ABC's 9/11 Deception

Huffington Post
Max Blumenthal
The Swift Boat Connection of ABC's 9/11 Deception

Under pressure about his institutional ties to the conservative movement (see here), The Path to 9/11 screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh now claims, the film he wrote had no political agenda. "This project was generated at ABC at the highest network levels," and brought together people from "broadly different backgrounds," Nowrasteh told the right-wing evangelical publication WorldNetDaily.

Two ABC flacks, meanwhile, told the New York Times that Nowrasteh's politlcal affiliations had nothing to do with The Path to 9/11's content.

But ABC and Nowrasteh have yet to answer for the admission by Lt Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson that significant portions of his anti-Clinton attack books were incorporated into Nowrasteh's script.

Who is Patterson? He is a former military aide to President Bill Clinton who exploited his brief, low-level experience in the White House to ingratiate himself with the far-right. In 2003, Patterson wrote "Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security," a polemic rife with distortions about Clinton's record in combating terrorism. A year later, he pumped out "Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security," a book that claimed without basis that terrorists wanted the Democrats to win the 2004 presidential election. Both books were produced by the right-wing publishing house, Regnery.

During the 2004 election, Patterson's second book became a centerpiece of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's campaign to undermine Sen. John Kerry's military record in Vietnam. The book dubiously asserted that after Kerry charged a Vietcong position, he returned from the battle "armed with a Super 8 video camera he had purchased at the post exchange at Cam Ranh Bay, and reenacted the skirmish on film."

Today, Patterson is a board member of Move America Forward, a right-wing group that mounted a PR campaign claiming that Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMD's, and falsely claimed a photograph that was later revealed to have been taken in Turkey was a snapshot of a Baghdad pacified by US military forces.

On September 1, while Nowrasteh endured scathing criticism of his falsehood-laden script, he called Patterson at home to tell him that he used his book, "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the film that was about to air. Later that day, Nowrasteh hosted Patterson at his home for a private screening of The Path to 9/11. Patterson told WorldNetDaily a week after meeting with Nowrasteh that he received a personal phone call from ABC senior vice president Quinn Taylor.

When The Path to 9/11 finally aired with only 70 seconds of falsified footage missing, Nowrasteh declared triumph. "To lose only a minute is a success, is a victory," Nowrasteh told WorldNetDaily. "I think ABC stood tall."

Patterson, for his part, will be a headline speaker at David Horowitz's Renaissance Weekend this year.



Read More...

The Fear Monger Speaks

Huffington Post
Peter Laufer
King Filthy Rat Bastard Speaks

In his fear-mongering September 11th speech, President Bush again invoked the names of the soldiers he sent to their deaths in his Iraq War. He claimed again, as he has so many times before, that the war must go on so that their sacrifice is not wasted.

The President noted, "Every one of our troops is a volunteer, and since the attacks of September the 11th, more than 1.6 million Americans have stepped forward to put on our nation's uniform.

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the war on terror, the men and women of our military are making great sacrifices to keep us safe. Some have suffered terrible injuries -- and nearly 3,000 have given their lives. America cherishes their memory. We pray for their families. And we will never back down from the work they have begun."

When he cited the volunteers, he neglected to mention those troops forced back into active duty from the Inactive Ready Reserve. He failed to acknowledge the so-called Stop Loss phenomenon that keeps troops fighting long past the exit date they were offered when they signed up for the service. And worst of all, he ignored the fact that many of those volunteers - along with so many American civilians and even members of Congress - back his war because they believed their Commander-in-Chief when he told them the U.S. needed to invade Iraq to save America.

What do those 1.6 million volunteers think today? We could use a poll that asks them all. In the meantime, I've tallied the feelings of some of them in my book Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. President Bush should ask these soldiers to the White House and listen to what they have to say. While we wait for the invitations to be sent out, here are some examples.

Meet Joshua Key, combat hardened from his Iraq time, now a deserter in Canada seeking refugee status. He misses his family and he blames the Bush Administration. "I blame them because they made me do it. You can lie to the world; you can't lie to a person who's seen it. They made me have to do things that a man should never have to do, for the purpose of their gain - not the people's - their financial gain."

George W. Bush is culpable for crimes in Iraq, according to Joshua Key. "He'll pay for it one day. On the day he goes to prison, I'll go sit in prison with him. I say if he goes to prison - George Bush - I'll go sit in prison with him. Let's go. I'll face it for that music. But that ain't never going to happen." And Joshua Key laughs a bitter, bitter laugh.

Meet Abdul Henderson, sent into Iraq from Kuwait as the invasion started. Abdul Henderson says he does not oppose the military. "That's one thing a lot of people get mixed up. I'm protesting this war. I'm not really anti-war. Sometimes war is inevitable. I love the Marine Corps. To this day I love the Marine Corps." In fact he credits what he learned from the Marines for his resolve to oppose the Iraq War. "The Marine Corps gave me the strength and conviction to stand up for what I believe in. It changed my life forever."

He says it was Bush Administration politicians who drove him from the service as he watched them misuse the patriotism of his fellow Marines ready to die of America. "They basically lied to us. They told us something that they said was the absolute truth, that, 'We know where these weapons of mass destruction are. They got them. They're here, here, here, and here.' They showed us pictures. We got there and there was nothing," Again a laugh, a mixture of disgust and incredulity. "That place was in shambles."

Meet Steven Casey, still susceptible to recall from the Inactive Ready Reserve after his time fighting in Iraq. He says he'll never put his uniform back on. "You'll see me on the news. I won't be back. I'll be a statistic of a guy who doesn't show up." His voice is quiet as he says it again, "I'm not coming back." Steven Casey says he's going to college, an education he'll pay for with the money the Army guaranteed him when he enlisted. "I did get what I was promised," he says about his benefits package. "I got everything they said I was going to get," he says about the tuition money. "I got a hunk of money for school, and with that I got social anxiety and I got this cool skin rash that I'm never going to get rid of. I've got a social disorder. I yell at my wife. I don't think I won. There are a lot of things that came with this that are irreparable and I'm going to have the rest of my life." He talks about anger and anxiety. He wonders if he's suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, if he's facing a lifetime of prescription drugs and psychiatrists. "I wish I could make it all go away, to be honest with you. But I can't. I should have worked at McDonalds and found a way to pay for my tuition."

What a fantasy: A meeting at the White House with these brave soldiers telling their stories to George Bush. It would be a meeting that could be best summed up with the words of another Iraq War combat veteran, Clifton Hicks.

It's a war, says Clifton Hicks, fought for "filthy rich bastards too cowardly to do it themselves" who want more money, fought by "us, the masses of uneducated fools killing each other


Read More...

Democrats accuse Bush of exploiting 9/11 speech

Reuters
Democrats accuse Bush of exploiting 9/11 speech
By Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Democrats on Tuesday accused President Bush of exploiting the September 11 anniversary to boost his faltering Iraq war policy and asked TV networks to give them balancing coverage in future.

"Until now, there has been a complete absence of balance in the news coverage of national security issues," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to the major networks as both parties jockeyed for position in the November 7 congressional elections.

"We ask that you commit your network to providing fair and equitable coverage to the viewpoints of both Republicans and Democrats," the two Democratic leaders wrote.

Democrats said Bush should have tried to recapture a spirit of national unity in his televised Oval Office on Monday, but instead sought to score political points and boost his party's sagging approval ratings.

Reid told reporters Democrats had been so confident the Republican Bush would be nonpartisan that they had not sought equal time on television to offer their party's response.

"Sadly, it was a missed opportunity for President Bush, who apparently was more consumed by staying the course in Iraq and playing election year politics," Reid said, accusing Bush of once again trying to "conflate and blur the war in Iraq with the response to 9/11."

Pelosi said, "The American people deserved an opportunity to grieve and come together as a nation last night. Instead President Bush gave them partisan and inaccurate rhetoric."

Republicans struck back, saying it was the Democrats who had injected politics into a national day of remembrance.

