If you’re not outraged, we’re not doing our job.
HOME •
BASE8 •
BABYLON •
VIDEOS •
RSS •
TWITTER •
GOOGLE READER
No crocodile tears from us:
Tweet This Post! 
After all, this was the guy who said, “To me, God’s in control”:
Actor Stephen Baldwin files for bankruptcy in NY Actor Stephen Baldwin, brother of Emmy winner and “30 Rock” star Alec Baldwin, filed for bankruptcy in New York on Tuesday, according to a court document that says he is millions in debt.
The 43-year-old actor filed for Chapter 11 protection claiming he owes more than $2.3 million and owns a New York property valued at only $1.1 million. His wife, Kennya Baldwin, also is named in the document. …
So, why do we care?
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
“Growing” controversy? “Growing”? What, has no one been paying attention since we invaded Iraq? This has been a major “controversy” to me for, oh, I dunno, like six freaking years:
Now, this is one good Christian… Not!, April 6, 2003
Franklin Graham, Christian Crusader, April 21, 2003
One more excellent read on Franklin Graham…, April 21, 2003
Well, better late than never, I suppose, that the U.S. MSM is finally shedding some light on this (six years ago, I had to rely on independent bloggers and the British papers for most of my information) — no matter how annoyed I get that it takes so bloody long for the MSM to catch up with us crazy lefties who’ve been saying “I told you so” all along:
Read more »»»
Tweet This Post!
I knew this name sounded familiar — and now I’m sorry I ever studied up on PNAC, ’cause at this juncture I’d rather forget everything I ever learned in the past eight years, and live the rest of my life in blissful ignorance. But once your eyes have been opened…
You ready? It’s a bad one, folks:
Obama picks Ross as Mideast envoy Dennis Ross, a former top diplomat for the George H W Bush and Clinton administrations, will become the Obama administration’s top envoy on the Middle East, an internal email from Mr Ross’s current employer has revealed.
Mr Ross, who previously served as the US envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is set to take a wider role as Hillary Clinton’s top adviser for the Middle East as a whole. Ms Clinton herself is due to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State next Tuesday.
Executives at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the think-tank where Mr Ross works, told the organisation’s board that Mr Ross had “accepted an invitation to join the Obama administration as ambassador-at-large” in a job “designed especially for him,” covering a range of issues from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to Iran.
The email, first reported by Chris Nelson, a Washington-based foreign policy expert, adds that Mr Ross “will not reprise his previous role as special Arab-Israeli peace envoy, a post that will be held by someone else; rather he will be working closely with both the special envoy and the secretary.”
Mr Ross is likely to strike a high profile in his new job, particularly given the current Gaza conflict and mounting fears about Iran’s nuclear capacity. He served as an adviser on the Middle East to president-elect Barack Obama during the election campaign, calling for bigger carrots and bigger sticks to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons capacity. …
More at the link. And if mention of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy alone hasn’t already given you a heart attack, here’s the rest of the story on Ross, from the invaluable Right Web:
Although generally considered a political moderate, Ross has been closely associated with a number of neoconservative-led organizations and policy initiatives. A consultant for the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Ross supported the advocacy efforts of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which played a key role advocating invading Iraq in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He also frequently promotes aggressive Mideast policies in his writings and congressional testimony, and regularly teams up with scholars from organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to craft policy approaches toward Tehran’s nuclear program and other issues in the region. …Ross got his start in high-level policymaking working under Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon during the Jimmy Carter administration, where Wolfowitz headed up a project called the Limited Contingency Study, the results of which, writes author James Mann, “would play a groundbreaking role in changing American military policy toward the Persian Gulf over the coming decades.” …
After the election of Ronald Reagan, Wolfowitz became head of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff, where he assembled a team of advisors that included a number of figures who later became closely involved in neoconservative-led campaigns, including Ross, I. Lewis Libby, James Roche, Zalmay Khalilzad, Alan Keyes, and Francis Fukuyama. Discussing this period, Mann points to Ross in arguing that “not everyone on [Wolfowitz’s] staff was a neoconservative. … The fact remained, however, that Wolfowitz’s policy planning staff turned out to be the training ground for a new generation of national security specialists, many of whom shared Wolfowitz’s ideas, assumptions, and interests.”
Also during the Reagan presidency, Ross “served as director of Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council staff … and as Deputy Director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment,” according to his biography on the website of the Harry Walker Agency, a speakers bureau that also promotes, among others, former George W. Bush aide Peter Wehner, the neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, and alarmist antiterror wonk Steven Emerson. …
During the presidency of George W. Bush, Ross continued his policy work as a consultant to and fellow at WINEP, authoring policy papers, penning op-eds, and providing congressional testimony on Middle East issues. He repeatedly joined forces with neoconservatives, signing open letters for PNAC, advising advocacy groups like United against Nuclear Iran (whose leadership include former CIA director James Woolsey and hawkish weapons proliferation expert Henry Sokolski), and joining AEI scholars Michael Rubin and Reuel Marc Gerecht in discussing Mideast policies with their counterparts at the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute…
In 2006, Ross joined a cast of neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks in supporting the I. Lewis Libby Defense Fund, an initiative aimed at raising money for the disgraced former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted in connection to the investigation into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name. Ross served on the group’s steering committee along with Fred Thompson, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Bernard Lewis, and Francis Fukuyama. The group’s chairman was Mel Sembler, a real estate magnate who serves as a trustee at AEI and has funded the group Freedom’s Watch. …
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Ross supported the advocacy work of PNAC, a neoconservative-led letterhead group that advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein in response to the attacks, even if he was not tied to the them. Ross signed two PNAC open letters on the situation in post-war Iraq, both published in March 2003. The first of these, “Statement on Post-War Iraq,” was issued on March 19, 2003, the day before the United States began its invasion. The letter argued that Iraq should be seen as the first step in a larger reshaping of the region’s political landscape, contending that the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq could “contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East.” Other signatories included Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Thomas Donnelly, Joshua Muravchik, and several other core neoconservatives. …
In the aftermath of the invasion, Ross—as well as a number of neoconservatives—expressed deep skepticism about the course of the war and the future prospects in Iraq. …
However, in critiquing Bush’s Mideast policies, Ross has limited his criticism to issues of implementation, while giving the White House high marks for its objectives. …
Ross’s approach to Iran appears to have grown increasingly belligerent over time. …
During the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections Ross participated in two study groups aimed at influencing the next president’s policies toward Iran, both of which proposed extremely aggressive approaches. …
Much, much more at the link, with lots of sourcing.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. I know I am.
Tweet This Post!
