Report: Witnesses Were Held Illegally

washingtonpost.com
Report: Witnesses Were Held Illegally
Many Jailed After 9/11 Never Testified

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

The federal government held 70 men as potential grand jury witnesses in terrorism investigations after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but nearly half were never called to testify, according to a new study by two advocacy groups.

The report, released yesterday by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, concluded that the government's use of "material witness" warrants in the months after the attacks was excessive and frequently unlawful because many of the detainees were never questioned by a grand jury or were denied access to attorneys for extended periods of time. Most were never charged with a crime.

The report also said the witnesses "were typically arrested at gunpoint, held round the clock in solitary confinement and subjected to the harsh and degrading . . . conditions" usually reserved for more dangerous criminal suspects. It also said the Justice Department used the special warrants primarily "to buy time to conduct fishing expeditions."


The study focuses on the government's aggressive use of a little-known 1984 statute that governs material witnesses, who may be arrested if they have information important to a criminal investigation and are deemed likely to flee. Such arrest warrants must be approved by a judge, but the threshold for an arrest is lower than it is for criminal suspects, and the rules surrounding such cases are murky.

The Justice Department declined to say whether the study's tally of 70 material witnesses in terrorism investigations was accurate. A Washington Post survey in November 2002 identified at least 44 such cases.

The 101-page study is the latest in a series of reports by advocacy groups and media organizations raising questions about many of the hundreds of people detained by the Justice Department or other law enforcement agencies after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Many detainees were held in secret, and only a few dozen ever faced terrorism-related charges.

Anjana Malhotra, author of the new study, said the report shows that the Justice Department misused the law in its zeal to pursue alleged terrorism suspects and frequently ensnared innocent immigrants in the process. All but one of the 70 detainees were Muslim men, the review found.

"The major finding is that the Justice Department was indeed misusing the material witness law to arrest people it viewed as suspicious but didn't have enough evidence to arrest under normal charges," Malhotra said. "The government was able to use little threads of evidence and convince judges that witnesses had connections to terrorism and needed to be jailed in secret. . . . It was like being thrown into a hole."

Justice Department officials have consistently defended their use of the material witness statute in terrorism investigations and have generally denied reports of abuse. Officials also say the power has been used successfully in many other types of investigations.

"Critics of law enforcement fail to recognize that material witness statutes are designed with judicial oversight safeguards and are critical to aiding criminal investigations ranging from organized crime rackets to human trafficking," said Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden.

The report found that more than a third of the detainees were held for more than two months and that one was held for more than a year. Sixty-four of those arrested were of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent and 17 were U.S. citizens, according to the report.

The study identified 13 cases in which the Justice Department formally apologized to those arrested, including eight Egyptian men in Evansville, Ind., who were detained as the result of a bogus tip. Many of those detained are still haunted by the experience and often remain under suspicion because of the arrests, the report said.

"They treated us like professional terrorists," one of the men, Tarek Omar, said in an interview for the study. "They put us in big cars and had big guns -- as if they were going to shoot people, as if we were Osama bin Laden. . . . I never knew how long we would stay in jail. It felt like we would stay forever."

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. court rejects reporter appeals in leak probe

Reuters

U.S. court rejects reporter appeals in leak probe

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by two journalists who argued that they should not have to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the leak by government officials of a covert CIA operative's name to the news media.

Without any comment or recorded dissent, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court's ruling that New York Times correspondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper should be jailed and held in contempt for refusing to testify.


The two cases involved an important test of the rights of reporters to refuse to identify their confidential sources as part of a federal criminal investigation.

Attorneys for the two journalists said courts around the nation have been divided on the issue since the Supreme Court last addressed it in 1972, when it ruled that a reporter who witnesses a crime can be called to testify before a grand jury.

A federal grand jury in Washington has been investigating who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who revealed her identity in a column.

Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a diplomat in the Clinton administration, accused the White House of being responsible for the leak. He said officials did so because Wilson had publicly disputed a claim by President Bush about Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear weapons parts.

NO CHARGES SO FAR

Disclosing the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer is a crime. No charges have been brought so far in connection with the grand jury's investigation, which began in January of 2004.

A federal judge ordered that Cooper, who covers the White House, be imprisoned for up to 18 months and that Time Inc., a unit of Time Warner Inc., be fined $1,000 a day until they complied with grand jury subpoenas seeking to force them to reveal the identity of confidential sources.

Miller, who covers national security issues, also faces up to 18 months in prison. The two journalists have remained free while their cases have been pending before the Supreme Court.

Although Miller and Cooper talked to sources about the Plame story, neither had anything to do with leaking her identity.

Attorneys for Cooper and Time argued that reporters have the right to keep sources confidential, under the law and under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.

"Confidential sources are critical to reporting on matters of public importance. This case, for example, involves a news story about the validity of the government's justification for war in Iraq and alleged misconduct by senior officials aimed at discrediting critics of the war," they said.

Floyd Abrams, an attorney representing Miller, made a similar argument.

"Throughout our country's history, much significant reporting about serious national issues would have been impossible but for information provided by (confidential) sources," he said, citing the Watergate scandal and the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the Vietnam War.

The two journalists were supported in their appeal by a number of news media companies and by 34 states, which said the lack of federal protection for journalists undermined state laws that shield them from naming confidential sources.

Justice Department special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald urged the high court to reject the appeals "so that the investigation can be brought to a close."

By the autumn of 2004, the investigation "was for all practical purposes complete except for the testimony of Miller and Cooper," he said.

Read More...

Summary only...

What it will take

What it will take

Read More...

Summary only...

Marriage American Style

Marriage American Style

Read More...

Summary only...

More Bias

More Bias

Read More...

Summary only...

Historical Correction

Historical Correction

Read More...

Summary only...

I Support The War, But . . .

I Support The War, But . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Government Protection

Government Protection

Read More...

Summary only...

Merely Theories

Merely Theories

Read More...

Summary only...

Don't Burn That

Don't Burn That

Read More...

Summary only...