"I listen to my Democratic friends and I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people," House Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters.

Bush had raised partisan ire by saying in his Oval Office address that "whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone."

"The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad," he said in the address to mark five years since the suicide attacks by al Qaeda hijackers that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Reid and Pelosi, in their letter to the networks, wrote: "We write to you today to request that if you plan to continue to devote extensive live coverage to the President's national security speeches ... you similarly provide substantial coverage to the national security events and statements of House and Senate Democrats."

With polls showing the war to be unpopular, Democrats are widely expected to pick up seats in both the House and Senate in November's congressional elections, possibly seizing a majority from the Republicans in one or both chambers.

Bush has tried to frame the elections as a debate over national security. Democrats counter that the Iraq war is a distraction from the war on terrorism rather than a part of it and question whether America is any safer now.

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said: "The president took pains yesterday not to be partisan, and that was the appropriate thing to do." He said it was the Democrats who seized on the September 11 anniversary to talk about Iraq.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Thomas Ferraro)



Read More...

Democratic Senate proposal would check all US-bound cargo

Reuters
Senate proposal would check all US-bound cargo
By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All U.S.-bound cargo would have to be scanned for nuclear materials while still abroad under a proposal that Democrats urged the Senate on Tuesday to pass to protect American ports five years after the September 11 attacks.

The Senate, controlled by President George W. Bush's Republicans, is expected to vote as early as Wednesday on the proposal, rejected by the House of Representatives earlier this year and opposed by shipping and industry groups.

If the Senate passes it, the two chambers would negotiate a compromise.

The bill would already require the government to finish installing radiation-screening equipment at major U.S. ports by the end of 2007 to detect "dirty bombs," devices that combine conventional explosives and radioactive material.

The measure would also launch a pilot project for cargo-scanning at three foreign ports.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat, proposed an amendment that would also mandate the scanning at all foreign ports within four years. Companies shipping the goods would pay the scanning costs, which he estimated at about $8 a container.

"God forbid a nuclear weapon is shipped into this country and exploded," Schumer said.

UNDER ATTACK

Bill co-sponsors from both parties attacked Schumer's proposal. Companies would avoid the charge by sending their goods to Canada and from there by rail to the United States unscreened, said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state.

"We have to be sure we won't create a worse security system by imposing a fee," Murray told reporters.

Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens said Schumer's plan, if passed, would "close all the ports because we cannot do it (scan all the containers) all at once."

With both parties angling for advantage in congressional elections less than two months away, the ports bill attracted a flood of amendments on all kinds of security concerns.

The Senate accepted, on a voice vote, a Republican proposal authorizing $3.5 billion for mass transit security. "We know from the occurrences in Great Britain, India and Spain, that our buses, subways and railways are attractive targets for terrorists," said sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama.

The Senate also agreed to include provisions that would help further a national emergency alert system that includes wireless devices. And, the chamber lifted the ceiling on the number of U.S. employees who screen airline passengers, currently capped at 45,000.

But Republicans poured scorn on an amendment proposed by Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. It called for a wide-ranging security program including protecting chemical plants and implementation of all the September 11 commission's recommendations; Stevens warned that adding all of this to the port security bill would "kill" it.

Republican said a procedural objection was likely to be raised against Reid's amendment, requiring it to get 60 votes to survive. Democrats have just 44 senators, and one independent who usually votes with them.

The port security issue languished in Congress until earlier this year when lawmakers said they had security concerns about an Arab state-owned company, Dubai Ports World, which had bought operations at six major U.S. ports.

To quell the uproar, the company said it would sell the U.S. assets it had acquired.




Read More...

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Bush: "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad"

The New York Times
Bush: "The Safety Of America Depends On The Outcome Of The Battle In The Streets Of Baghdad"...
JIM RUTENBERG And SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

President Bush used the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on Monday to assert that the United States was engaged in "a struggle for civilization" and sought to invoke a sense of national purpose in making his case anew for seeing through the war in Iraq.

"The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad," Mr. Bush said.


In a prime-time speech from the Oval Office, delivered after a day of solemn ceremonies, Mr. Bush sought to place the war in Iraq in the context of an epic battle between tyranny and freedom, saying the campaign against global terrorism was “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.”

“If we do not defeat these enemies now,” Mr. Bush said, “we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.”

The address capped a week of speeches in which Mr. Bush tried to lay out his best case for the war in Iraq by defining it as a crucial front in the war on terror, while portraying the broader struggle as a natural successor to World War II and the Cold War in defining the place of the United States in the world.

Even by the standards of his latest round of speeches, Mr. Bush’s language was particularly forceful, even ominous, with warnings of a radical Islamic network that was “determined to bring death and suffering to our homes.”

Mr. Bush spent roughly one-fifth of his 17-minute address making the case that the nation’s safety hinged on success in Iraq, even as he implicitly acknowledged there was no link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 strikes.

“I’m often asked why we’re in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks,” Mr. Bush said, going on to say that Mr. Hussein was a threat nonetheless, that he needed to be confronted and that the world was safer with him in captivity.

And Mr. Bush reprised some of his tougher talk against Osama bin Laden, delivering a message to him and other terrorists, “America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.”

Mr. Bush gave his address at the end of a tour through the three major attack sites — Lower Manhattan; Shanksville, Pa.; and the Pentagon — in which he attended ceremonies and spoke with the bereaved but made no public comments.

He gave the speech from behind his desk at a fast clip, but with a furrowed brow and circles below his eyes. He delivered it five years to the minute of when he addressed the nation from the same seat on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, and proclaimed that those who harbored terrorists would be dealt with as if they were terrorists themselves.

Drawing parallels between the challenges of his presidency and those of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, Mr. Bush said, “Our nation has endured trials, and we face a difficult road ahead.” And he called for unity, saying, “We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”

All of the networks carried the address live; ABC ran it during a break in its miniseries about the attacks that portrayed the Clinton and Bush administrations as having failed at times to move aggressively enough against Al Qaeda before the attacks.

Mr. Bush’s address brought to a close a day when leaders of both parties put aside, at least for the moment, the acrimony that has characterized the national security debate since the brief period of national unity after the attacks. But as soon as the speech was over, the partisanship flared again. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the president “should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning” to justify his Iraq policy. And Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called the address disappointing, saying, “You do not commemorate the tragedy of 9/11 by politicizing it.”

Hours earlier, Congressional leaders joined on the Capitol steps to sing “God Bless America,” an effort to recreate their spontaneous moment of post-attack comity. And the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid — whose press office is ordinarily a clearinghouse for hard-charging attacks on the president and Republican leadership — released a statement that read in part, “The light that shone on Sept. 11 cannot die, it cannot be dimmed, it cannot fail.”

But it was the president’s day that dominated a news media environment that was swimming in the imagery of Sept. 11, with the cable news networks offering blanket coverage of the day’s ceremonies, mixed with remembrances from survivors, first responders, officials and politicians.

Before speaking from the Oval Office, Mr. Bush had spent the day in public silence as he and Laura Bush visited the three sites scarred by the attacks, a solemn trek that began at ground zero Sunday night.

The Bushes began their day at the Fort Pitt firehouse on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where they observed back-to-back moments of silence — one at the precise moment each of the twin towers was struck. They then moved to Shanksville, Pa., where Mr. and Mrs. Bush laid a wreath in a spitting rain in the field where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed, and wound up at the Pentagon, where the weight of the day showed on their faces.

It was an emotional and somber, if carefully scripted, day for the Bushes, designed by the White House to maximize the president’s exposure but minimize his words before the evening speech.

At the Pentagon, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld presided over a memorial service that was occasionally interrupted by the eerie roar of commercial jets from nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport.

Addressing a crowd of 500 that included relatives of victims, Mr. Cheney said the United States would keep pressing the fight. “We have no intention of ignoring or appeasing history’s latest gang of fanatics trying to murder their way to power,” Mr. Cheney said, quoting the president and reprising a theme that has been taken by critics as a veiled effort to portray Democrats as appeasing the enemy.

