Thursday, September 14, 2006

Note to ABC's "9/11" Hacks: Read the Graphic Novel Version

Huffington Post
Art Levine
Note to ABC's "9/11" Hacks: Read the Graphic Novel Version

The creative team and ABC executives behind the fabrication-filled Path to 9/11 film insist they only rewrote the historical record in order to make it an "effective dramatization." But in doing so, as summarized by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, they not only created a slanderous, totally fictionalized scene of Northern Allliance and CIA teams surrounding Bin Laden's hideout while being blocked by a dithering Sandy Berger, they omitted all the many ways that Bush and his team didn't respond to the mounting threats and urgent warnings of intelligence experts and Richard Clarke, the White House's counter-terrorism czar.

The filmmakers didn't bother to dramatize the way the Bush team ignored the famed early August, 2001 memo of "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" (Condi Rice didn't convene any meeting to flog a follow-up and Bush's supposed "swatting flies" comment was passed along in May but no action was taken) ; how Dick Cheney formed a counter-terrorism task force that didn't have its first meeting until Sept. 4; how Bush and Rice ignored warnings from Sandy Berger and Clinton to focus on Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda; and all the proposed military and diplomatic proposals by Clarke to go after Bin Laden that were ignored until it was too late -- as Clarke's influence was diminished.

If ABC executives or the public want a model of how to dramatically convey the essence of the 9/11 Commission Report, they should take a look at the superb The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation by Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colon. It may seem blasphemous to address such a major crisis with a graphic novel, but if Art Spiegelman can look at the Holocaust in Maus, this artistic team can do so with 9/11, condensing and highlighting the key points, but never dumbing-down or distorting.
.
You can read an excerpt at Slate, but it's best read as a book in your hands. Every home and library should have a copy so the sorry record of U.S. government failures and rising Islamic terrorism that led to 9/11 will be accessible to all, especially for people who respond to a visual presentation and will never bother to wade through the full report.

It's a work of art that is dramatic, enlightening and, above all, faithful to the facts in the original report (conspiracy theories, of course, excepted), everything the bogus Path to 9/11 film wasn't.


Read More...

Ex-Texas Gov. Ann Richards dies

Reuters
Ex-Texas Gov. Ann Richards dies

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Former Texas Governor Ann Richards, who sparred with former President George H.W. Bush and later lost the state's top job to his son, President George W. Bush, died on Wednesday. She was 73.

The tough-talking Democratic politician, born Dorothy Ann Willis, had been suffering from esophageal cancer, a person close to the family said, although the cause of death could not immediately be confirmed.

Richards served as Texas governor from 1991 to 1995, when she lost the job to George W. Bush.

Richards jumped to national prominence at the 1988 Democratic National Conventional for her jibe about then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.

"Poor George, he can't help it ... He was born with a silver foot in his mouth," she said.

Born in Lakeview, Texas, Richards worked as a teacher before turning to politics and winning her first public office in 1976.

Richards was a staunch supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment and helped get the measure to expand legal protections for women passed in Texas, although the amendment failed to garner enough national support to be added to the U.S. Constitution.

Two years after undergoing treatment for alcohol abuse, Richards was elected Texas state treasurer, and served two terms in that office.

She won the governorship after a bruising battle in 1990, but was defeated in 1994 by George W. Bush, then a political novice who parlayed his success in his home state into a successful bid for the presidency in 2000.

She followed her 1989 autobiography, "Straight from the Heart," with another memoir in 2004, "I'm Not Slowing Down," which chronicled her struggle with osteoporosis.

(Additional reporting by Bruce Nichols)



Read More...

Senate OKs cargo scanning without deadline

Reuters
Senate OKs cargo scanning without deadline
By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to bolster security at American seaports by requiring incoming cargo to be scanned for dangerous materials as soon as technically feasible, but set no deadline for doing so.

The measure, proposed by Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, was approved 95-3 as an amendment to legislation to protect American ports five years after the September 11 attacks.

But it was denounced as "camouflage" by New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who tried and failed to get a stricter proposal passed.

Menendez' plan would have included possible sanctions such as fines against foreign ports if they did not scan U.S.-bound cargo for nuclear and other dangerous materials, once a plan is developed for doing so.

President George W. Bush's Republicans, who control the Senate, successfully argued that Menendez' idea would push other countries too far. "This will lead to retaliation by foreign ports," warned Sen. Susan Collins of Maine before the Senate voted to reject Menendez' proposal, 43-55.

The chamber is expected to vote on the underlying port security bill by the end of this week.

The bill's bipartisan sponsors had thought it would pass quickly, but the measure has been drawn into election-year feuding over which party can best plug holes in national security. Meanwhile, the shipping industry watches nervously from the sidelines.

Another Democratic amendment that would set a four-year deadline for scanning cargo while still overseas has not come to a vote. It was proposed by Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who says companies should pay for the expense of the scanning. But it is opposed by the shipping industry and has been rejected by the House of Representatives.

The Senate rejected on Wednesday a Democratic attempt to load dozens of other security measures into the ports bill, such as protecting chemical plants and implementing all the September 11 commission's recommendations.

But it approved a plan to allow the president to set up monitoring programs to track the health of emergency responders to disasters such as the September 11 attacks, which sent a huge cloud of toxic dust into the air of New York when the twin towers collapsed.

The port security legislation being debated 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.



Read More...

New Web site will tell Americans which companies win government contracts and grants under an ethics bill passed by the scandal-rocked House of Rep's

Reuters
Scandal-rocked House passes ethics bill
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new Web site will tell Americans which companies win government contracts and grants under an ethics bill passed by the scandal-rocked House of Representatives on Wednesday ahead of November elections.

The legislation, approved on a voice vote, would create a new Internet site by 2008 giving the public quick access to information on the dispersal of billions of dollars in grants and contracts.