IRS probing possible data security breaches

Reuters

IRS probing possible data security breaches

By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Internal Revenue Service is investigating whether unauthorized people gained access to sensitive taxpayer and bank account information but has not yet exposed any privacy breaches, an official said on Friday.

The U.S. tax agency -- whose databases include suspicious activity reports from banks about possible terrorist or criminal transactions -- launched the probe after the Government Accountability Office said in April that the IRS "routinely permitted excessive access" to the computer files.

The GAO team was able to tap into the data without authorization, and gleaned information such as bank account holders' names, social security numbers, transaction values, and any suspected terrorist activity. It said the data was at serious risk of disclosure, modification or destruction.


"There is no evidence that anyone who was not authorized accessed the data outside the GAO," said Sheri James, a spokeswoman for the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which is working with the IRS to address the concerns of the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

"The assessment remains ongoing at this time," James said.

IRS officials were not immediately available for comment.

FinCEN is responsible for administering the Bank Secrecy Act, under which banks must file suspicious activity reports on transactions they believe could be linked to money laundering or terrorism financing. The IRS stores this data for FinCEN.

As their name suggests, these reports are filed based on suspicions, not necessarily proof, and the vast majority never lead to investigations or prosecutions.

Unauthorized access to the information held by the IRS raises concerns about the privacy rights and civil liberties of innocent banking clients as well as ordinary taxpayers.

From October, when FinCEN rolls out a new computer system called BSA Direct, the agency will for the first time take control of all BSA data from filing to dissemination, which it hopes will significantly bolster data security.

Taxpayer data will remain with the IRS, which the Treasury says is addressing its "computer security deficiencies."

Concerns about privacy violations through weak computer security are mounting in the United States, where a string of companies this year have reported stolen or misappropriated customer data, including Bank of America Corp., ChoicePoint Inc. and Reed Elsevier .

Since ChoicePoint announced in February that it mistakenly sold 145,000 consumer profiles to a ring of identity thieves, dozens of other organizations, from banks to universities, have announced security breaches of their own.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Lies in the "Truth About Hillary"

mediamatters.org/

Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling

Hosts Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher, and guest Joe Conason confronted author Edward Klein on the many factual errors, distortions, and misleading claims in his attack book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, 2005). On the June 24 edition of the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio, Klein acknowledged his falsehood in portraying the chronology of the reporting of Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather and her controversial meeting with Suha Arafat, first noted by Media Matters for America. He also admitted that he had never seen Clinton's chief of staff Melanne Verveer (whose name he misspelled in the book), although he described her appearance as "mannish-looking." But he refused to retract other false claims when confronted by Franken, Conason and Lanpher.

Following is a transcript of the interview in its entirety:


LANPHER: You're listening to the Al Franken Show. I'm Katherine Lanpher.

FRANKEN: And I'm Al Franken. In the studio with us is Joe Conason, and in Washington is Ed Klein. Ed Klein's new book is The Truth About Hillary. It's published by Sentinel from Penguin, which is my publisher, at Dutton. I'm just thrilled about that. He joins us from the Center for American Progress in Washington D.C. Thank you, Ed, for joining us.

KLEIN: Thank you for having me, Al.

FRANKEN: Okay, and now would you call this book your best work?

KLEIN: I think this is the best book I've written, yes.

FRANKEN: Oh, good. Okay, good. Now I think I found a mistake.

KLEIN: Congratulations.

FRANKEN: Yeah, now do you have the book?

KLEIN: In front of me, no.

FRANKEN: Okay, but you wrote it, so you know the book.

KLEIN: I think so.

FRANKEN: Yeah. Okay, and on page 172 --

KLEIN: Yes.

FRANKEN: This is a thing about [Sen. Daniel Patrick] Pat Moynihan [D-NY] and not being able to say her [Clinton's] name [during a press conference to announce her candidacy for the New York seat in the U.S. Senate from which Moynihan was retiring], and now let me quote the book and then I'll quote what...anyway, I'll just quote what you wrote:

"God, I almost forgot," he said, with a mischievous grin."

Or mischievous grin. That's talking about Pat Moynihan, the late senator from New York whose seat Hillary took.

"God, I almost forgot," he said, with a mischievous grin. "I'm here to say that I hope she will go all the way, I mean to go all the way with her. I think she's going to win. I think it's going to be wonderful for New York. For Moynihan, apparently, it was easier to say "she" than 'Hillary.'"

Now did you leave anything out there, in between the two sentences you quoted?

KLEIN: Are you reading from my book?

FRANKEN: Yes.

KLEIN: What's the title of my book? I don't think you mentioned it.

FRANKEN: The Truth about Hillary. Now did you -- well, I did, and I actually did mention it in the lead-in, and I think I just did.

KLEIN: Well, in any case, let me answer your question. Pat addressed -- as Joe Conason who's sitting there with you can, I'm sure, attest -- Pat addressed the assembled press and mentioned Hillary's name three times.

FRANKEN: Now did you leave anything out in between the two sentences that you quoted?

KLEIN: Not that I'm aware of.

FRANKEN: Well, you did, you know. And what you said after you quote the two sentences from Moynihan was --

KLEIN: Were there ellipses between the two sentences?

FRANKEN: No.

KLEIN: No. No. So in other words, there's something that is missing.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

CONASON: Al, this is Joe. Why don't you read the actual, what Senator Moynihan really said --

FRANKEN: This was --

CONASON: -- as opposed to what's in Mr. Klein's book.

FRANKEN: Well, this is what Moynihan said, and this is how he got into it. He said, "Now I have the great pleasure to welcome Mrs. Clinton to the farm and turn over the microphone to our candidate. Before you do, before I do... Oh, my God, I almost forgot. Yesterday Hillary Clinton established an exploratory committee as regards to her candidacy for the Senate, United States Senate from New York, a seat which I will vacate in a year and a half." And then you pick up with, "I'm here to say, I hope she will go all the way. I mean to go all the way with her. I think she's going to win. I think she's going to be wonderful for New York." So you leave out --

KLEIN: I left out an ellipsis.