Also speaking at the service, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said the number of American military personnel killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, at roughly 3,000, was approaching the number of people killed in the attacks.

Teresa Taylor of New Hampshire, who attended in honor of her brother-in-law, Leonard E. Taylor, said she was moved by Mr. Rumsfeld’s recounting of the day of the attacks, given in halting voice. “It brought back a lot of memories,” she said.

But Shannon Mason of Springfield, Va., called the ceremony “too political” for coupling the attacks with the war in Iraq. Ms. Mason, whose mother, Ada Mason, a Pentagon budget analyst, was killed in the attack, added, “I think the war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.”

Even as he called for unity Mr. Bush alluded to Democratic calls for a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, saying, “Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone.”

Mark Leibovich and Helena Andrews contributed reporting.




Read More...

DARK MILESTONE: More Americans Have Now Died In Iraq Than Died On 9/11

Huffington Post
RJ Eskow
DARK MILESTONE: More Americans Have Now Died In Iraq Than Died On 9/11

While President Bush and other Republican politicians spent the day exploiting the memory of those we lost five years ago, the nation overlooked a grim milestone: More Americans have now died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Iraq didn't attack us on that day, and our misguided policy there has now taken more American lives than Al Qaeda.

Here are the numbers: 3,015 Americans have died in Iraq as of September 9. 2,666 of these were military deaths and 349 were civilians.

The Republicans are fond of playing cheap number games with Iraqi casualty figures, and one of the ways they do it is by listing the deaths of enlisted personnel only. They're hoping that a lazy press and an indifferent public will overlook the civilian losses, and to a large extent they've been right so far.

A total of 2,973 people died on 9/11. Most, although not all, were Americans.

Another game Republicans play with the public involves their redefinition of the word "casualty," which has always meant (and still means) those who have been killed or injured in combat. The GOP leadership often use the word to mean only deaths, and the press usually lets them get away with that too.

So here's another figure, one that represents a group of too-often-forgotten American heroes: 20,000. That's the approximate number of non-fatal military casualties from the war in Iraq. This represents many more people than were wounded on 9/11, and consists of far more serious injuries than in any previous war.

Battlefield medicine can save the lives of the grievously wounded now in ways that were unthinkable in previous wars. Unfortunately it can't grow back limbs, or heal highly disfiguring burns, or repair gravely damaged brains and nervous systems.

Many experts feel that the Pentagon is seriously undercounting these non-fatal casualties, and some place the figure as high as 48,000. Official numbers are in the 20,000 range, however, so we'll accept this count for discussion purposes.

None of these figures counts Iraqi casualties, of course. After the cheap gamesmanship that was used to artificially lower August's Iraqi civilian death toll in Baghdad, it's very difficult to cite any figures with confidence. A count of Iraqi morgues put the total well above 40,000, but that was some time ago.

And as for the total number of wounded, including women and children - well, as Mr. Rumsfeld has so often reminded us, we're not counting.

Today President Bush and his fellow Republicans made another public spectacle out of 9/11, the anniversary of the gravest executive blunder in American history. It's been more than five years since President Bush told the CIA officer trying to warn him about the upcoming attacks that "you've covered your ass now," and then went off to enjoy his vacation day.

His other blunder - the wrong war, at the wrong time, with the wrong result for our nation's security - has now proven even more costly in American lives. Who will lay a wreath for these American victims?

"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace," said Thomas Mann. The real struggle we face is preventing terrorism. The GOP's escapist distraction in Iraq has proven deadlier than the real business at hand.

Read More...

More than half of people in the UK think the "war on terror" is being lost

BBC NEWS
Half think UK 'losing terror war'
More than half of people in the UK think the "war on terror" is being lost, a survey for the BBC suggests.

It found 53% believed the UK government was losing the "war on terror" and 56% thought it was being lost by other western governments.

Four out of 10 people questioned said they felt less safe now than when the so-called war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, while 11% felt safer.

GfK NOP surveyed almost 1,000 people for the Ten O'Clock News.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said it was difficult to define what "victory" in the so-called war on terror meant.

And while there had been success in the intelligence war, the battle to win the hearts and minds of British Muslims had not gone well, he added.

Gender divide

In the survey, some 52% thought British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan now, and half believed they should leave Iraq.

Those that thought UK forces should stay at the moment stood at 31% for Afghanistan and 34% for Iraq.

There was a clear gender divide, with men more willing for British troops to stay than women.

The figure for those who believed western governments should not negotiate with al-Qaeda was 52%, but almost a third thought they should.

The government is too closely aligned with US foreign policy said 55%, but 19% thought it was about right.

Almost a quarter of people thought the "war on terror" was being won in the UK, and a fifth thought it was being won globally.

'Pessimistic view'

BBC political research editor David Cowling said the survey paints a disappointing picture of what has happened in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

He said "The findings suggest an unwillingness for western governments to negotiate with al-Qaeda, alongside a rather pessimistic view of what has been achieved in the five years since New York's twin towers were destroyed.

"And the survey also reveals a strong difference of view between men and women about Britain's continued military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It also seems that the past five years has lessened the sense of security felt by many people."

The poll sampled 999 people nationally from the 8th to 10th of September.




Read More...

Monday, September 11, 2006

Cheney confirms the fix is in on midterm elections!

Reuters
Cheney offers to bet on congressional Republicans
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday he expects fellow Republicans to rally and keep control of Congress in the November 7 election -- and offered to bet on it.

Although polls show unhappy voters may turn over the U.S. House of Representatives and possibly the Senate to Democrats, Cheney said: "I think we're doing very well out there."

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney told moderator Tim Russert, "I'll even bet you a dinner that we hold both houses."

"I don't bet," replied Russert.

Cheney was questioned about the election, which will determine whether President George W. Bush will still have a Congress controlled by his fellow Republicans during his final two years in office.

Cheney said the administration does not fear that it would face tougher congressional scrutiny of the Iraq war and other matters if Democrats win control of the House or Senate.

"We have had oversight all along," said Cheney, rejecting Democratic complaints that Republicans have failed to hold the administration accountable.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Republicans intend to spend the vast majority of their financial war chest in the next two months on negative ads.

"I hope our guys have good hard-hitting advertisements," Cheney said when asked about the report. "Certainly the opposition does."

"Just think about what's at stake in this election in terms of national security and the global war on terror," Cheney said.

Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to scare the public into voting to keep them in charge of Congress, and say Democrats could better protect America.

"They (Republicans) think they can't win the elections unless they talk about terrorism all the time," Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean told "Fox News Sunday."

"We think we ought to talk about a new direction for the country," said Dean, whose party's campaign platform includes upgrading health care and education while also increasing anti-terrorism efforts.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat whom Bush defeated in the 2004 presidential election, said Republicans have no advantage on national security.

"They've been incompetent," Kerry told CNN's "Late Edition." "... We can do better."



Read More...

Global warming film unites preachers and politics

Reuters
Global warming film unites preachers and politics
By Carey Gillam

OVERLAND PARK, Kansas (Reuters) - Coming soon to a movie screen near you: prayers, politics and a feature-length film, united in an effort to mobilize religious groups around global warming concerns in time for the U.S. midterm election.

With a new documentary titled "The Great Warming" as their chief campaign tool, a coalition of religious leaders, environmentalists and businesses are spreading copies of the film into churches around the country. Voter guides and themed sermons are also part of the plan.

The aim of the screenings, like one held in Kansas last week, is to turn the large and powerful conservative Christian constituency into a voting block united behind making the reduction of greenhouse gases a top priority among politicians.

Evangelical Christian leaders have embraced the cause and are now helping spur momentum before both midterm elections in November and the 2008 presidential election.

"In the past, white evangelicals have been largely Republican and the environment has traditionally been a Democratic issue ... so there are political implications in terms of alliances," said Joel Hunter, who serves on the National Association of Evangelicals board and as senior pastor of the 12,000-member Northland Church in Longwood, Florida.