Or, at the very least, He’s warning the state of more severe punishment to come, in retaliation for its most recent display of homophobic bigotry, persecution, and hatred heaped upon His cherished gay and lesbian children.
What else could explain earthquakes in Arkansas? After all, Radical Righties (like Roland Meyer of Nevada City) were blaming June fires in California on God’s wrath over our Supreme Court clearing the way for marriage equality; it’s a tradition that long precedes Jerry Falwell blaming “the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way” (and others immune to incurable religious insanity) for causing 9/11 by making “God mad.”
(Funny how the blame-the-gays nuts didn’t come crawling out of the woodwork when fires raged through Los Angeles County after L.A. voted to enshrine anti-gay hate in the California Constitution. Gee, come to think of it, the blame-the-gays set gets awfully quiet every time hurricanes and tornadoes flatten the virulently anti-gay Bible Belt of the South and the Plains states… every year, like clockwork. Funny, that.)
So, what else could explain the series of earthquakes in central Arkansas over the past few weeks — that is, immediately following November 4th, when Arkansas descended completely into the 13th century by outlawing adoption by gay people (and other unmarried folks — but really, we all know unwed heteros were just collateral damage to the fundy-mentals in their crazed war on gays)?
If you follow fundy thinking, there’s only one answer: Arkansas is making God mad.
Tweet This Post!
If I’ve ever received a more offensive comment on a YouTube video — and, believe me, I’ve had plenty of the “I’m glad gay people get murdered! You all deserve to die!” variety (most of which I believe are lame trolling attempts by 14-year-olds) — I can’t remember it.
Re my Gay Saints of 9/11 video:
BadgasBadgasWTF is this?
You took the time to research all the gay victims of 9/11 and decided to make a gay only 9/11 memorial video? I mean it’s not enough to make a video that includes all the 9/11 victims, you have to go the extra mile and make a “special” gays only one. You can’t be serious…it’s fine to be gay, but when people start to pride themselves and show extreme in your face bias for living a lifestyle it get’s old real fast.
This has to be a joke, right?
My reply:
lavenderliberalYou don’t get it: The point is we are no different from you. We live, love, work — and die — just like you. If you can’t understand that, there’s no explaining it to you. Would you say the same things to Ken Burns for making a “special” film about Latino veterans’ contributions to World War II? (He did just that, you know.) Or is it just that you don’t like gays? You think we’re not good enough to be recognized as friends, family, and heroes? Is that your real problem? I think it is.
I think some folks just can’t stand the idea that the person in the next seat — or flying the plane — could be queer.
I think it drives them crazy to be forced to look into the eyes of the gay people who died, because, well, gee, they all look so normal. They don’t have big red GAY tattoos on their foreheads, so, like, how can you tell if somebody’s one of those dangerous homosexuals?
I think some people get scared when they look at those dead lesbians and think, “Hey, that one looks like she could have been my mother, or my aunt…”
I think some people are disappointed that three-year-old David Brandhorst-Gamboa looked like a happy, lively, well-loved little boy, because that might just mean there are other gay parents out there who are doing a fine job of raising their children.
What do you think?
Tweet This Post!
This was as hard to make as “Life, Interrupted.” But I had to remember our brothers and sisters today.
This is why we will not fail:
If you like it, please vote it up, leave a comment, and pass it along to your friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZLEr0y0wDc
Tweet This Post!
COLLEGE PARK, MD — September 10, 2008 — A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 17 nations finds that majorities in only nine of them believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
In no country does a majority agree on another possible perpetrator. On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks, 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know. These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options.
“Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there is no international consensus about who was behind them,” comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Even in European countries, the majorities that say al Qaeda was behind 9/11 are not overwhelming. Fifty-six percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cite al Qaeda. However, significant portions of Britons (26%), French (23%), and Italians (21%) say they do not know who was behind 9/11. Remarkably, 23 percent of Germans cite the US government, as do 15 percent of Italians.
Publics in the Middle East are especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda. In Egypt 43 percent say that Israel was behind the attacks, as do 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The US government is named by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians. The numbers who say al Qaeda was behind the attacks range from 11 percent in Jordan to 42 percent in the Palestinian Territories.
The only countries with overwhelming majorities citing al Qaeda are the African countries: Kenya (77%) and Nigeria (71%).
The poll of 16,063 respondents was conducted between July 15 and August 31, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percent.
Interviews were conducted in 17 nations: China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Palestinian Territories, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the Ukraine.
For more information, visit http://www.WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Tweet This Post!
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has placed a full-page ad in today’s New York Times (p. A17), featuring a photograph of the intact pre-9/11 Manhattan skyline juxtaposed with the words: “Imagine a World Free From Religion.”
“One of the lessons of 9/11 is that there is no greater source of terrorism, strife, bloodshed, persecution or war than religion,” the Foundation ad points out.
“John Lennon was right,” comments Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president Dan Barker, author of the new book, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists (Ulysses Press).
“If there were no religion,” Dan added, “it would not automatically solve all our problems, but it would make them so much easier to address.”
“In this approaching seventh anniversary of the terror attacks, the role religion plays in creating terrorism and division is that proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room,” said Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor.
The ad points to “the growing threat of religious fanaticism here at home,” the de facto religious test for public office being imposed on candidates, and asks: “Is the American public flirting with theocracy?,” adding: “Don’t let it happen here!”
The ad promotes membership in the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out that FFRF is the largest national association of freethinkers, recounts FFRF achievements and touts the Foundation’s significant 30-year history of litigation to keep state and church separate.
“We came into the office today to find the phones ringing off the hooks, and already have been contacted by many very interested prospective members from all over the nation,” said Dan.
“We thank the original East Coast FFRF member who suggested this ad and contributed $10,000, and the other members who contributed toward this national statement,” added Annie Laurie.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., is a national association of more than 12,000 freethinkers (atheists, agnostics) that has been working since 1978 to keep church and state separate.
WASHINGTON — September 9, 2008 — The American Humanist Association congratulated the Freedom From Religion Foundation for its full-page ad in today’s New York Times. The ad’s headline reads “Imagine a World Free From Religion” above a photo of the Twin Towers. “This is a bold stroke to remind people of the elephant in the room,” declared American Humanist Association President Mel Lipman. “People don’t crash airliners into skyscrapers in the name of science or in the name of those common decencies we all believe in. But they can do it when prompted by blind faith in the unseen and unproven.”
This is the anniversary week of 9/11 during which a special memorial will open at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.
“The FFRF has our congratulations for their frankness, honesty and courage in generating discussion on this important issue,” added American Humanist Association Executive Director Roy Speckhardt. “It is efforts like these that have helped more and more people take an honest look at how religious fanaticism can lead to the destruction of humane values.”