CONASON: You did not.

FRANKEN: You didn't leave out an ellipsis. You deliberately left out the --

KLEIN: There's no --

CONASON: I know you don't have the book in front of you. How much would you like to bet there's no ellipsis on that page?

FRANKEN: No, he's saying that's what he left out.

KLEIN: That's what I'm saying, Joe.

CONASON: No, there's no ellipsis.

FRANKEN: No, he's saying he left it out.

KLEIN: I should have put in an ellipsis.

CONASON: Oh. And why would you have cut out the two references to her name and put in an ellipsis? That would have been equally dishonest.

FRANKEN: You know why? Because I -- here -- this is what I think, Ed, and you may take issue with this. I think you deliberately left it out because it would have hurt the sentence where you say, "For Moynihan it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' " I think that's why you left out the sentence that says, "Hillary."

KLEIN: Well I --

FRANKEN: Really, honestly now, could you address that?

KLEIN: I'd be happy to.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

KLEIN: First of all, I didn't know that you were a mind-reader, so that you're reading why I did something.

CONASON: Oh, you're not in a good position to say that --

KLEIN: No? Why not?

CONASON: After writing this. Because you've read her mind over and over again, and I doubt you've ever met her.

KLEIN: Oh, really?

CONASON: Oh, there's quite a bit about what's in her mind in this book that you could have no possible way of knowing.

KLEIN: Well, let's start with the Moynihan --

CONASON: But answer this. Where, if you had put in an ellipsis, wouldn't the purpose of that have been to deceive?

KLEIN: No, absolutely not. Joe, this is ridiculous. You know, we know you know very well that the Moynihans had no use for Hillary.

FRANKEN: No, no, no. I'm just asking you about this specific --

CONASON: I happen not to agree with that, but --

KLEIN: You don't agree with that?

CONASON: But why -- if that were true -- why would you need to deceive the readers into thinking he hadn't mentioned her name?

FRANKEN: That's true, you know, usually when you have a good case, you don't have to deceive people.

CONASON: I mean, I'm not able to read Sen. Moynihan's mind. He's gone. I didn't know then, and I know he had disagreements --

KLEIN: You didn't have to read his mind.

CONASON: I know he had disagreements. You've also ... You got a lot of things wrong about Moynihan in here, but certainly you didn't need to, if he really disliked her so much, why would you need to deceive the readers about what he actually said that day? Did you not look it up?

KLEIN: My intention in this book was not to deceive anybody.

CONASON: Why did you do that, then?

KLEIN: Well, I didn't do it intentionally, and if I left out some words, I'm sorry.

FRANKEN: And how was it vetted?

KLEIN: That certainly was not my intention, and we know that when Pat finally came to do the endorsement, he didn't use her name.

CONASON: What?

FRANKEN: What? This is the endorsement!

CONASON: This is the endorsement. There's video, there's audio, it's on a transcript.

FRANKEN: Oh, come on, Ed! You can do better than that.

CONASON: He used her name. He used her name twice and you left it out.

FRANKEN: Just, just admit it that you did this, you left it out so you could make your point which is "for Moynihan apparently it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' "

CONASON: I don't understand how you could write the sentence "It was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary' " if you read the transcript where he mentioned her name twice.

FRANKEN: Three times. Anyway, Ed, we're going to have to come back. This is gonna be fun. This'll really be fun. Honest.

CONASON: You think about the answer while we're taking a break.

LANPHER: We'll come back to our conversation with Ed Klein, the author of, of The Truth about Hillary here on the Al Franken Show.

FRANKEN: See, it's -- it'll be fun, Ed. Really. Honest.

[break]

FRANKEN: Hey, welcome back to The Al Franken Show. I'm Al Franken.

LANPHER: I'm Katherine Lanpher, and sitting with us, of course, is Friday regular Joe Conason. We're continuing our conversation with Edward Klein, who has out the new biography, The Truth About Hillary, published by Sentinel.

FRANKEN: And, and Ed, ah, we, we want to give you a chance to, to kind of respond, because, you know, you might get the feeling it's like three against one, but I've got to tell you, Katherine just loves the book.

KLEIN: Well, that's good to know. Let me ask you a question, Joe.

CONASON: Sure.

KLEIN: I'm sorry. Al.

FRANKEN: Yeah?

KLEIN: Let me ask you a question.

FRANKEN: Sure.

KLEIN: When you, uh, asked me on this program --

FRANKEN: Mmmm.

KLEIN: -- ah, and spoke to my publisher --

FRANKEN: Yes.

KLEIN: Ah, did you tell them that Joe Conason was gonna be on?

FRANKEN: Yes!

KLEIN: You did? Well, I -- nobody told me.

FRANKEN: Well, your publisher should have told you, because I, I, I couldn't have emphasized it more. I said, you know, Joe, I, we must have discussed this, ah, the publisher's name, again, is Adrian --

KLEIN: Zackheim.

FRANKEN: Zackheim. No, no, no. I discussed that at great length.

KLEIN: Good. Well, he didn't discuss it with me, but in any case, in the interest of full disclosure, don't you think you should tell your, ah, audience where Joe has stood on this book, what -- what he's done up to now?

CONASON: We talked about that last week.

FRANKEN: In -- in full dis -- ah, yeah. We have done that.

KLEIN: OK.

FRANKEN: We really have.

KLEIN: Fine. Fine.

FRANKEN: And, you know, he's not alone. There are critics of the book that are even, like John Podhoretz on the right. He says -- writes -- he's a conservative. He writes, "This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word." Now this is a conservative, and I gotta say that it wasn't that bad.

CONASON: Yeah, I've gotten, actually, I have to say, more positive mail from conservatives about my column about this book in the Observer than I have from, from right-wingers in a long time.

FRANKEN: But I'm sorry that Adrian didn't tell you, because you should have known that, but that's really your publisher's fault.

KLEIN: OK.

FRANKEN: OK?