"But there is no doubt about the mandate of scripture here. We need to do what we can to care for the Earth," Hunter said by telephone. "We want to lead people into the arena where it will have an affect on how they vote."

The movement by faith communities to become more active on environmental issues has been growing over the last several years with many undertaking energy-saving and energy-education projects that they describe as "creation care."

Indeed, according to a July survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, more than 70 percent of people of faith polled believed global warming was occurring.

But the movement to turn that devotion into a political power base on global warming is only now getting under way. Advocates said they intended to put pressure on both Republicans and Democrats to be more active in seeking to reduce global warming.

A national rollout of "The Great Warming" at U.S. cinemas starts in October. The plan also calls for more than 500 sermons on global warming and lists of questions for church members to ask political candidates.

FROM TALK TO ACTION

The National Council of Churches, with an estimated 45 million members, Presbyterians for Restoring Creation and leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals are helping develop online promotions, newsletters and campaign materials for film screenings, including one planned for September 30 at the Washington National Cathedral.

African-American mobilization is part of the agenda as well, with a September 21 screening led by the Rev. Gerald Durley, a former civil-rights activist who leads a large Baptist congregation in Atlanta.

"We're hoping to get this in before the elections," said Karen Coshof, the independent Canadian documentary maker who produced "The Great Warming." "It's time to get beyond talk to action."

Global warming concerns stem from scientific evidence that layers of carbon dioxide heat -- generated in part by power plants and automobiles -- is altering the climate and leading to deadly heat waves, drought and disastrous flooding.

Many conservative political and business groups, which generally support the same politicians as white evangelicals, challenge the conclusions as faulty and alarmist, however, and say efforts to rein in CO2 emissions will hurt the economy.

Still, "Great Warming" backers say the tide has turned in their favor amid overwhelming scientific data and growing public concern. And they say, many businesses are recognizing action is needed, including Zurich-based Swiss Re, one of the world's leading reinsurance companies and a chief financial backer of the film.

"I am what you call a green Republican ... and there are a number of us out there," said Troy Helming, founder of the Kansas-based Krystal Planet alternative energy company, which also backs the film. "It is unfortunate that the party ... has kind of lost its way in terms of environmental issues."




Read More...

Gore says he hasn't ruled out second White House run

USA TODAY
Gore says he hasn't ruled out second White House run

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) — Former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday he hadn't rule out making a second bid for the White House, though he said it was unlikely.

Gore spoke to reporters in Sydney, where he was promoting the local premiere of his documentary on global warming.

"I haven't completely ruled out running for president again in the future but I don't expect to," Gore said before the Sunday night premiere of An Inconvenient Truth.

"I offer the explanation not as an effort to be coy or clever. It's just the internal shifting of gears after being in politics almost 30 years. I hate to grind the gears," he added.

Gore, who lost the presidency to President Bush in 2000 in disputed circumstances, said there was no doubt the impact of global warming would be best addressed through the power of the presidency, but making a documentary was second best.

Gore's renewed popularity and movie tours across the United States have spurred speculation of a White House run in 2008. He has previously repeatedly denied such intentions.

The documentary, which Gore narrates, is critical of the United States and Australia for refusing to adopt the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Prime Minister John Howard, a friend and ally of Bush, said he would not meet Gore during his Australian visit and would not heed his advice to sign up to Kyoto.

"I don't take policy advice from films," Howard told reporters.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-10-gore-remarks_x.htm?csp=34




Read More...

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Do you feel safer today than you did 5 years ago?

Read More...

9-11 Moment of Silence

Read More...

Anybody Seen My Law Book?

Read More...

Plan For Post Cold War Occupation

Read More...

Iraq! Iraq!

Read More...

5 Years Later: Bin Laden Trail 'Stone Cold'

washingtonpost.com
Bin Laden Trail 'Stone Cold'
U.S. Steps Up Efforts, But Good Intelligence On Ground is Lacking
By Dana Priest and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers

The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

"The handful of assets we have have given us nothing close to real-time intelligence" that could have led to his capture, said one counterterrorism official, who said the trail, despite the most extensive manhunt in U.S. history, has gone "stone cold."

But in the last three months, following a request from President Bush to "flood the zone," the CIA has sharply increased the number of intelligence officers and assets devoted to the pursuit of bin Laden. The intelligence officers will team with the military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and with more resources from the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies.

The problem, former and current counterterrorism officials say, is that no one is certain where the "zone" is.

"Here you've got a guy who's gone off the net and is hiding in some of the most formidable terrain in one of the most remote parts of the world surrounded by people he trusts implicitly," said T. McCreary, spokesman for the National Counterterrorism Center. "And he stays off the net and is probably not mobile. That's an extremely difficult problem."

Intelligence officials think that bin Laden is hiding in the northern reaches of the autonomous tribal region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This calculation is based largely on a lack of activity elsewhere and on other intelligence, including a videotape, obtained exclusively by the CIA and not previously reported, that shows bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when U.S. forces came close but failed to capture him.

Many factors have combined in the five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to make the pursuit more difficult. They include the lack of CIA access to people close to al-Qaeda's inner circle; Pakistan's unwillingness to pursue him; the reemergence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; the strength of the Iraqi insurgency, which has depleted U.S. military and intelligence resources; and the U.S. government's own disorganization.

But the underlying reality is that finding one person in hiding is difficult under any circumstances. Eric Rudolph, the confessed Olympics and abortion clinic bomber, evaded authorities for five years, only to be captured miles from where he was last seen in North Carolina.

It has been so long since there has been anything like a real close call that some operatives have given bin Laden a nickname: "Elvis," for all the wishful-thinking sightings that have substituted for anything real.

After playing down bin Laden's importance and barely mentioning him for several years, Bush last week repeatedly invoked his name and quoted from his writings and speeches to underscore what Bush said is the continuing threat of terrorism.

Many terrorism experts, however, say the importance of finding bin Laden has diminished since Bush first pledged to capture him "dead or alive" in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Terrorists worldwide have repeatedly shown they no longer need him to organize or carry out attacks, the experts say. Attacks in Europe, Asia and the Middle East were perpetrated by homegrown terrorists unaffiliated with al-Qaeda.

"Will his capture stop terrorism? No," Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a recent interview. "But in terms of a message to the world, it's a huge message."

Despite a lack of progress, at CIA headquarters bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are still the most wanted of the High Value Targets, referred to as "HVT 1 and 2." The CIA station in Kabul still offers a briefing to VIP visitors that declares: "We are here for the hunt!" -- a reminder that finding bin Laden is a top priority.

Gary Berntsen, the former CIA officer who led the first and last hunt for bin Laden at Tora Bora, in December 2001, says, "This could all end tomorrow." One unsolicited walk-in. One tribesman seeking to collect the $25 million reward. One courier who would rather his kids grow up in the United States. One dealmaker, "and this could all change," Berntsen said.
Bin Laden Still Alive

On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2001.

White House spokeswoman Michele Davis said she would not comment on the specific allegation. "Military and intelligence units move routinely in and out," she said. "The intelligence and military community's hunt for bin Laden has been aggressive and constant since the attacks."

The Pakistani intelligence service, notoriously difficult to trust but also the service with the best access to al-Qaeda circles, is convinced bin Laden is alive because no one has ever intercepted or heard a message mourning his death. "Al-Qaeda will mourn his death and will retaliate in a big way. We are pretty sure Osama is alive," Pakistan's interior minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post.

Pakistani intelligence officials also say they think bin Laden remains actively involved in al-Qaeda activities. They cite the interrogations of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a key planner of the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and Abu-Faraj al-Libbi, who served as a communications conduit between bin Laden and senior al-Qaeda operatives until his capture last year.

Libbi and Ghailani, who was arrested in Pakistan in July 2004, were the last two people taken into custody to have met with and taken orders from Zawahiri and to hear directly from bin Laden. "Both Ghailani and Libbi were informed that Osama was well and alive and in the picture by none other than Zawahiri himself," one Pakistani intelligence official said.