In recent years, humanist and freethought groups all over the United States have reported significant growth in their membership numbers, some more than doubling in size. Moreover, public outreach by humanist and freethought organizations has expanded dramatically since the American Humanist Association got the ball rolling with its first national public awareness ad campaign in 2005. This ongoing campaign was highlighted last year when the American Humanist Association ran an ad in the Washington Post congratulating Congressman Pete Stark for “coming out” as a nontheist. Today, humanist and freethought billboards are being placed on major highways in the metropolitan areas of New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Phoenix, as well as in the cities of both the Democratic and Republication national conventions.
“Clearly, the humanist and freethought movement is growing in significance,” concluded Lipman. “Today being nonreligious constitutes the fastest-growing ‘religious’ identification in America, already outnumbering that of Jews, Muslims, Mormons and Hindus combined. That’s why we can now participate on the national stage with dramatic advertising campaigns and programs with broad impact. Expect to see much more from us in the future.”
“And of course, humanism is positioned to offer the next step after people set traditional religious faith aside,” added Speckhardt. “Humanism is more than absence of belief in a deity; it is a positive ethical outlook that gives meaning and purpose to one’s life without need of ancient texts or divine revelation.”
The American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org) advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists. Founded in 1941 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., its work is extended through more than 100 local chapters and affiliates across America.
Tweet This Post!
WASHINGTON — July 10 — Yesterday in the House, we had a moment of silence for the troops. Today it is time to speak out on behalf of those troops who will be in Iraq for at least another year, courageously representing our nation while their Commander in Chief sent them on a mission that was based on falsehoods about the threat of WMDs from Iraq.
Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, the Congress, the media and the American people heard the terrifying drumbeat of fear from the Bush White House in the form of loud, well-advertised and orchestrated chanting by the President and his Administration about “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” “Nuclear Threats,” “Biological Weapons,” “Chemical Weapons,” “Threats of Imminent Attack,” all calculated to gain media attention, public support and Congressional support for a war against Iraq.
This afternoon I will introduce a single Article of Impeachment of the President.
The Article is entitled: “Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.” The Impeachment resolution focuses narrowly on what the President presented to Congress in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not address the voluminous evidence of orchestrated deceptions which have been well documented by various governmental, non-governmental and media sources.
I understand that many members of Congress voted in good faith to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And I understand that many in the media supported that action. When the President of the United States makes representations on matters of life and death, we all want to believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Trust is the glue which holds the fabric of our nation together.
Those in Congress and in the media who acted on the President’s representations of the threat of Iraq WMDs did so trusting that those representations were honest. Unfortunately, they were not. We all know the consequences of the war, the loss of lives and injury to our troops, the deaths of innocent Iraqis, the cost to the American taxpayers. There has been another consequence: Great damage to our Constitution through an unnecessary, illegal war and the destruction of the superior role of Congress in the life of this nation.
Congress must, in the name of the American people, use the one remedy which the Founders provided for an Executive who gravely abused his power: Impeachment. Congress must reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government; bring this President to an accounting, and in doing so reestablish the people’s trust in Congress and in our United States system of government. We must not let this President’s conduct go unchallenged and thereby create a precedent which undermines the Constitution.
In the final analysis this is about our Constitution and whether a President can be held accountable for his actions and his deceptions, especially when the effects of those actions have been so calamitous for America, Iraq and the world. Unless Congress reasserts itself as the power branch of government which the Founders intended, our experiment with a republican form of Government may be nearing an end. But when Congress acts to hold this President accountable it will be redeeming the faith that the Founders had in the power of a system of checks and balances which preserves our republic.
AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN DENNIS J. KUCINICH
JULY 10, 2008
Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
An Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.
DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDs TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq.
To gain Congressional support for passage of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, the President made the following material representations to the Congress in SJ Res 45:
1. That Iraq was “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability. …”
2. That Iraq was “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. …”
3. That Iraq was “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security.”
4. That Iraq has demonstrated a “willingness to attack, the United States….”
5. That “members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. …”
6. The “attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations…”
7. That Iraq “will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, …”
8. That an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack,. .. .”
9. That the aforementioned threats “justify action by the United States to defend itself; …”
10. The enactment clause of Section 2 of SJ Res 45, the Authorization of the Use of the United States Armed Forces authorizes the President to “defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq…”
Each consequential representation made by the President to the Congress in SJ Res 45, in subsequent iterations and the final version was unsupported by evidence which was in the control of the White House.
1. Iraq was not “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability…”
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information. June 5, 2008. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
“In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the (mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that “only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.” House Committee on Government Reform- Minority Staff. Iraq on the Record: Bush Administration’s Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons. March 16, 2004. Available: http://oversight.house.gov/…
Former chief of CIA covert operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, has said that the CIA had credible sources discounting weapons of mass destruction claims, incuding the primary source of biological weapons claims, an informant who the Germans code-named “Curveball” whom the Germans had informed the Bush Administration was a likely fabricator and including the Niger Yellowcake forgery. Two other former CIA officers confirmed Drumheller’s account to Sidney Blumenthal who reported the story at Salon.com on September 6, 2007.
“In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons (BW) weapons quickly. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level. In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons. … ISG harbors severe doubts about the source’s credibility in regards to the breakout program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
2. Iraq was not “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.”
The key finding of the Iraq Survey Group’s (ISG) Report to the Director of Central Intelligence found that “Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. Saddam Husayn (sic) ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
Claims that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were not supported by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002.
The CIA had warned the British not to claim Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger prior to the British statement that was later cited by President Bush. George Tenet, July 11, 2003
“One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use n centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have been — it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourthly, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment program. As I stated above, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.” ElBaradei, Mohamed. Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency. Statement to the United Nations Security Council on The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update. March 7, 2003. Available: http://www.iaea.org/…
3. Iraq was not “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.”
“Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of [Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear] programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an ‘imminent’ threat.” Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Former CIA Director George J. Tenet at Georgetown University. February 5, 2004. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq … We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction have had some controls on them … it’s been quite a success for ten years.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Interview with Face the Nation. February 11, 2001.
“[British Secret Intelligence Service Chief Sir Richard Billing Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. … The Foreign Secretary (of England) said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.” Rycroft, Matthew; Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Memo to British Ambassador to the United States David Manning. July 23, 2002. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…
4. Iraq did not have the “willingness to attack, the United States.”
“The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the UN basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They really don’t possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Transcript of Remarks made to German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. February 2001. Available: http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/…
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11, or with al-Qaida’s role in 9/11.