LANPHER: And we were getting back to a question that was asked right before the break about just how conscious you were of putting deception in the book.

KLEIN: I don't believe there is deception in the book --

CONASON: [unintelligible]

KLEIN: -- and if I've left out, as I said, an ellipsis, I'm sorry. I certainly didn't intend to.

FRANKEN: OK. Ah, let's talk about the FBI files that you talk about, sort of what was called "Filegate." And you call it the "Purloined FBI Files," and you write about it on page 39.

KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: And later, in a Salon interview, you said, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies."

KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: Now, you know that she was absolved of this by the Office of Independent Counsel.

KLEIN: Well, she may --

FRANKEN: I mean, shouldn't you have written about that? Shouldn't you have given that information to your readers?

KLEIN: It's still my -- it's still my belief and contention that Craig Livingstone was responsible for taking those files, and that he was operating under direct orders from Hillary.

CONASON: Do you know whose files those were? I mean, did you ever look at the names of the people whose files they were?

KLEIN: They were a lot of Republican activists --

CONASON: There were not, actually. They were not. Can -- name one Republican activist whose file was taken. One.

KLEIN: I couldn't do that 'cause I --

CONASON: You couldn't! 'Cause you haven't looked at the names! Did you ever look at the names?

KLEIN: No, I haven't.

CONASON: Okay. Ah, you've never looked at the names, but you know they're a lot of Republican activists. How would you know that if you've never looked at the names?

KLEIN: I've read it in The New York Times and other publications.

CONASON: Oh, no, you didn't. You did not. You did not.

FRANKEN: You know, Ed, the first --

CONASON: Because the people whose names were on that list were former White House employees. Most of them were people like gardeners and janitors and people like that. I've looked at every name on that list --

KLEIN: Former White House employees --

CONASON: That's correct.

KLEIN: in the previous Republican administration.

CONASON: Oh, no. James Carville's name was on that list!

KLEIN: Well, ah, yes, but there [inaudible] --

CONASON: Why was his name on the list?

KLEIN: Many Republican officials on that list, as well.

CONASON: There were --

KLEIN: Are you saying there weren't?

CONASON: No, I'm saying there was no, there were no Republican activists of any note on that list. If you look through that list, it's hundreds of names of people that you had never heard of and that the Republican Party had no significant connection to.

KLEIN: OK --

CONASON: And the fact is that those names were taken by mistake, which is what the Office of Independent Counsel determined, and that Mrs. Clinton never used them for any purpose. And you know what, Ed? If you'd done any reporting, you would know that, but you didn't even look at the list.

KLEIN: No, I haven't seen the list. I --

CONASON: You didn't bother to look at the list!

KLEIN: Well, I didn't look at the list because I wasn't doing a book, Joe, on the list. I was doing a -- that was one paragraph in a 300-page book, and --

CONASON: But, but --

KLEIN: -- it was a summary of what the charges, if you recall --

CONASON: But you --

KLEIN: -- were against her. What about --

FRANKEN: But you've been going on, you've been going on like, like, ah, talking in interviews saying, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies." Now, that's a very serious charge.

KLEIN: How about the, how about the, the, um, Internal Revenue Service --

CONASON: Don't change the subject, Ed.

FRANKEN: Oh, wait a minute. I asked you -- let's address --

KLEIN: Why can't we talk about various --

FRANKEN: Because I want you to --

KLEIN: -- organs of the government?

FRANKEN: I want you to answer --

CONASON: Because he can't answer the question, that's why.

FRANKEN: Because I want you to answer one question at a time. "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies." I think that's a very, very serious charge. Would you characterize that as a serious charge?

KLEIN: I certainly would.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

KLEIN: And I would say that there are many publications who have said the exact same thing.

CONASON: Name one that has any, any, any --

KLEIN: The New York Times, for one.

FRANKEN: Said that, no, it never --

KLEIN: The Washington Post, for two.

FRANKEN: Baloney!

CONASON: The New York Times? You mean William Safire wrote that? Is that who you're talking about? 'Cause he had no evidence for it, either.

KLEIN: Well, you think -- you think Safire's a congenital liar -

CONASON: I do. I think he -- I've said it many times in print.

KLEIN: [laughing]

CONASON: He said a lot of things about Hillary Clinton that were totally wrong. He predicted that --

FRANKEN: You know what, let's move on to something --

CONASON: He predicted she would be indicted and said that he would "eat crow" if she wasn't. And she wasn't.

FRANKEN: Well, but, but -- and, and he did eat the crow, and I saw it. Okay. Let's, ah, let's turn to page 188 and Suha Arafat and that hug and Hillary's step-grandfather. Would you like to correct the record on that?

KLEIN: Yeah, one should have gone before the other, and that was a mistake.

FRANKEN: Okay, now, now what was the significance of that mistake, do you think?

KLEIN: Well, I think that Hillary was trying to position herself with the Jewish voters in New York. I think we can all agree on that.

FRANKEN: But what you said was --

CONASON: Unlike every other politician.

KLEIN: Yeah, yeah.

FRANKEN: Well, you said --

KLEIN: But she had a particular problem, which was that she was perceived by many Jewish voters, I think Mr. Conason even would admit to this, as not being sufficiently pro-Israeli -- pro-Israel.

FRANKEN: Well, but what you do is you try to draw a cause and effect. You say that --

KLEIN: I said that that was, in fact, a chronological mistake. She in -- discovered her grandfather, great grandfather or grandfather, step-grandfather, had been partly Jewish --

FRANKEN: Let me read --

KLEIN: And then she went to the Middle East. That's true.

FRANKEN: Let me read you what you wrote. "At the end of Mrs. Arafat's speech, Hillary applauded enthusiastically, then gave Suha Arafat a big hug and kiss."

KLEIN: Is that true?

FRANKEN: The photo -- the photo --

KLEIN: Is that true, Joe?