Two Pakistani intelligence officials recently interviewed in Karachi said that the last time they received firsthand information on bin Laden was in April 2003, when an arrested al-Qaeda leader, Tawfiq bin Attash, disclosed having met him in the Khost province of Afghanistan three months earlier.

Attash, who helped plan the 2000 USS Cole bombing, told interrogators that the meeting took place in the Afghan mountains about two hours from the town of Khost.

By then, Pakistan was the United States' best bet for information after an infusion of funds from the U.S. intelligence community, particularly in the area of expensive NSA eavesdropping equipment.

"For technical intelligence ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) works hand in hand with the NSA," a senior Pakistani intelligence official said. "The U.S. assistance in building Pakistan's capabilities for technical intelligence since 9/11 is superb."

Since early 2002, the United States has stationed a small number of personnel from the NSA and the CIA near where bin Laden may be hiding. They are embedded with counterterrorism units of the Pakistan army's elite Special Services Group, according to senior Pakistani intelligence officials.

The NSA and other specialists collect imagery and electronic intercepts that their CIA counterparts then share with the Pakistani units in the tribal areas and with the province of Baluchistan to the south.

But even with sophisticated technology, the local geography presents formidable obstacles. In a land of dead-end valleys, high peaks and winding ridge lines, it is easy to hide within the miles of caves and deep ravines, or to live unnoticed in mud-walled compounds barely distinguishable from the surrounding terrain.

The Afghan-Pakistan border is about 1,500 miles. Pakistan deploys 70,000 troops there. Its army had never entered the area until October 2001, more than a half century after Pakistan's founding.
Pakistani Sources Lost

A Muslim country where many consider bin Laden a hero, Pakistan has grown increasingly reluctant to help the U.S. search. The army lost its best source of intelligence in 2004, after it began raids inside the tribal areas. Scouts with blood ties to the tribes ceased sharing information for fear of retaliation.

They had good reason. At least 23 senior anti-Taliban tribesmen have been assassinated in South and North Waziristan since May 2005. "Al-Qaeda footprints were found everywhere," Interior Minister Sherpao said in a recent interview. "They kidnapped and chopped off heads of at least seven of these pro-government tribesmen."

Pakistani and U.S. counterterrorism and military officials admit that Pakistan has now all but stopped looking for bin Laden. "The dirty little secret is, they have nothing, no operations, without the Paks," one former counterterrorism officer said.

Last week, Pakistan announced a truce with the Taliban that calls on the insurgent Afghan group to end armed attacks inside Pakistan and to stop crossing into Afghanistan to fight the government and international troops. The agreement also requires foreign militants to leave the tribal area of North Waziristan or take up a peaceable life there.

In Afghanistan, the hunt for bin Laden has been upstaged by the reemergence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and by Afghan infighting for control of territory and opium poppy cropland.

Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2003, said he thinks bin Laden kept close to the border, not wandering far into either country. That belief is still current among military and intelligence analysts.

"We believe that he held to a pretty narrow range of within 15 kilometers of the border," said Vines, who now commands the XVIII Airborne Corps, "so that if the Pakistanis, for whatever reason, chose to do something to him, he could cross into Afghanistan and vice versa."

He said he thinks bin Laden's protection force "had a series of outposts with radios that could alert each other" if helicopters were coming or other troop movements were evident.

Pakistani military officials in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, described bin Laden as having three rings of security, each ring unaware of the movements and identities of the other. Sometimes they communicated with specially marked flashlights. Sometimes they dressed as women to avoid detection by U.S. spy planes.

Pakistan will permit only small numbers of U.S. forces to operate with its troops at times and, because their role is so sensitive politically, it officially denies any U.S. presence. A frequent complaint from U.S. troops is that they have too little to do. The same complaint is also heard from U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where there were few targets to go after.

Although the hunt for bin Laden has depended to a large extent on technology, until recently unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were in short supply, especially when the war in Iraq became a priority in 2003.

In July 2003, Vines said that U.S. forces under his command thought they were close to striking bin Laden, but had only one drone to send over three possible routes he might take. "A UAV was positioned on the route that was most likely, but he didn't go that way," Vines said. "We believed that we were within a half-hour of possibly getting him, but nothing materialized."

Faced with the most sophisticated technology in the world, bin Laden has gone decidedly low-tech. His 23 video or audiotapes in the last five years are thought to have been hand-carried to news outlets or nearby mail drops by a series of couriers who know nothing about the contents of their deliveries or the real identity of the sender, a simple method used by spies and drug traffickers for centuries.

"They are really good at operational security," said Ben Venzke, chief executive officer of IntelCenter, a private company that analyzes terrorist information and has obtained, analyzed and published all bin Laden's communiques. "They are very good at having enough cut-outs" to move videos into circulation without detection. "It's some of the simplest things to do."

Uncertain Command Structure

Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.

In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.

"How did they get the intel?" he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.

"Why aren't you giving it to us?" Rumsfeld wanted to know.

Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop.

A CIA spokesman said Hayden, now the CIA director, does not recall this conversation. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "The notion that the department would do anything that would jeopardize the success of an operation to kill or capture bin Laden is ridiculous." The NSA continues to share intelligence with the CIA and the Defense Department.

At that time, Rumsfeld was putting in place his own aggressive plan, led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), to dominate the hunt for bin Laden and other terrorists. The overall special operations budget has grown by 60 percent since 2003 to $8 billion in fiscal year 2007.

Rows and rows of temporary buildings sprang up on SOCOM's parking lots in Tampa as Rumsfeld refocused the mission of a small group of counterterrorism experts from long-term planning for the war on terrorism to manhunting. The group "went from 20 years to 24-hour crisis-mode operations," one former special operations officer said. "It went from planning to manhunting."

In 2004, Rumsfeld finally won the president's approval to put SOCOM in charge of the "Global War on Terrorism."

Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. "There's nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!" one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. "Nobody!"

"We work by consensus," explained Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., who recently stepped down as deputy director of counterterrorism under the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "In order to find Osama bin Laden, certain departments will come together. . . . It's not that effective, or we'd find the guy, but in terms of advancing United States power for that mission, I think that process is effective."

But Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the JSOC commander since 2003, has become the de facto leader of the hunt for bin Laden and developed a good working relationship with the CIA to the extent that he recently was able to persuade the former station chief in Kabul to become his special assistant. He asks for targets from the CIA, and it tries to comply. "We serve the military," one intelligence officer said.

McChrystal's troops have shuttled between Afghanistan and Iraq, where they succeeded in killing al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and killed or captured dozens of his followers.

Under McChrystal, JSOC has improved its ability to quickly turn captured documents, computers and cellphones into leads and then to act upon them, while waiting for more analysis from CIA or SOCOM.

Industry experts and military officers say they are being aided by computer forensic field kits that let technicians retrieve information from surviving hard drives, cellphones and other electronic devices, as was the case in the Zarqawi strike.

McChrystal, who has commanded JSOC since 2003, now has the authority to go after bin Laden inside Pakistan without having to seek permission first, two U.S. officials said.

"The authority," one knowledgeable person said, "follows the target," meaning that if the target is bin Laden, the stakes are high enough for McChrystal to decide any action on his own. The understanding is that U.S. units will not enter Pakistan, except under extreme circumstances, and that Pakistan will deny giving them permission.

Such was the case in early January, when JSOC troops clandestinely entered the village of Saidgai, two officials familiar with the operation said, and Pakistan protested.

A week later, acting on what Pakistani intelligence officials said was information developed out of Libbi's interrogation, the CIA ordered a missile strike against a house in the village of Damadola, about 120 miles northwest of Islamabad, where Pakistani and American officials thought Zawahiri to be hiding.

The missile killed 13 civilians and several suspected terrorists. But Zawahiri was not among them. The strike "could have changed the destiny of the war on terror. Zawahiri was 100 percent sure to visit Damadola . . . but he disappeared at the last moment," one Pakistani intelligence official said.