“The report [of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] documents significant instances in which the Admnistration went beyond what the Intelligence Community knew or believed in making public claims, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational partnership and joint involvement in carrying out the attacks of September 11th. The President and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against al-Qaida as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the Nation to war on false premises.” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Additional Views of Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. Page 90. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
Richard Clarke’s memo of September 18, 2001, titled Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks, and that there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons http://www.9-11commission.gov/… (page 334).
On September 17, 2003, President Bush said: “No, we’ve no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th. What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.” Available: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/…
On June 16, 2004, a Staff Report from the 9/11 Commission stated: “There has been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. … Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
“Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon’s inspector general.
“Feith’s office ‘was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,’ according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith’s activities as ‘an alternative intelligence assessment process.’” Pincus, Walter and Smith, R. Jeffrey. “Official’s Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted, ‘Dubious’ Intelligence Fueled Push for War.” Washington Post. February 9, 2007. A1.
6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable… ”
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks — more likely with biological than chemical agents — probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida — with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States — would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so…”
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable…” October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.”
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.”
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.”
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
As reported in the Washington Post on March 1, 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel had informed US and British intelligence officers that “all weapons–biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” Lynch, Colum. “Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed by 1995.” Washington Post. A15. March 1, 2003.
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
8. There was not a real risk of an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack” because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.
“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) War. … [Iraq is] not threatening America.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State.
9. The aforementioned evidence did not “justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself” because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using the non-existent WMD’s against the United States.
10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause was predicated on lying to Congress.
Congress relied on the information provided to it by the President of the United States. Congress provided the President with the authorization to use military force that he requested. As a consequence of the fraudulent representations made to the Congress, the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of George Bush as Commander in Chief, pursuant to Section 3 of the Authorization for the Use of Force which President Bush requested, invaded Iraq and occupies it to this day, at the cost of 4,116 lives of US service men and women, injuries to over 30,000 of our troops, the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraq, and a long term cost over $3 trillion.
President Bush’s misrepresentations to Congress to induce passage of a use of force resolution is subversive of the Constitutional system of checks and balances, destructive of Congress’ sole prerogative to declare war under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is therefore a High Crime. An even greater offense by the President of the United States occurs in his capacity as Commander in Chief, because he knowingly placed the men and women of the United States Armed Forces in harm’s way, jeopardizing their lives and their families’ future, for reasons that to this date have not been established in fact.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and of those members of the Armed Forces who put their lives on the line pursuant to the falsehoods of the President. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Tweet This Post!
Per FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting):
Talk Show Host Calls for Murder Michael Reagan says activist should be killed for treason
WASHINGTON — June 26 — Nationally syndicated conservative radio host Michael Reagan called for the murder of a political activist on June 10. Reagan, a frequent guest on cable news shows and the son of President Ronald Reagan, singled out 9/11 activist Mark Dice by name and called several times for his assassination.
(Click here to listen to a 3 minute audio clip.)
Reagan had learned that political activists had reportedly been sending letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq, advancing the theory that the U.S. government had carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. For promoting this unpopular view, the talkshow host advocated that these activists should be killed as “traitors”:
“We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”Even more troubling was the call for violence against a specific individual:
“How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”Reagan subsequently had Dice on his show (6/16/08) as a guest and stated, “I’m sorry for what I said.” As an explanation, Reagan offered, “Sometimes radio hosts we get fired up and angry and we say things that are actually stupid, and we make mistakes.”
Reagan’s “mistakes,” unfortunately, have repeatedly involved advocating murder to his audience. On August 15, 2006, Reagan called for violently killing babies who were reportedly being named for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah:
“Naming their children ‘Hezbollah.’ You know what I’d get ‘em for a first birthday? I’d put a grenade up their butts and light it. Happy birthday, baby. Bye bye.”In response to a caller who pointed out that children are not responsible for the names they are given, Reagan repeatedly asserted, “So what’s wrong with killing the mothers and the babies?”
On December 5, 2005, Reagan said Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean “should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq War.” (Watch clip on the Media Matters website) This was in response to Dean’s statement (WOAI-AM, 12/5/05) that “the idea that we’re going to win this war is just plain wrong.”
Reagan’s distributor, Radio America, also distributes the G. Gordon Liddy Show. Liddy, a former Nixon aide sent to prison for the Watergate break-in, also has a history of calling for violence over the airwaves, repeatedly advocating that listeners shoot federal law enforcement officials in the head. For example, on August 26, 1994, Liddy told his listeners:
“Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests…. They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots…. Kill the sons of bitches.”Needless to say, calls for violence against those one disagrees with are dangerous and corrosive to the public discussion. A responsible distributor has rules against such on-air death threats — and consequences when such rules are violated.
ACTION:
Ask Radio America to explain its policies regarding calls for violence on its nationally syndicated programming. Does the company really permit its hosts to call for murder on the air?
Reagan’s show is broadcast on “more than 150 stations,” according to Radio America. If the show broadcasts near where you live, contact the local station management and ask them to stop broadcasting death threats on your local public airwaves.
CONTACT:
Radio America President Jim Roberts
703-302-1000 ext 215.
Email: jroberts@radioamerica.org
Sapph says: Why aren’t these people behind bars? Why are they allowed out on the streets, and on the air? Oh, and, by the way — while this is a minor issue compared to calls for murder, the question is valid: Is there anyone left (looking in Barack Obama’s direction) who still doesn’t understand the need for the Fairness Doctrine?
Tweet This Post!
…for Dickheads of the Year (Maher’s “picks for the biggest assholes of 2007″), we’ll never know. But Maher is so spot-on, and entertaining, it’s a must-see (and a must-pass-along). A few of our favorite lines:
Blackwater despot Erik Prince: “…a super-Christy Jesus freak who looks on the Crusades the way rednecks pine for the Confederacy.”
Crandall Canyon Mine owner Bob Murray: “The fat-ass, lying embodiment of the Bush administration’s regulatory policies.”
Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig: “Don’t people like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard and Mark Foley prove that being gay really is a hard-wired thing — not, as the conservatives always claim, a ‘lifestyle choice‘? If anyone could choose not to have gay sex, it would be these guys, since their whole careers are built on not having gay sex.”
Senator David Vitter, diaper-wearing hooker’s john: “Caught dead to rights as a customer of the D.C. Madam, and explained it away by saying, ‘Several years ago I received forgiveness from God in confession.’ Oh, well, all righty then, it’s all good, then you’re obviously not a disgusting, horrible hypocrite who runs on family values and then fucks whores at home and in Washington.”