FRANKEN: Let me read the thing, and, and then you can respond. "The photo of the two women kissing, which played around the world, sewed serious doubts about Hillary in the mind of many Jewish voters. When Hillary realized that she had gotten herself in a jam with Jewish voters, she suddenly turned up a long lost Jewish step-grandfather-an announcement" okay, "that was dismissed by many"--

CONASON: This is such sloppy work.

FRANKEN: Well --

LANPHER: Hang on! I want--

FRANKEN: No, no. But what I'm saying --

LANPHER: -- Ed Klein to respond.

FRANKEN: Yeah, and Ed, but what I'm saying, what I'm saying is, Ed, the, the, the chronology there is there for a reason. You're saying, you're saying that she suddenly discovered this because of the hug.

KLEIN: Yeah, well, we -- this is a chronological mistake in the book, and I've admitted to it.

FRANKEN: Okay.

CONASON: Okay.

FRANKEN: Okay. How about the, ah, LAX thing? The haircut that supposedly held up traffic at LAX.

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: Now you know that that's not true, right?

KLEIN: No, I don't know that's not true.

CONASON: Again because you didn't do any reporting. That was, that story was debunked at the time that it came out 12 years ago. You, you, I mean it's just astonishing to me --

KLEIN: What?

CONASON: -- how little work was put into this book --

KLEIN: Well, you know --

CONASON: -- in terms of trying to establish whether any of this stuff that you've written here is true!

KLEIN: So, you're saying, Joe, that the president did not hold up traffic --

CONASON: Yeah.

KLEIN: -- at LAX?

CONASON: I'm saying that not only would I say that, but that's the established fact that's been reported after that story came out in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the FAA made it very clear that not one flight was held up as a result of that.

KLEIN: Well, Joe --

CONASON: And that was established a long time ago.

KLEIN: You and I are reading different, ah, newspapers, I think.

CONASON: No It's, it's not a matter of reading different newspapers; it's a matter of what the Federal Aviation Administration said about this incident. It was debunked at the time.

FRANKEN: Do you want to read -- do you want to hear what the, ah, St. Louis Post-Dispatch said?

KLEIN: Well, if you'd like to read it, that's -- it's your show.

FRANKEN: Well, okay. The story that -- was the planes were kept circling as President Bill Clinton had his hair clipped on Air Force One at Los Angeles Airport. This was 1993, not last month. The haircut by Beverly Hills stylist Christophe became such a metaphor for perceived White House arrogance that the president himself felt compelled to apol...ah, apologize for reported flight delays. But the reports were wrong. According to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the haircut May 18th caused no significant delays of regular scheduled passenger flights, no circling planes, no traffic jams on runways. Commuter airlines that fly routes routinely affected by the President's haircut confirmed that they had no record of delays, etc. etc. etc.

CONASON: What's peculiar to me is, you don't seem to care whether you get these things right or not.

KLEIN: What's peculiar to me, Mr. Conason, is that you're still stuck back in 1993 instead 2005. This book is --

CONASON: No, you were, you were writing about something that happened in 1993.

KLEIN: Yeah, but this book is about whether Hillary Clinton is qualified by virtue of her character --

CONASON: You mean whether you --

KLEIN: -- to be President of the United States.

LANPHER: Well, let me ask you a question, Edward Klein, and that is, when you have so many errors that accumulate, why should we take your interpretation seriously?

KLEIN: Well, but I dispute that there are so many errors accumulating.

CONASON: Well, let's ask about another one. There's a woman you name in this book named Nancy Pietrafesa--

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

CONASON: Who you say was rumored to be Hillary's lesbian lover.

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative]. That's true.

CONASON: Now there are two things about that -- well, I don't know if it's true or not.

FRANKEN: That's true, that she was rumored?

KLEIN: There were rumors, yes.

CONASON: Yeah, those are great journalistic standards. But you misspell her name throughout the book, did you know that?

KLEIN: Well, do you know that three other authors have also misspelled her name?

CONASON: Yes, I figured they must have because that's where you got it from.

KLEIN: Yeah, well, I certainly didn't get it from the three, the other two who spelt it differently than I did.

CONASON: You, you, you got it --

KLEIN: But her name appears in Gail Sheehy's book --

CONASON: Right.

KLEIN: -- on Hillary--

CONASON: On Hillary. Is that where you got it?

KLEIN: It appears in, um --

CONASON: Is that where you got it?

KLEIN: Roger Morris's book.

CONASON: Right. Is that where you got it?

KLEIN: And it also appears in David Maraniss's book.

CONASON: So you're a terrible reporter, but a good stenographer.

KLEIN: All three of these writers spelt her name in three different ways. I'm sorry that I misspelled --

CONASON: Did you try to find them?

KLEIN: -- used an "E" instead of an "A."

CONASON: Well, let me ask you something. Did you try to find her so you could ask her about this rumor?

KLEIN: Of course I did!

CONASON: You did.

KLEIN: Of course!

FRANKEN: And you had trouble, because The New York Post didn't seem to have trouble.

CONASON: Did you try with all the different -- you tried with all the different spellings?

KLEIN: No. I, I --

CONASON: I guess not!

KLEIN: I tried, I tried to reach her, and in fact, left messages for her.

CONASON: Really? Where?

KLEIN: Where she lives!

CONASON: Which is -- where's that?

KLEIN: Listen, Joe, I don't have her address in front of me.

CONASON: You have no idea where she lives, and you're lying right now.

KLEIN: I'm not lying, Joe.

CONASON: Yeah, you are.

KLEIN: Okay, let's - look -- let's, ah --

LANPHER: I'd like to go back to the --

FRANKEN: No, I want to go back to something.

LANPHER: All right, you can. Go ahead.

FRANKEN: Melanie Vermeer.

CONASON: Verveer.

KLEIN: Verveer.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

CONASON: Who is Melanie Verveer?

KLEIN: She was her chief of staff for a while.

FRANKEN: Yeah. You know what?

CONASON: There is no person named Melanie Verveer. There's Melanne Verveer, who you refer to as "mannish looking," which she's not. But her name is Melanne, M-E-L-A-N-N-E.

FRANKEN: Now, I know Melanne.