Tens of thousands of Pakistanis staged an angry anti-American protest near Damadola, shouting, "Death to America!"

"Once again, we have lost track of Ayman al-Zawahiri," the Pakistani intelligence official said in a recent interview. "He keeps popping on television screens. It's miserable, but we don't know where he or his boss are hiding."

Contributing to this report were staff writers Bradley Graham, Thomas E. Ricks, Josh White, Griff Witte and Allan Lengel in Washington, Kamran Khan in Islamabad and John Lancaster in Wana, Pakistan, and staff researchers Julie Tate and Robert E. Thomason.



Read More...

One more reason to vote Democratic: Bush wants to renew Social Security push after elections

Reuters
Bush wants to renew Social Security push after vote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush hopes to revive his plan to overhaul the U.S. Social Security retirement program if his Republican party keeps control of the Congress in the November midterm elections, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

Despite polls suggesting Democrats have their best chance in years to regain control of the House of Representatives, Bush told the newspaper in an interview he was confident a power shift was "not going to happen."

"I just don't believe it," he said, adding that if Republicans prevail at the polls, next year might be a good time to reintroduce the effort to reshape Social Security because he could "drain the politics out of the issue."

Bush was forced to abandoned his 2005 push to add private accounts to the retirement program, in part because of concerns among Republicans that the unpopular plan would jeopardize their chances in this year's elections.

Some Democrats have emphasized the Social Security reform plan in their campaign to oust Republican incumbents in November, contending it would inject too much risk into the program and push the government deeper into debt.

Bush made Social Security investment accounts a top domestic priority for his second term, arguing such a system would help young people by putting the retirement program on a more sustainable financial footing.


Read More...

The FBI’s continued technological incompetence is putting America at risk.

Dangerous Disgrace
The FBI’s continued technological incompetence is putting America at risk.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

Aug. 21, 2006 - Everyone’s got an Exhibit A of the mind-bending, staggering and almost incomprehensible incompetence of the Bush Era. Iraq. Katrina. Medicare. But let’s add one more. Should, God forbid, we be hit again by terrorists, historians will point an unforgiving finger at the computers of the FBI.

As The Washington Post reported on August 18, five years after 9/11 the FBI’s computer system is still not fixed. How can this be? It’s an ugly story of poor management, contractor abuse and an agency that cannot electronically connect the dots—even though nearly everyone agreed in 2001 that developing that ability should be among the top priorities for the United States. It’s as if after Pearl Harbor President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that ships and aircraft be built to fight the Japanese, only to discover that five years later the government had built none.

The blame begins with Louis Freeh, who smugly headed the FBI for eight years under President Bill Clinton. Although he claims to have tried to upgrade the bureau’s computers in 1995, he failed miserably. In 2001, when any large business in the world that wanted to make money was long since fully automated—and when most American six-year-olds could download Little League snapshots—the FBI remained in the horse-and-buggy era. Its rusty mainframes used text-only “green screens” and could not scan reports or transmit photographs. Agents had no PCs and were forced to share e-mail accounts. Because it took 12 steps to upload a single document, most agents gave up and did everything the old-fashioned way—on paper.

Remember the period right after 9/11? I was hardly the only one writing about computers at the FBI. The new FBI director, Robert Mueller, insisted he was focused on the task at hand. He spent $170 million on a plan called “Trilogy” that was meant to solve the Bureau’s technology problems.

From the start, it was a rip-off. The contractor, Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), assigned 200 people to a program that, according to a former employer, could easily have been handled by a dozen. Instead of adapting off-the-shelf software, which any computer consultant with half a brain (make that any person with half a brain) knows is the only way to go, the company decided to design a software system from scratch. Surprise! It didn’t work. If you’ve read even one of the 500,000 articles in the popular press about software development, it’s obvious that the first try never works.

The consultants would, naturally, have us believe that the FBI’s requirements were so complex and security-related that they needed their own system. This is a crock. Many businesses are larger and more complex than the FBI and they, too, have major security considerations. But this is how SAIC ballooned its contract from $14 million annually to $170 million. Then, when it had clearly failed, the contractor blamed the supervisors within the FBI. Natch.

By the time the National Research Council investigated the FBI’s progress in May 2004, the results were pathetic. The review team found that three years after 9/11, the system still didn’t allow agents to take their cases into the field on laptops. The program did not have bookmarking or archiving features that are standard in the least expensive commercial software. And the system could not properly sort data. Worst of all, the researchers found that the whole system could easily crash and the FBI had no backup plan. “A bunch of us were planning on committing a crime spree the day they switched over,” a computer science professor who was on the review team told the Post.

After pulling the plug on Trilogy in January, 2005, the FBI started over with a different contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp. Its new system, called Sentinel, is said to be on budget and schedule, but at $305 million dollars it is many times more expensive than what a similar project would cost in the private sector. We’re told this system will work some day. Keep your finger crossed.

There’s enough blame to go around. Why did the Republican Congress, which has abdicated oversight, settle for asking a few pointed questions, then call it a day when told to be patient? Why didn’t the White House ride herd on the computer upgrade until it was successfully completed? Why wasn’t Mueller fired?

The sad truth is that accountability in Washington is dead. We won’t get it back until we throw out those responsible. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14453669/site/newsweek/



Read More...

A Misleading Appeal To Fear: Pro-Bush group misstates key facts about anti-terror campaign.

factcheck.org
A Misleading Appeal To Fear
Pro-Bush group misstates key facts about anti-terror campaign.

Summary

The pro-Bush group Progress for America is running a TV ad appealing directly to Americans' fear of terrorists, saying bluntly "These people want to kill us."

That's true enough. But the ad falsely attributes the recent thwarting of a hijack plot to the President's warrantless NSA wiretaps, when it was actually British authorities who uncovered it.

The ad also distorts the position of Iraq war critics, implying they propose to withdraw from "the Middle East" and not just Iraq.

And in a bit of bad luck, the ad cites the case of al-Qeda affiliate Zarqawi as evidence of the success of Bush's anti-terror campaign – one day before the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report saying Saddam Hussein considered him an outlaw and tried to have him arrested.

Analysis

The ad was announced Sept. 7. PFA said it is the 'first flight' and is appearing initially in Missouri and on the organization's website, with plans to keep it running for the week that will include the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Its sponsor is a group formed in 2001 for the express purpose of backing the "Bush agenda," and it spent $38 million in 2004 promoting the President's re-election.

Progress for America Ad:
"The War on Terror"

Announcer: These people want to kill us. Whether called Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, they're terrorists who want to kill everyone who don't submit to their extreme ideology, submit to a system where women have no rights, where innocent civilians are political pawns.

Many seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago.

They would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving Al-Qaeda to attack us again.

Many times before 9/11, Al-Qaeda attacked America, and we took little action: the first World Trade Center bombing, our embassies, the USS Cole.

But after 9/11, we struck back, destroying Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us.

Now, we have narrowly escaped "another 9/11," using proven surveillance that some would stop.

The War on Terror is a war for our country's freedom, security and survival.

Appeal to Fear

The ad is a raw appeal to fear, saying "these people want to kill us" while showing weapons-toting fighters and a huge crowd chanting "Death to America." It adds, "Many seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago," while showing an orange fireball billowing from the World Trade Center south tower as United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into it Sept. 11, 2001.

Strictly speaking, the ad is clearly false on that point. We know of nobody who has "forgotten" the events of 9/11, and we doubt that Progress for America can name a single person who has. If what PFA means by this statement is that "many" people don't see 9/11 as justification for the military campaign in Iraq or the President's domestic antiterror actions, they are correct. Many do disagree.

We asked PFA about this. They cited a poll showing only about a third of Americans are worried they will be victims of terrorism. That's not the same as "forgetting."