College Republicans: “…cutthroat, amoral putzes like Karl Rove… Doughy losers who, at age twenty, care more about tax cuts than girls.”
Bush’s Attorney General du jour, Michael Mukasey: “Kind of makes you miss those innocent days when Gonzales just couldn’t recall.”
Rudy Giuliani: “Rudy says if a Democrat is elected in 2008, we’ll be at risk of another 9/11, because… he was mayor of New York when they attacked the World Trade Center the first time? His slogan should be ‘Not on my watch… again.’”
Much, much more at the link, and well worth the click.
Tweet This Post!
Reports 365gay.com:
Oregon anti-gay activist David Crowe has called an elections complaint against his group “Oregon’s Own 9-11″ and “an attack within our borders.”
Crowe made the remarks in an email to supporters Tuesday in which he fired back at a longtime activist for “clean elections” in Oregon who last week asked Oregon’s Secretary of State to investigate Crowe’s group “Concerned Oregonians” and another organization for the way they were soliciting funds for a voter initiative to repeal two state LGBT civil rights laws.
“This comparison is incredibly disrespectful not only to the mourning of our nation but to the families of those who died and to those who fought so hard to saves lives at Ground Zero,” said John Hummel, Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon, the state’s largest LGBT rights group.
“For David Crowe to compare his own self-inflicted legal troubles to the events of 9/11 is beyond comprehension, purely reprehensible and downright bizarre.”
In an e-mail with the subject line “Defaming To Destroy: Oregon’s Own 9-11,” Crowe complains of a “September Day of Infamy” occasioned by the elections complaint.
See also:
Election Law Complaint Filed Over Anti-Gay Petition Gatherers
Tweet This Post!
One sailor’s call to duty after 9/11
In response to Sept. 11, 2001, many people felt called to military service in order to do something to defend our great country. Sept. 11 had the opposite impact on my life.
At 8:30 a.m. that day, I went to a meeting in the Pentagon. At 9:30 a.m., I left that meeting. At 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon and destroyed the exact space I had left less than eight minutes earlier, killing seven of my colleagues.
On Sept. 11, 2001, I was a lesbian Navy captain who, at that time, had more than 28 years of dedicated military service. My partner, Lynne Kennedy, an openly gay reference librarian at the Library of Congress, and I had been together for more than 11 years. Each day, I went to work wondering if that would be the day I would be fired because someone had figured out I was gay.
. . .
As the numbness [after Sept. 11] began to wear off, it hit me how incredibly alone Lynne would have been had I been killed.
. . .
In fact, had I been killed, Lynne would have been one of the last people to know, because nowhere in my paperwork or emergency contact information had I dared to list Lynne’s name. This realization caused us both to stop and reassess exactly what was most important in our lives. During that process we realized that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was causing us to make a much bigger sacrifice than either of us had ever admitted. …
Tweet This Post!
A must-read, and must-bookmark:
The Case for Impeachment:
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush…House Resolution 635 [introduced by Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.), is not] a high-minded tilting at windmills but the production of a report, 182 pages, 1,022 footnotes, assembled by Conyers’s staff during the six months prior to its presentation to Congress, that describes the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq as the perpetration of a crime against the American people. It is a fair description. Drawing on evidence furnished over the last four years by a sizable crowd of credible witnesses … the authors of the report find a conspiracy to commit fraud, the administration talking out of all sides of its lying mouth, secretly planning a frivolous and unnecessary war while at the same time pretending in its public statements that nothing was further from the truth. …
Entitled “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War,” the Conyers report examines the administration’s chronic abuse of power from more angles than can be explored within the compass of a single essay. The nature of the administration’s criminal DNA and modus operandi, however, shows up in a usefully robust specimen of its characteristic dishonesty.
That President George W. Bush comes to power with the intention of invading Iraq is a fact not open to dispute. … At the first meeting of the new National Security Council on January 30, 2001, most of the people in the room discuss the possibility of preemptive blitzkrieg against Baghdad. … Six months later, early in the afternoon of September 11, the smoke still rising from the Pentagon’s western facade, Secretary Rumsfeld tells his staff to fetch intelligence briefings (the “best info fast… go massive; sweep it all up; things related and not”) that will justify an attack on Iraq. …
By November 13, 2001, the Taliban have been rousted out of Kabul in Afghanistan, but our intelligence agencies have yet to discover proofs of Saddam Hussein’s acquaintance with Al Qaeda. President Bush isn’t convinced. On November 21, at the end of a National Security Council meeting, he says to Secretary Rumsfeld, “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?…I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”
The Conyers report doesn’t return to the President’s focus on Iraq until March 2002, when it finds him peering into the office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, to say, “Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out.” At a Senate Republican Policy lunch that same month on Capitol Hill, Vice President Dick Cheney informs the assembled company that it is no longer a question of if the United States will attack Iraq, it’s only a question of when. The vice president doesn’t bring up the question of why, the answer to which is a work in progress. By now the administration knows, or at least has reason to know, that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, that Iraq doesn’t possess weapons of mass destruction sufficiently ominous to warrant concern, that the regime destined to be changed poses no imminent threat, certainly not to the United States, probably not to any country defended by more than four batteries of light artillery. …
By early August the Bush Administration has sufficient confidence in its doomsday story to sell it to the American public. …
Before reading the report, I wouldn’t have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don’t know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country’s good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world’s evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation’s wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal — known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child’s tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?
Lewis H. Lapham
The Case for Impeachment:
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
Harper’s Magazine
February 27, 2006
Click the link and read the entire article.
Also read this: “Impeaching George W. Bush,” by Onnesha Roychoudhuri (AlterNet, March 6, 2006).
Finally, and most importantly, a 273-compilation of the Conyers report is here (PDF).
We’re almost home, folks. We’re almost home.
Tweet This Post!
U.S. Report Faults the Roundup of Illegal Immigrants After 9/11. The internal Justice Department report found that many people with no connection to terrorism were forced to languish in jails. By Eric Lichtblau. [New York Times: International]
Report: 9/11 Detainees Abused: Justice Dept. Review Outlines Immigrant Rights Violations. Authorities violated the civil rights of hundreds of immigrants detained after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and demonstrated “a pattern of physical and verbal abuse” at a federal prison where 84 of them were held, according to a long-awaited Justice Department report released yesterday. [Washington Post]
Excerpt From Analysis of Detention of Foreigners After 9/11 Attacks. Following is an excerpt from the conclusion of a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, on the detention of hundreds of immigrants after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [New York Times: Politics]
For Jailed Immigrants, a Presumption of Guilt. The aggressive tactics used against people held on minor immigration violations were, civil libertarians said, a natural result of the Justice Department’s new approach. By Adam Liptak. [New York Times: International]
Tweet This Post!