CONASON: Now, since you don't know the first name of her chief of staff, why should anybody think that you know anything at all about Hillary Clinton?

FRANKEN: Well, I want to go to --

LANPHER: It's not -Please --

FRANKEN: Oh, let him, let him, let him.

LANPHER: Please, let him respond!

KLEIN: I don't think the question is worth my responding.

CONASON: Because you don't know, right?

KLEIN: Not -- no.

CONASON: You don't know, you didn't know her real name.

KLEIN: She was referred to as "Melanie" to me many, many times, and --

CONASON: By who? [laughing]

LANPHER: Really?

KLEIN: I think that's how --

CONASON: No one calls her "Melanie."

KLEIN: Well, I think that's how a lot of people referred to her.

CONASON: Nobody refers -- nobody calls her that.

FRANKEN: Now I know Melanne. I know her husband, and I have to take offense on calling her mannish, 'cause I know Melanne, and she's -- ah, I think she's a good-lookin' woman. And like, let's say, Ed, someone referred to your wife in a book as "simian," say. You know. Would you -- which, by the way, I doubt your wife is simian looking. I'm sure that she's very beautiful, because you're a very manly looking man. You're very heterosexual looking, I must say, in the back of the book. You look like you're in really good shape. So...

CONASON: I have this feeling that he's never seen Melanne Verveer, whose name he doesn't know. Have you ever seen her?

KLEIN: Ah, no, I have not.

CONASON: But she's mannish-looking to you? Even though you've never seen her?

KLEIN: She has been described to me that way, yes.

CONASON: She's been ... Who described her to you that way?

KLEIN: Several people who worked -- knew her,

FRANKEN: Who knew her as "Melanie"?

KLEIN: Yes, and who called her "Melanie" to me.

CONASON: Well, maybe they knew someone else. This could all just be a -- another case of terrible reporting or mistaken identity.

FRANKEN: There is a Melanie. There is a Melanie who is -- used to be a male, and is a tennis player, you know, a professional tennis player.

CONASON: You know, Ed, you've been a reporter for a long time, or I know at least purporting to be a journalist. Isn't it true that the first thing you learn when you're starting to be a journalist is to spell the names right?

FRANKEN: Oh, come on --

KLEIN: It's such a silly comment, Joe, that it's beneath --

CONASON: You got a lot of them wrong.

KLEIN: I got some of them wrong, but I, I'm sure you've misspelled names in your career.

CONASON: I try to correct them. And I didn't pretend --

KLEIN: Well, I will try to correct these in my second edition.

FRANKEN: Okay, let me --

KLEIN: And third and fourth edition.

FRANKEN: Okay, let's go to your, your, your -- just your motivation. Ah, you write, "Isn't it Dr." -- or you said, I'm sorry, to Salon, "Isn't it Dr. Johnson who said that any writer who doesn't write for money is a fool? What I do for a living is write popular non-fiction, and the more popular it is, the more books I sell, and the more money I make." Now that, I, I write books, too, and I just gotta tell you that that's not my motivation.

KLEIN: No, you're a political analyst. I'm not.

FRANKEN: Oh. Okay.

KLEIN: You're a political person. I'm a biographer.

FRANKEN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

KLEIN: There's a difference.

FRANKEN: And do you think that maybe some of these, ah, conservatives who are reacting to the book, like Peggy Noonan and John Podhoretz and others --

KLEIN: Mm-hmmm [affirmative].

FRANKEN: Are reacting because it feels like you're just cashing out here?

KLEIN: No. That's...I don't think that's the reason. If you'll let me answer, I'll answer that.

FRANKEN: Yeah, go ahead, go ahead.

KLEIN: I think there's a great deal of confusion on the part of the conservatives, how to deal with Hillary. They don't know whether to deal with her directly and in a forcible manner, because the last time they tried that with the Clintons during the whole Whitewater and impeachment imbroglio, they were criticized for going overboard and for being too extreme. And they felt they were, um, burned by that experience. So they have recently been cozying up to her and debating how they're going to handle her. And I think this book, which, um, I've written, is a book that could be written about a man. In other words, it takes, ah, Hillary Clinton seriously, and it treats her as I would have treated a male subject of a biography. And there's a great deal of concern on the part of conservatives that this is gonna turn her into a victim and make her stronger than ever. So that's the fundamental reason there's been this split among conservatives about this book.

FRANKEN: Okay. Well, thank you, Ed. And I will say that John Podhoretz did write his -- the headline on his thing was "Smear for Profit." So I think that he actually does believe that, ah, that you did this for money, which actually you do say that that's why you write books. So -- but I want to thank you for joining us, and I know that this couldn't have been, ah, fun, because it really was us ganging up on you, so I really appreciate it. And, you know, talk to Adrian, because I really did tell him that Joe was gonna be here. Thank you! Really, honestly, thank you for coming on.

KLEIN: You're welcome.

FRANKEN: And we'll be back with the Al Franken Show here on Air America Radio.

— J.S. & D.Y.

Read More...

Summary only...

ID cards 'will not make us safer'

BBC NEWS
ID cards 'will not make us safer'

Plans for ID cards are in turmoil as the government gears up for Tuesday's vote on the issue, the shadow home secretary David Davis has said.

The cards are "unnecessary, unworkable and unlikely to make our streets and communities safe", he says in the Mail on Sunday newspaper.


But minister Patricia Hewitt said the cabinet had had "lengthy discussions" and it was the right thing to do.

A second reading of the Identity Card Bill is due to take place on Tuesday.

Health minister Mrs Hewitt, a former chairman of the National Council for Civil Liberties, told Sky News the controversial cards could be used to "deal with the growing problem we have got with identity theft and fraudulent use of benefits and other services".

Commons test

The Commons vote comes days after Home Secretary Charles Clarke dismissed claims that the ID cards would cost £300 to buy.

It represents an unhealthy shift in the balance of the relationship between the citizen and the state
David Davis

Tuesday's vote will be first test of MPs' opposition to the bill since it was abandoned before the general election.