Misleading Claim:

NSA Wiretaps

The ad seriously misleads viewers when it shows a Newsweek cover story about the foiled plot to blow up US-bound airliners, and claims that "we have narrowly escaped 'another 9/11,' using proven surveillance that some would stop." That's a reference to the National Security Agency wiretaps that President Bush ordered to be undertaken without seeking judicial warrants. In fact, there is no evidence that the NSA wiretaps played any significant role at all in the discovery or thwarting of the alleged plot. British authorities had been watching the accused plotters since December 2005, and only informed the White House about the plot a few days prior to making arrests.

We have been over this before , and what we said then bears repeating. White House adviser Fran Townsend revealed in an interview on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that the US simply played a supporting role:

Townsend: We put every tool at our disposal into use to help our British colleagues. But this really was a British investigation for the longest time. We didn`t see an American threat. It was only recently we developed the American angle working with our British colleagues , but this was really a British threat.

We know of no evidence that the the NSA wiretaps turned up any trace of the alleged British plot prior to the British discovery of it. And the British had been watching the accused plotters since December, roughly eight months before giving President Bush a "detailed briefing" about it on Aug. 4, which in turn was less than a week prior to making arrests. No less an authority than the President himself gave the British, not the NSA, credit for exposing the plan. He said on the day of the arrests, Aug 10:

Bush Aug. 10: I want to thank the government of Tony Blair and officials in the United Kingdom for their good work in busting this plot.

According to news accounts, the British first got onto the plan after receiving a tip from a worried member of the Muslim community.

When we asked PFA about this they cited news accounts saying that the British had used wiretaps in their months-long investigation of the suspected terrorists. We consider that a particularly lame response. We know of nobody who suggests that the British end "surveillance." As for the NSA taps, critics generally aren't calling for them to end either – they propose that Bush get judicial warrants for them from the same special panel of judges that approves other secret intelligence-agency wiretaps.

Misleading Claim:

"Leaving al Qaeda free to attack"

The ad also claims that "They would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving Al-Qaeda to attack us again," apparently referring to the President's critics. But we know of nobody who advocates US withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, much less from the entire Middle East. The ad is artfully worded to avoid mention of an unpopular subject, Iraq, which is the one place in the Middle East that some Bush critics want the US to leave.

In fact, a number of Bush critics have said for years that the administration should have put more troops into the hunt for bin Laden and the remnants of his leadership in the mountains of the Pakistani-Afghan border region. For example, on March 5, Democratic Rep. John Murtha said on CBS News's Face the Nation :

Murtha, March 5: Let me tell you, the only people who want us in Iraq is Iran and al-Qaeda, and I talked to a top level commander the other day, who's--about two weeks ago, and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources. Our phys--our mental--not our mental--our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

Q: Well, now, Congressman, when you say al-Qaeda wants us there, why would al-Qaeda want us there?

A: Because we're depleting our resources. A very small proportion to what's going on in Iraq, and they've diverted their attention away from the war on terrorism.

Describing such criticism as proposing to leave al Quaeda unmolested is as false as it can be. And the fact is that despite all Bush's efforts bin Laden still remains at large and - in theory - "free to attack us again."

Misleading Claim:

"Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us."

The ad specifically cites the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in support of Bush policy in Iraq. It says the US destroyed al Qaeda terrorists "in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us." But just one day after the ad appeared, the Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited "Phase II" report on Iraq, concluding that Saddam Hussein not only offered no support for al Qaeda but repeatedly turned down requests for aid. As for Zarqawi, to whom some Bush allies once pointed as evidence of Saddam's supposed ties to al Qaeda, the Senate report said Saddam tried and failed to capture him when he slipped into Baghdad under an alias in 2002, possibly seeking medical treatment. It said Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship with, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." In fact, the Senate cited information from an al Qaida detainee that Saddam "considered al-Zaraqi to be an outlaw."

Zarqawi left and "he did not return to Baghdad until June 2003, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime," according to the report.

-by Brooks Jackson
Sources

Craig Whitlock and Dafna Linzer, "Tip Followed '05 Attacks on London Transit," Washington Post 11 Aug 2006: A1.

"President Bush Discusses Terror Plot Upon Arrival in Wisconsin," White House. 10 Aug. 2006.

White House Press Briefing, Tony Snow. 11 Aug. 2006

CBS News Transcripts, "Face the Nation: Representative Jack Murtha, House Appropriations Committee, discusses war in Iraq and Iran, and Dubai ports deal," 5 March 2006.

Jim Abrams, " Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties," The Associated Press, 8 Sep 2006.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, " Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments," released 8 Sep 2006.


Read More...

Cheney’s Power No Longer Goes Unquestioned

The New York Times
Cheney’s Power No Longer Goes Unquestioned
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — From those first moments five years ago when Secret Service agents burst into Vice President Dick Cheney’s office on Sept. 11, lifted him off his feet and propelled him to the underground Presidential Emergency Operations Center, the man who had returned to Washington that year to remake the powers of the presidency seemed unstoppable.

Within minutes, Mr. Cheney was directing the government’s response to an attack that was still under way. Within weeks, he was overseeing the surveillance program that tracked suspected terrorist communications into and out of the United States without warrants. Within months, he and his staff, guided by a loyal aide, David S. Addington, were championing the reinterpretation of the rules of war so that they could detain “enemy combatants” and interrogate them at secret detention facilities run by the C.I.A. around the world.

It was Mr. Cheney and his staff who helped shape the rules under which members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda were denied some of the core rights of the Geneva Conventions and would be tried by “military commissions” at Guantánamo Bay — if they faced trial at all.

“I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it,” Mr. Cheney said in December on a flight from Pakistan to Oman. “You know,” he added, “it’s not an accident that we haven’t been hit in four years.”

But as the nation observes the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Cheney finds the powers he has asserted under attack and his influence challenged. Congress and the Supreme Court have pushed back at his claim that the president alone, as commander in chief, can set the rules for detention, interrogation and domestic spying.

On Wednesday afternoon in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Cheney sat silently as President Bush urged Congress to restore to him the powers, stripped away by the Supreme Court in a 5-to-3 ruling in June, to create military commissions and define the precise meaning of the Geneva Conventions when it comes to interrogations.

There is little question that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney still share the goal of expanding the power of the presidency: legislation they have sent to Congress would essentially allow them to set the rules of evidence, define interrogation techniques and intercept domestic communications as they have for the past five years.

But they have been stymied in their effort to simply assert those powers and carry them out with minimal oversight, as part of Mr. Cheney’s declared goal to restore to the presidency an authority that he believed was dangerously eroded after Vietnam and Watergate.

On national security issues, Mr. Cheney, once the unchallenged adviser to a president who came to office with little experience in foreign affairs, remains a pivotal figure but now vies for influence with other officials like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser. Over the past 18 months, Mr. Cheney appears to have reluctantly given ground on detention practices and, at least for now, on policy disputes involving Iran and North Korea.

On Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee — controlled by Mr. Cheney’s Republican allies — declared that there had been no basis for Mr. Cheney’s repeated claims that Saddam Hussein had harbored a Qaeda leader and had ties to the group. But Mr. Cheney has never conceded that his statement was in error.

His prediction in 2002 that overthrowing Mr. Hussein would force radical extremists “to rethink their strategy of jihad” proved wrong, as Mr. Bush implicitly acknowledged last week when he described how the array of enemies facing America has multiplied. Mr. Cheney’s friends and former aides said they were mystified about how the same man who as defense secretary in 1991 warned that “for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire” managed, 15 years later, to find himself facing that prospect.

A Waning Influence

Measuring the accumulation or the erosion of power is an imprecise art. But interviews with more than 45 people over the past five months — including current and former White House aides, foreign diplomats, members of Congress and confidants of Mr. Cheney — painted a picture of a vice president who, while still influential, has seen his power wane.

Most agreed to speak candidly only if their names were not used. Mr. Cheney himself declined repeated requests for an interview. Instead, his office encouraged Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley to give interviews to dispute the view that Mr. Cheney’s power is in decline.