Don’t you just hate those mornings when you wake up super-early, realize you have another hour and a half to sleep… and then make the mistake of checking the news for just one teeny-tiny moment — and are sucked right into half a dozen fascinating items?
Well, I don’t hate it — it’s what gets news junkies like me primed and pumped for the day.
It’s a real 1984 kind of morning, folks — one just bursting with half-truths, quarter-truths, outright lies, coverups, convenient memory losses, and various sundry acts of chicanery, all topped off with a fat, red, gleaming cherry of Big Brotherism.
We begin with September 11th, 2001 — and an amazing revelation: No, not the revelation that somebody’s not telling the whole story, as that is neither a revelation, nor amazing, but the almost inconceivable idea that the right-wing mouthpiece known as MSNBC is actually printing Newsweek’s June 2 piece on the vexing secrecy of the 9-11 non-investigation:
Classified: Censoring the Report About 9-11?Bush officials are refusing to permit the release of matters already in the public domain—including the existence of intelligence documents referred to on the CIA Web site.
Why is the Bush administration blocking the release of an 800-page congressional report about 9-11? The bipartisan report deals with law-enforcement and intelligence failures that preceded the attacks. For months, congressional leaders and administration officials have battled over declassifying the document, preventing a public release once slated for this week. NEWSWEEK has learned new details about the dispute.
Among the portions of the report the administration refuses to declassify, sources say, are chapters dealing with two politically and diplomatically sensitive issues: the details of daily intelligence briefings given to Bush in the summer of 2001 and evidence pointing to Saudi government ties to Al Qaeda. Bush officials have taken such a hard line, sources say, that they’re refusing to permit the release of matters already in the public domain—including the existence of intelligence documents referred to on the CIA Web site.
One document is called the PDB, the President’s Daily Brief. The congressional report contains details of PDBs provided to Bush (and top national-security aides) prior to 9-11. The PDBs included warnings about possible attacks by Al Qaeda. (One PDB was given at the presidential ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Aug. 6, and dealt with the possibility that Al Qaeda might hijack airplanes.) But an administration review committee overseen by CIA Director George Tenet has refused to declassify anything that even refers to the existence of PDBs — though they are described on the CIA’s own Web site (www.CIA.gov). A U.S. intelligence official said the review committee must consult with the White House before releasing anything. But the official denied charges by Florida Sen. Bob Graham, a Democratic presidential candidate, that Tenet’s review committee was covering up White House embarrassments. “We’re not playing politics,” the official says. “Our concern is national security.”
The other hot-button issue is the Saudis, sources say. The report discusses evidence that individuals with Saudi government connections may have provided the hijackers aid. One of them is Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi student who helped two hijackers get apartments in San Diego. The administration won’t declassify references to al-Bayoumi even though, in response to a NEWSWEEK story, an FBI spokesman confirmed last November that he was being investigated. The report also includes interviews with U.S. officials about Saudi cooperation in the war on terror. Many were critical of the Saudis. The administration is declassifying only the response by former FBI director Louis Freeh praising Saudi assistance on the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing case. The U.S. intelligence official said that, in response to a letter cosigned by Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, House Intelligence Committee GOP chair, the review committee was considering allowing more portions of the report to become public.
Classified: Censoring the Report About 9-11?
Newsweek via MSNBC
May 29, 2003Now, if you’ve been following the story thus far (and if you have, you’re in the minority), none of this should come as any surprise. The only surprise here is that it’s hitting the American media, big-time. That’s bad for Georgie Boy — and good for the people of the United States — especially some 3,000 families who deserve to know why their loved ones got blown to bits the morning of September 11th for doing nothing more than getting out of bed and going to work.
Speaking of burying information, stay with me this morning, and let’s do some more digging — not into the rubble of the World Trade Center, but into the rubble of a once-thriving U.S. economy.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: George W. Bush, Homeland Insecurity, Republicans, Saudi Arabia, September 11
May 28, 2003
Oh, the… er, What Humanity?
Okay, okay, so Lucky Larry wants rent that was due before September 11, 2001. It’s legal and all, but… comeonfortheloveofmike! Have a freakin’ heart, Silverstein! Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 employees in the destruction of the World Trade Center — and you were insured up the ying-yang anyway, fercrimenysakes!
Damn, some people are coldhearted — and cheap — bastards:
Cantor Fitzgerald, the United States brokerage house that lost more people than any other company in the destruction of the World Trade Centre, has been sued by its former landlord for failing to pay rent for the six weeks that preceded the September 11, 2001, attacks.According to a civil complaint filed on Friday and made public on Tuesday in Manhattan Supreme Court, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. and Cantor Fitzgerald Inc owe rent of US$1,027,658.96 ($1,789,411.39).
The figure covers the rent from August 1 through September 10, 2001, the day before two hijacked planes commandeered by suicide pilots crashed into the towers, killing nearly 3000 people. …
Cantor lost 658 of its 1000 employees when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into 1 World Trade Centre, the first building to be hit, where Cantor occupied four of the highest floors.
The lawsuit was filed by Larry Silverstein, who held a 99-year lease on the twin towers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the buildings. In essence, Silverstein collected rent from the tenants and paid lease fees to the Port Authority. …
The suit seeks interest and attorney fees in addition to back rent.
Just let it go, man. I would — especially with your money in my pocket.
So I’d make a lousy billionaire — so what? At least I could sleep at night.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Business/Economy, New York, September 11
May 26, 2003
A Shameful Memorial Day “Tribute”
President Bush to mark Memorial Day with a wreath-laying at Arlington National Cemetery, paying special tribute to troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. …“Each Memorial Day, we pray for peace throughout the world, remembering what was gained and what was lost during times of war,” the president said in a Memorial Day proclamation.
“From the bravery of the men at Valley Forge, to the daring of Normandy, the courage of Iwo Jima and the steady resolve in Afghanistan and Iraq, our men and women in uniform have won for us every hour that we live in freedom.” …
Bush to Pay Tribute to Troops in Iraq
Optimum Online
May 26, 2003Positively shameful. Or perhaps a better word is “shameless.”
George, what do you know about serving your country in time of war? Where were you in ‘72?
This “desertion” can not be swept under the rug like some traffic ticket. This crime is an offense to every man and women in America and especially those that have served and those that are currently serving our nation in the Armed Forces.
And courage? What do you know of courage? You’re a Vietnam War deserter who sends our young men and women into harm’s way for the purpose of conquering a smaller, weaker country on the premise of… What is it this week, George? Is it still weapons of mass destruction? Or are we back to liberating the Iraqis again? Or shall we return to the deception of avenging the September 11th attacks by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11?