Then, 19 Labour MPs rebelled over the issue.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have both pledged to vote against the proposals in this parliament.

But BBC political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti said rebels did not think a government defeat was on the horizon, although they did want to push forward their arguments against the bill.

'Stealth tax'

Continuing in the Mail on Sunday, David Davis said: "In Labour's Britain there is a sense that we are all now guilty until proven innocent.

"As if to reinforce this point, they now want us to carry around a plastic card with our name, address and photo on it so we can prove who we are all at all times.

"This is something which I instinctively oppose. It represents an unhealthy shift in the balance of the relationship between the citizen and the state."

The cost of carrying card was "another stealth tax", he added.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke recently dismissed suggestions the cards could cost as much as £300 - but did concede that the official estimate charge of £93 per card was "merely indicative".

[It will be a] failure of Dome-like proportions, only infinitely bigger
Bob Marshall-Andrews, Labour

The Home Office predicts the total cost of running the scheme, in conjunction with a new biometric passport system, over 10 years would come to £5.8billion.

Mr Davis said the money could be "better spent".

He said: "It would, for example, cost just £26m to introduce proper checks on people entering and leaving the country through our ports.

"That would be a simpler way to achieve some of the objectives for which ministers claim they need ID cards."

'National scandal'

Labour rebel Bob Marshall-Andrews also spoke of MPs' concerns at the proposals, saying there was a "very heavy groundswell of opinion" against the legislation.

He predicted between 20 and 30 Labour MPs would sign up to a rebel amendment to the bill.

Speaking on GMTV's Sunday programme, the MP for Medway said the scheme would be a "failure of Dome-like proportions, only infinitely bigger.

"It is going to be a national scandal," he said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Stand Against Patriot Act Cheered

ABC News
Obama's Stand Against Patriot Act Cheered
Thousands of Librarians Applaud U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's Stand Against Patriot Act
By CARLA K. JOHNSON Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

Jun. 26, 2005 - To the cheers of thousands of librarians, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday called for the Senate to rewrite the USA Patriot Act to prevent investigators from scanning library records and bookstore sales slips.

Libraries should be "sanctuaries of learning where we are free to read and consider what we please without the fear that 'Big Brother' may be peering over our shoulder," Obama said in the keynote address at the American Library Association's annual conference.

Last week, despite a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to restrict investigators from using the anti-terrorism law in libraries and book stores. Obama said he hopes the Senate follows suit.

"I hope we can pass a provision, just like the one that the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly, that would require federal agents to get search warrants from a real judge in a real court, just like everyone else does," Obama said.


The conference, which runs in Chicago through Wednesday, drew more than 13,000 attendees, some of whom will discuss strategies for amending the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress in the days following Sept. 11, 2001.

One attendee, Merryll Penson, executive director for library services for the University System of Georgia, said librarians "are not people who want to help terrorists," but want to see reading lists protected from automatic surveillance.

"For a lot of librarians, it's the principle," she said.

On the Net:

American Library Association: http://www.ala.org/

Read More...

Summary only...

Rove Speak - Put it to work in your life

Rove Speak - Put it to work in your life

Read More...

Summary only...

1,382 DAYS AFTER 9/11

progressreport.org
The Progress Report
by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Mipe Okunseinde and Christy Harvey

6/24/2005

TERRORISM

On October 26, 2001, President Bush said, "The elected branches of our
government, and both political parties, are united in our resolve
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011026-5.html) to
fight and stop and punish those who would do harm to the American
people." That was before the administration's unwise, unfocused and
unsuccessful approach to combating terrorism helped push Bush's approval ratings
to historic lows (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) . Out of
answers, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove went back to his biggest
strength, political mudslinging
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html)
. On Wednesday, Rove said that "[l]iberals saw the savagery of the 9/11
attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and
understanding for our attackers (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/) ." We
don't need an apology, we need a new anti-terrorism strategy.

1,382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 -- TERRORIST ATTACKS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH: By
objective measures, the Bush administration's approach to combating
terrorism is an abject failure. Last year "[t]he number of serious
international terrorist incidents more than tripled.


(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)
" According to State Department data, "attacks grew to about 655 last
year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003." How did the
administration respond? By halting the publication of the State Department report.
The year before, "the State Department retracted its annual terrorism
report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the
number of incidents."

1,382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 -- OSAMA BIN LADEN STILL AT LARGE: More than
three and a half years ago Bush vowed to capture terrorist mastermind Osama
bin Laden " dead or alive
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/18/wbush18.xml)
." He's failed. The administration wants you to think we are hot on his
tracks. CIA Director Porter Goss said he had " an excellent idea
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160039,00.html) " where bin Laden
is hiding. Vice President Cheney said he had " a pretty good idea
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050623-8.html) of a
general area that he's in." Note to the Bush administration: close
doesn't count in terrorist manhunts.

1,382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 -- IRAQ WAR MAKING THINGS WORSE: According to the
CIA, "[t]he war in Iraq is creating a training and recruitment ground
for a new generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0114-01.htm) ." An in-house CIA
think tank concluded that, since the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq has served
as " a training ground, a recruitment ground
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html) ."
In the poorly planned aftermath of the invasion "hundreds of foreign
terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders." There is a
serious risk Iraq is now " creating newly radicalized and experienced
jihadis (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0208/p06s01-wome.html) who return
home to cause trouble in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere."

1382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 - LOOSE NUKES: The Bush administration has
repeatedly asserted that nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies is the
greatest threat to America
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.transcript/index.html)
. Yet administration efforts to stop nuclear proliferation have been
lackluster. In May, " a monthlong conference to review the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty ended in complete failure.
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/28/news/nations.php) " U.S.
diplomacy was so anemic the parties "never engaged in a detailed discussion of
how to fix the gaping loopholes that many experts say have allowed a
resurgence in the spread of the most dangerous nuclear technologies." And
the pace at which we secured fissile materials -- the "gunpowder" used
to spark nuclear explosions -- in the former Soviet Union did not
accelerate after 9/11, according to a May 2005 study by scholars at Harvard
University
(http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/thebomb2005.pdf) .