Mr. Hadley said the vice president “is often the first to insist that the president hear a variety of views” and argued that reports of his powers in the first term were always exaggerated. “It’s the president who creates the foreign policy around here,” Mr. Hadley said, “not some hidden hand.”

Ms. Rice disputed the view that she had supplanted Mr. Cheney, pointing out that he still had one-on-one lunches with Mr. Bush where he could make his views known “in his quiet way.”

Mr. Cheney’s defenders said that over the summer he was among the strongest voices arguing within the White House that the United States had to give Israel as much time as possible to strike a decisive blow against Hezbollah.

But those same insiders said that in retrospect Mr. Cheney’s power was at its peak in 2003 and 2004, before Iraq’s insurgency flared, before the abuses at Abu Ghraib were revealed, before the setbacks in Congress and at the Supreme Court.

Without the help of his closest adviser, I. Lewis Libby Jr., who resigned last fall after his indictment in the Central Intelligence Agency leak case, Mr. Cheney has lost the early warning radar that gave him and his staff such command over the federal bureaucracy. Administration insiders said Mr. Cheney and his aides were now having to fight to maintain positions that a few years ago he would have won handily.

“During the first term, Cheney was considered one of the smartest guys in the administration,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. “But his influence has been diminished because of the Scooter Libby thing and because the war in Iraq has not gone well.”

In his second term, Mr. Bush has grown less dependent on Mr. Cheney for information, current and former officials said. When Joshua B. Bolten became the White House chief of staff earlier this year, he told associates that he wanted to make sure the president heard from more voices. “My impression is that there are a lot more data points or gathering points now,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota.

For instance, Mr. Bush has turned to another Washington insider, James A. Baker III, who served Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state, for help as the co-chairman of an outside group developing options for dealing with Iraq. One group member said, “You get the sense that the president now realizes, perhaps a little late, that he needs Baker to find him an exit door.”

Mr. Cheney told NBC News in May that his influence with Mr. Bush was unchanged. “I feel like he gives me the access that I need to be able to do my job,” Mr. Cheney said, adding later: “I give him the best advice I can. He doesn’t always agree. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn’t.”

Challenges in Congress

Perhaps nowhere has Mr. Cheney’s shifting influence been more visible than on Capitol Hill, where the vice president’s ability to win his way without challenge — a luxury he enjoyed through much of the first term — has evaporated.

In the first four years, Mr. Cheney often bypassed Congress on issues like detention policy.

He and Mr. Addington began to pave the way for the reassertion of executive power that they had long talked about. Mr. Cheney took control of crucial intelligence-gathering programs, including the one that involved eavesdropping on conversations between suspects in the United States and their overseas counterparts without getting a warrant from a special court set up by Congress for such cases.

“They have a view of executive authority that basically smothers the other two branches,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who found himself at odds with Mr. Cheney on detention and interrogation policy.

But in the second term, whether the issue was the treatment and prosecution of terror suspects or Congressional oversight of domestic spying, Mr. Cheney has been forced into an unhappy retreat.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling struck at the heart of Mr. Cheney’s goal to expand presidential powers. By mid-July, it prompted the White House to concede that terror suspects had a right under international law to basic human and legal protections under the Geneva Conventions.

Similarly, Mr. Bush’s announcement on Wednesday amounted to an opening gambit in negotiations with Congress over the rules of tribunals, in what could amount to bargaining over the scope of Mr. Bush’s powers.

Mr. Hadley said in an interview that in recent weeks Mr. Cheney had offered advice to Mr. Bush about how to deal with the court’s decision. But Mr. Hadley, not Mr. Cheney, has been acting as negotiator with Congress, a decision that administration officials said reflected the rockiness of the vice president’s relationship with Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Cheney discovered the depth of that opposition last summer, when Republicans began to rebel against the White House after he tried to block a bill by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that would bar cruel and inhumane treatment of all prisoners in American custody.

In a tense, 30-minute meeting in July 2005, Mr. Cheney scolded three Republicans — Mr. McCain, Mr. Graham and Senator John W. Warner of Virginia — for proposing legislation that he said interfered with the president’s authority to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

But the senators did not budge despite the threat of a veto. “The three of us were firmly of one view, he of another,” Mr. Warner said.

After the Senate and the House voted overwhelmingly against Mr. Cheney’s position, the White House decided that the vice president had become so radioactive that his interventions were losing votes, rather than winning them, White House officials acknowledge. So Mr. Cheney stepped aside, and the less ideological, more lawyerly Mr. Hadley was sent to deal with Mr. McCain. The result was a deal that Mr. Cheney had previously rejected.

The White House also appeared to yield this summer when it agreed to allow a secret intelligence court to rule on the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants. Civil rights groups and lawmakers from both parties have since criticized the agreement and cast doubt on whether it will be approved by Congress.

Shifting Constellations

At the height of his influence in the Bush White House two years ago, Mr. Cheney stepped into the Oval Office early one evening and raised an alarm about an agreement that American negotiators were about to sign in Beijing.

The negotiators, mostly from the State Department, were trying to entice North Korea to sign a document outlining the steps for resolving the standoff over the country’s nuclear weapons. But it lacked the tough language on disarmament that North Korea had rejected and that Mr. Cheney knew Mr. Bush wanted.

With Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, at a black-tie dinner where they could not be easily reached on secure telephones, Mr. Cheney “declared this thing a loser,” said a former senior official involved in the discussions that night.

Mr. Bush sent new instructions to the negotiators — through the National Security Council, rather than the State Department — that essentially killed the deal. “Powell and Armitage were not happy,” one official said. “But it was too late.”

It would be hard to imagine a similar course of events today. Soon after the start of the second term, Mr. Bush began signaling to foreign leaders visiting him in the Oval Office that he knew much had gone wrong in his first term, and that he empowered Ms. Rice to put a new emphasis on consultation and teamwork with allies. Ms. Rice, aides said, asserted her authority early, sending her own envoy to the North Korean nuclear talks last September, though the process has so far proved fruitless.

This spring, Ms. Rice determined that the only way to hold together the international coalition against Iran was to volunteer to join negotiations with Tehran, but only if it first agreed to suspend its production of uranium. (So far, the Iranians have refused.)

The proposal was notable because in the first term, Mr. Powell’s top aides, led by Richard N. Haass, the director of policy planning, had tried and failed to promote direct engagement with the Iranians.

Ms. Rice said that when her proposal to engage Iran was presented to the president this spring, Mr. Cheney agreed that it was worth a try and that changed circumstances required a changed strategy.

“The constellations have shifted somewhat,” said Dov S. Zakheim, who served as an undersecretary of defense in Mr. Bush’s first term, giving an image used by others to suggest that Mr. Cheney has been partially eclipsed.

In particular, Mr. Cheney has fewer allies in crucial posts than he once did. Those who have left the administration include Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, who quit as deputy defense secretary and undersecretary of defense last year.

Mr. Cheney’s associates said the departure of Mr. Libby was particularly severe. As Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, Mr. Libby served as the vice president’s eyes and ears around Washington, working the bureaucratic machinery deftly and choking off ideas Mr. Cheney opposed before they rose to the Oval Office. “Scooter was a big loss,” Mr. Feith said.

For his part, Mr. Cheney brushes off poll approval ratings now hovering around 20 percent.

“I suppose, sometimes, people look at my demeanor and say, well, he’s the Darth Vader of the administration,” Mr. Cheney told CNN in June. “I’m not running for anything. My career will end, politically, with this administration. I have the freedom and the luxury, as does the president, of doing what we think is right for the country.”

Mr. Cheney still appears regularly in public, mainly in front of military crowds or campaigning for Republicans. His stump speech denounces Democrats who have called for withdrawal from Iraq and news organizations that have revealed secret counterterrorism programs.

Mr. Cheney maintains that what matters now is convincing the country that it is really at war and that defeat is not an option. And at 65, he seems willing to wait for his vindication. As Mr. Cheney recently told NBC, “History will decide how I did.”





Read More...