And bravery? This, from the Commander-in-Chief who spent September 11, 2001, puddle-jumping across the country in Air Force One while the rest of the nation wondered where you were, what you were doing, and why you didn’t provide us the anchor of sanity and reassurance we needed, when we needed it the most?
I won’t even get into your aircraft-carrier landing stunt. Or the way you plan to exploit the deaths of 3,000 Americans for the benefit of your 2004 election campaign.
My father was a veteran of World War II. He died, a proud patriot, more than a decade ago. Not a day has passed that I don’t miss him, more than words can say.
And yet — for his sake — I’m glad he’s not here this Memorial Day to witness this dishonor to him, and to all servicemen and women who have fulfilled their sworn duty — and worn their uniforms proudly, bravely, and legitimately.
George, this is one day you should have stayed in Crawford and kept a low profile.
To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech.Senator Robert Byrd
May 7, 2003
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Afghanistan, George W. Bush, Iraq, Military/DADT, September 11
May 17, 2003
Your Required Weekend Reading
If you don’t have an account with the online version of The New York Times, you should; fickle left-right pendulum swings (it’s never “neutral”) and Jayson Blair aside, its op/ed pages are nearly unbeatable. (I said “nearly”; the NYT is still consistently too far to the right for my liking.)
And it’s worth registering (for free, mind you) just to read the piece below in its entirety:
Is President Bush a religious zealot, or does he just pander to that crowd? …
[Mr. Bush’s public piety] contributes to an image of crusading arrogance abroad, and to a fear of invasive moralism at home. Most recently, the president’s reluctance to offend Senator Rick Santorum — a Catholic theocrat who believes that states should have the power to arrest gay lovers in their bedrooms, or even to criminalize couples who use contraceptives — was an occasion to wonder what, exactly, Mr. Bush was born-again into. …
I’ve long suspected the essential fact about Mr. Bush is that God was his 12-step program. … This kind of born-again epiphany is common in much of America — the red-state version of psychotherapy — and it creates the kind of faith that is not beset by doubt because the believer knows his life got better in the bargain. …
It is probably not entirely irrelevant to our international relations that Tony Blair is, as one British columnist put it, “the most overtly pious leader since Gladstone,” while Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schröder of Germany are adamantly secular. Mr. Schröder was the first German chancellor to refuse to end his oath of office with the customary “so help me God.” …
So God is a kind of fraternity handshake. … Mr. Bush’s frequent invocation of the Almighty in his speeches grates on the ears of worldly Europeans, who, when the president says, “God bless America,” imagine they hear, “And to hell with everybody else.” But it is a tradition of long standing in America, where our dissident origins, First Amendment protections and entrepreneurial spirit have created the most diversely religious population in the world. Mr. Bush comes nowhere near the profuse sectarian language of, say, Lincoln or the Roosevelts. He is also the first president to expand the routine homage to “churches and synagogues” to include “mosques.” That amendment came long before 9/11, and was welcome, even if it was motivated by the awareness that American Muslim voters constitute a growing, unexploited voter pool. …
His advocacy of faith-based social programs, for example, clearly grows from his conviction, based on personal experience, that religion can bring an extra charisma to problems like drug abuse. If that also happens to win him religious votes and to coincide with the Republican aversion to government social programs, so much the better for Mr. Bush. …
Perhaps the most important effect of Mr. Bush’s religion is that, for better or for worse, it imparts a profound self-confidence once he has decided on a course of action. This has been most conspicuous since Sept. 11 in the way he has talked about his mission to make the world safe for democracy. Some listeners take it as presumptuous, messianic, even blasphemous. …
As for the enduring notion that Mr. Bush takes his instructions from the organized Christian right, it misses a much more interesting story: as an independent political structure, the Christian right is dying.
For one thing, the organizations that hit their stride in the 1980’s have waned. The Moral Majority is long gone. The Christian Coalition is withering. Bombastic evangelical power brokers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have aged into irrelevance, and now exist mainly as ludicrous foils. …
At the same time… many local activists have gravitated into the Republican Party as county chairmen and campaign consultants. Once an independent force hammering at the president and Congress, they are now an institutional part of the party base. They must be kept mollified — but in balance with other parts of the coalition, like business, and within the bounds of what a majority of voters will accept. Karl Rove, the White House political genius, has a master plan for enlarging that ecumenical array of believers — churchgoing Catholics, Mormons and Jews as well as the evangelicals — and welding them permanently into the Republican mainstream.
The interesting story, then, is not that Mr. Bush is a captive of the religious right, but that his people are striving to make the religious right a captive of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Catholicism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Europe, Free Speech, George W. Bush, Homophobia, Islam, Judaism, Karl Rove, LDS/Mormons, Privacy, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality, Republicans, Rick Santorum, September 11
May 15, 2003
With Every New “Scramble,” Another Reminder (3/3)
This is Part 3 of 3. See Part 1; Part 2.
Let’s take one more look at the Russert-Cheney interview:
Russert: “So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?”
Cheney: “Yes. The president made the decision… that if the plane would not divert… as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that’s a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You’ve got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by… terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?”And what was the alternative, Dick? Kill a couple of hundred people by shooting down the planes — or sit on your hands, watch the planes crash, and kill a few thousand?
Playing along with the idea that it was ever “your” decision to authorize intercepts:
NORAD managed to get not one, but multiple F-16s into the air to intercept Payne Stewart’s plane.
But “you” couldn’t manage to scramble a single jet the morning of September 11th — until after American Flight 11 had already crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
The USAF was ready to shoot down Payne Stewart’s plane and didn’t, because there was no danger of it hitting a densely-populated area — like Pierre, South Dakota (population: 13,876).
But “you” couldn’t manage to get a single jet in the air before the crash of the first of two planes you already knew were headed straight for New York City (population: 7,322,564).
Sounds to me like the Air Force was more prepared to take out a plane containing nine people to prevent it from crashing into a rural town of 13,000, than “you” were to take out four commercial jets, containing a total of 245 people, from crashing into two of the most densely-populated metropolitan areas in the United States (one of which, incidentally, is the nerve center of the federal government).
Now, I don’t mean to make it sound as though the lives of the folks in South Dakota are any less important than the lives of those in New York or Washington. It’s as great a tragedy, in my eyes, to lose nine souls — or even one — as it is 3,000. And, in fact, I commend all involved for their handling of the Payne Stewart incident; shoot it down or let it crash — what else could be done?