AN INDEFENSIBLE PHILOSOPHY: Rove said that after 9/11 conservatives "
prepared for war
(http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-rove24jun24,1,6643365.story?coll=la-headlines-politics)
." He's right. Immediately after the attacks Paul Wolfowitz and others
in the Bush administration prepared for war in Iraq
(http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html)
-- a country that, by the president's own admission, had nothing to do
with the 9/11 attacks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)
. After years of deception, more Americans understand what happened.
That's why now most people think the war in Iraq wasn't worth it
(http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) and hasn't made us safer
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html?nav=rss_nation)
. Now, Rove is desperate to create distractions.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Painful Omission

huffingtonpost.com
Nellie B
A Painful Omission

Granted, covering annual meetings of big organizations is a big, boring job, and pretty much everything that happens is already in the presskit, just awaiting a few more quotes and a quick rewrite. But, by golly, there was some actual news percolating at the American Medical Association's annual meeting in Chicago, and practically everybody missed it. (Thanks to The News Blog.)

While the AP headlined "AMA to Seek Limits on Tanning, Video Games," The Chicago Tribune did a little better by telling its readers: "The American Medical Association voted Monday to put its weight behind legislative initiatives around the United States that would require pharmacies to fill legally valid prescriptions in the wake of recently publicized refusals by pharmacists opposed to dispensing the morning-after contraceptive."

But the problem actually goes well beyond that, reports MedPage Today in its story "AMA: Physicians Charge Pharmacists With Interference in Medical Care":

"It's not just contraceptives," said Mary Frank, M.D., a family physician from Mill Valley, Calif., during a discussion of the issue. "It's pain medications and psychotropics. And not only are the patients not getting prescriptions filled, but pharmacists are refusing to return the prescriptions and they are lecturing the patients about the drugs."


Excuse me? Pharmacists are denying patients needed pain relief and mental-health medication prescribed by their doctors? And nobody is covering this? Well, NPR did have a brief item, but I've been unable to find any followup coverage on either the veracity or the depth of the problem. Sure, chronic pain is significantly less sexy than contraception -- or tanning beds and video games, for that matter -- but it might actually be a little bit newsworthy. Ya think?

Read More...

Summary only...

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"

huffingtonpost.com
Kristen Breitweiser
Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"

Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true “understanding of 9/11” knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks. In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a “legitimate” excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug “rat line” parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)

Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.” Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.

Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that “moderation and restraint” don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I digress.)

More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.

It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.


For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."

Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)

Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?

To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems. Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home. Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years. Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.

Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?

Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.

It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?

Read More...

Summary only...

ABC vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

ABC vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Huffington Post

Last week ABC canceled a story about a dangerous chemical in child inoculations. Last night, the network broadcast a recut version of its original story that had been edited into a piece of industry propaganda.


ABC’s original program showed how the vaccine industry, working with public health officials from the CDC and the federal government’s Institute of Medicine (IOM), may have poisoned a generation of American children with the mercury-laced vaccine preservative thimerosal. ABC had made an exclusive agreement to air the story after reading early drafts of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s article on the thimerosal scandal which appeared simultaneously in Salon.com and Rolling Stone last Wednesday. ABC was to air pre-taped stories on Kennedy’s piece on ABC Nightly News and Good Morning America. The shows were reportedly “in the can,” having been thoroughly edited by “several layers” of ABC staff. The night before the scheduled airing, the shows were cancelled by high-level ABC officials. After a news item on the incident ran, ABC received hundreds of angry emails from the parents of autistic children demanding the show be aired. The network re-edited the show into an "industry" piece, trotting out a parade of scientists from IOM and CDC to denounce Kennedy and defend thimerosal. The most vocal of these, Steve Goodman, participated in the controversial IOM panel that exonerated thimerosal. ABC failed to identify his bias in the piece. ABC produced its in-house doctor, Tim Johnson, who used entire phrases pulled directly from an IOM press release. He ended by pronouncing IOM “impeccable.” ABC bracketed the Kennedy story with two advertisements from pharmaceutical industry sponsors.

Read More...

Summary only...

BeNow All You Can Be

huffingtonpost.com
Marty Kaplan
BeNow All You Can Be

This week the Pentagon began working with a private company called BeNow to create a marketing database of Americans 16- to 18- years old. According to the Washington Post, the product being marketed to these kids, you will not be shocked to learn, is enlistment in the military.

It’s bad enough that the data that the No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to compile are being provided to military recruiters, so that they can call kids at home and pitch them a swell career in the armed forces.

But this new database will contain even more information: birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, even what subjects the kids are taking.

So just as Amazon.com can send you an email saying that you might want to buy the new Anne Coulter book because you bought Mussolini’s memoirs in the past, now the Pentagon can pick off kids whose grades aren’t scholarship material and whose zip codes aren’t high-income, and paint a rosy picture of their future in uniform.

And that’s not to mention the identity theft issues. Imagine what a treasure-trove the BeNow database will be to hackers in Uzbekistan. The Pentagon, of course, assures us that all this information will be secure. But coming within days of our learning that 16 million American credit-card holders can kiss their privacy goodbye, the Defense Department’s promises aren’t very comforting.


Serving our country in the armed forces is a courageous and patriotic choice. But that’s not what this new Big Brother offensive is about. It’s about military recruiters failing to make their quotas, because kids don’t want to serve in a war they don’t believe in. It’s about none of the children of the chickenhawks and of the right-wing pundits in Washington enlisting, because war’s fine as long as someone else's kids fight it for them.

At the height of the Vietnam War, a raging issue was whether to permit military recruiters and reserve programs on campus. Today, the battle has moved to the high schools, and in a virtual world, no one can be kept out of our homes and our lives. Before we offer up the next generation on a silver platter to the war machine, shouldn't we be demanding that Jenna and Barbara Bush put in their time in Iraq?

Read More...

Summary only...