Last week, the Senate approved similar legislation.

Craig Holman of the consumer group Congress Watch called the measure "a great disclosure bill" that particularly will help disseminate information on the huge number of defense contracts that are now difficult and time-consuming to track.

Republicans have been linked with a series of scandals involving contracting abuses and other special-interest favors. Democrats have highlighted their opponents' ethics' problems as they try to capture control of the House and Senate in November elections.

The Republican-led Congress has not enacted broad ethics-reform legislation it promised in reaction to the Jack Abramoff and Randy "Duke" Cunningham scandals and instead is pushing narrower reforms.

Cunningham, a California Republican, resigned from the House last year after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for help in securing Defense Department contracts.

Abramoff had been a high-powered Washington lobbyist with close ties to Republican leaders. His lobbying operation collapsed during a federal probe that led to his guilty plea in January on fraud charges.

Besides the contracts data base, House Republican leaders also were hoping to pass a second ethics bill this week.

That measure would change House rules so that federal funds for local projects, known as "earmarks" or "pork," would have to be specifically listed in legislation with a disclosure of their sponsors.

Many Republicans and Democrats have avidly pursued such funds for their hometowns. Nonetheless, lawmakers blamed each other for the secretive practice, which critics say leads to wasteful spending.

"The current earmark process is a relic of the old Democrat Congress," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who has declined to seek earmarked funds for his district.

But Republicans have controlled the House for the past 11 years, during which time the use of earmarks exploded.

Democrats said they would seek tougher reforms to prevent lawmakers' relatives from benefiting from earmarks and discourage earmarks from being inserted last-minute into House-Senate compromise bills.

The Senate has not addressed the earmark controversy.

Congress Watch's Holman called the rule change a "simple, fairly minor disclosure requirement" that lacks a mechanism for removing wasteful spending from bills. He also said it "marked the death" of more meaningful ethics reform in Congress this year.



Read More...

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

"Path To 9/11" Tough On Bush Administration? Not By A Long Shot.

Huffington Post
Rachel Sklar
"Path To 9/11" Tough On Bush Administration? Not By A Long Shot.

Like most people, I hadn't seen ABC's hotly contested "Path To 9/11" before it aired last night and Sunday (well, like most people who were featured inaccurately in the movie and had requested copies, and like most people who weren't right-wing bloggers and columnists). The information about its contents was documented extensively in a number of places, so I was well aware of the factual anomalies and flat-out fictionalizations relating to Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, and Bill Clinton. It was also widely reported that hey, the documentary was tough on the Bush administration, too.

After watching part two last night, however, I now know that that was not the case. On the contrary, barely two minutes into the final hour following President Bush's speech and the most jaw-dropping bit of spin I've ever seen occurred: They presented the now-infamous "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." briefing of August 6, 2001 as being a galvanizing force for Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, and the Bush administration, who all instantly recognized its significance. Literally, my jaw dropped.

Here's what happened on the screen: Wide on Condi in her office, reading. Foreboding music in background. She sees the title of the report: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." Her brow furrows. She flips pages. The music gets more urgent. Intercut, we see a chopper move in Afghanistan. Time is of the essence. It's urgent. As Condi flips, we see what she sees: Ramzi Yousef. "Bring the figthing to America." We know she knows that. A few scenes later, she chairs a Situation Room meeting on September 4, 2001. She begins, no nonsense: "The president is tired of swatting flies. He believes al Qaeda to be a real threat, and he want to consider real action." She goes on to ask if the Predator is ready to strike, all business. George Tenet seems not to know, and seems lukewarm about the idea of killing Bin Laden. Rice is coolly for it, and says that it's legal. After all, she read the memo.

In reality, this is NOT what happened. At the 9/11 Commission hearings, Rice testified that the August 6, 2001 briefing was a "historical document" and not considered a "warning" : "This was not a 'threat report... [it] "did not warn of any coming attack inside the United States." Contrary to Bush being "tired of swatting flies," he was out in Crawford doing just that as he cleared some brush on vacation, ignoring the warnings he'd received and saying that attack was not considered "imminent." (Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine" opens with Bush in Crawford receiving a hyper-nervous CIA operative who tries to warn him about the attack; Bush tells him "All right. You've covered your ass, now").

The memo stated that Al Qaeda members were in the U.S. and moving freely in the country, including New York, and -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. It also identified "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Oh yeah, it was called "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." And it is well-documented that the threat was all but ignored by the White House during a month of near-total vacation.

Later on in the film, the Bush administration is seen as instantly aware that the attack was by al Qaeda when, in fact, according to former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, Bush immediately assumed it was perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and all but demanded that Clarke find a link to that effect ("They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12").

There are a number of other inconsistencies in the film (for example, it also clearly shows Cheney getting the shootdown order for United 93 from Bush, and the record is unclear on this authorization, per pages 40 - 42 of the 9/11 Commission Report), and the careful listener would be hard-pressed to find rumblings about Saddam. But to me, this scene was the most glaring example of exaggeration, to the point of exoneration. The purpose of the film is very clear: To spin the Clinton administration as allowing the al Qaeda threat to spin out of control, leaving the Bush administration to clean up the mess. As events surrounding that August 6th memo make all too clear, that simply was not the case. If only they had been.

Bush did say the "swatting flies" line and task Rice to examine the threat of al Qaeda, but what we know from the historical record is completely counter to this portrayal. It is, however, entirely consistent with how this miniseries handled other disputed sections: Completely inconsistently with the facts. This is the sad irony of this movie: When it was good it was very good, and very moving. I said that yesterday. But you couldn't trust it. And when it comes to 9/11, the public trust is still what matters most.

Text of the original August 6, 2001 memo below.

From CNN:

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.



Read More...

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...