But I do find it curious, Dick, that “they” could hold the total death count in South Dakota to a mere nine, while “you” allowed…
Wait, let me do some math here… 87 aboard Flight 11, plus 59 aboard Flight 77… carry the one… 40 aboard Flight 93, plus 59 aboard Flight 175… carry one… plus 2,629 in the WTC, and another 125 at the Pentagon… zero on the ground in Penn… Got it.
As I was saying: I find it curious, Dick, that the USAF was authorized (without any need to clear it with President Clinton) to use all means available to hold the South Dakota death toll to nine, while “you” used none of the means available to avoid the deaths of 2,999 — until it was much too late.
Granted, there’s probably nothing that could have been done to save the lives of the 245 aboard those planes. But as far as I’m concerned, Dick, somebody — maybe not “you,” but somebody on your watch — had more than enough time to do something about saving the lives of the other 2,754 people on the ground.
But it looks like “you” didn’t even try.
Of course, there are countless questions about September 11th aside from the failure to scramble F-16s — but you no doubt realize what a monumental task it would be to compile them all here.
Besides, every time I delve into the details, my eyes nearly roll back in their sockets at the overwhelming volume of information, and the mind-boggling contradictions all screaming for attention at once. So, when the subject of 9-11 comes up, I intend — as I did here — to try to concentrate on just one aspect, and in fairly brief form, so as to overwhlem neither myself nor you. I want you, dear reader, to become aware of facts you may not have heard before, and to be able to digest those facts — and realize why it really is so important that you know these things, and start asking your own questions.
September 11th wasn’t something that happened “out there”; no matter where it was, or who died, or why, it was the trigger the PNAC boys had been waiting for; they were desperate for some excuse — any excuse — to unleash decades of carefully-worked back-room plans on the unsuspecting public. With 9-11, they got their excuse — in spades.
As a result, your life has changed in ways you may already feel, and in ways you may not recognize until the next time you try to board a plane, take a day trip to Tijuana — or say the “wrong thing” in class (and suddenly find yourself hauled off for questioning by Secret Service agents).
It seems to me that the only reasonable way to absorb the reality of 9-11 is to look at one small aspect at a time. However, if you’d like to try to digest the whole enchilada (and it’s one damn-big enchilada), you couldn’t find a better starting point than 911 Timeline.net (which also provides links to many more sites guaranteed to overwhelm you with detail).
Good luck. I feel my eyes starting to roll back in their sockets…
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Dick Cheney, Homeland Insecurity, September 11
With Every New “Scramble,” Another Reminder (2/3)
This is Part 2 of 3. See Part 1.
One might argue that, even if NORAD protocols have not changed since 9-11 (which they have not), then NORAD has become more vigilant in the past 20 months.
It hasn’t.
Whenever I think of September 11th — and the complete failure to scramble Air Force jets in any reasonable (much less expedient) time — Payne Stewart always come to mind.
If you’re not familiar with the story: Payne Stewart was a professional golfer who was killed in the crash of a Learjet on October 25, 1999. The flight left Orlando for Dallas, then inexplicably turned north, and kept flying until it ran out of fuel over South Dakota.
The last transmission from the plane to ground control was at 9:27 a.m.
At 9:33 a.m., ground control radioed instructions to the plane to change frequencies, and waited for acknowledgement. Over the span of the next four and a half minutes, the controller made five more calls to the flight, but received no response.
Thus, at about 9:38 a.m., the ground controller ceased calls to the plane.
By 9:52 a.m., “a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm” of the doomed aircraft.
That’s a total of 14 minutes from the time the ground controller gave up on raising a response from the plane, and the time NORAD was contacted, ordered an F-16 intercept, and the F-16 was in the air and a mere 8nm from the Learjet.
After making two calls to Stewart’s plane and receiving no response, the F-16 began its visual inspection at about 10:00 a.m.
And here’s the punch line: The F-16 from Eglin AFB was only the first plane scrambled to intercept the Learjet:
Over Missouri, four F-16s from an Air National Guard unit based in Fargo, North Dakota, took over the escort mission, and stayed with the plane until it crashed.
The Air Force says additional F-16s were also scrambled from the Oklahoma Air National Guard unit in Tulsa, but were not used because the Fargo planes arrived first. …The CNN article also goes on to note that shooting down the Learjet wasn’t an option — but only because there was no need to shoot it down:
The Pentagon said Monday it never came close to shooting down Stewart’s wayward plane in order to prevent a possible crash into a heavily populated area.
Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon said, “Once it was determined it was apparently going to crash in a lightly populated area, we didn’t have to deal with other options, so we didn’t. …
At 11:10 p.m. [sic] CDT (12:10 p.m. EDT) the Northeast Air Defense sector estimated the Learjet would run out of fuel in one hour, and calculated the plane would likely to go down in a sparsely populated area near Pierre, South Dakota.And it’s not as if the Air Force wasn’t ready to shoot the plane down if necessary:
In fact, a Pentagon spokesman said, the F-16 fighter planes that monitored the jet’s flight were not armed with air-to-air missiles. …
Two other F-16s on “strip alert” at Fargo, South Dakota, were armed, but never took off.So, if the F-16s weren’t about to shoot down Stewart’s plane, what could they have done?
The FAA routed air traffic around the Learjet and kept planes from flying underneath it in case it crashed.
Pentagon officials say the fighter jets could do little but watch as the plane completed it fatal fight. …
In theory, the fighters could have tried to tip or nudge the wings of the plane to change it’s [sic] course, but it’s not clear if the Learjet’s auto-pilot would have simply automatically corrected its course.It’s impossible to say what those jets might have done, had the Learjet been headed straight for a densely-populated area — and “other options” had to be considered. But one wonders: Who would have been responsible for making the call?
Curiously, Vice President Dick Cheney would have you believe that the responsibility for the decision to intercept errant aircraft belongs to the Commander-in-Chief — and on the morning of September 11, 2001, that would have been George W. Bush.
Five days after the September 11th attacks, Cheney appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and, in discussing American Flight 77 (the plane that hit the Pentagon), Tim Russert asked, “What’s the most important decision you think he [Bush] made during the course of the day?”
Cheney: “Well, the–I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.”
Russert: “And you decided?”
Cheney: “We decided to do it. We’d, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time… It doesn’t do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don’t give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it’s appropriate.”There are some glaring problems with Cheney’s statements:
• Cheney confused (deliberately? that’s not my judgment to make) “intercept” with “shoot down.” “Intercept” means to deflect, divert, or just get the attention of another aircraft by any number of means (from a simple radio call to signalling the errant plane visually to the more desperate “wing-nudging”); it does not necessarily mean “shoot down.” Cheney knows that. And if he doesn’t, he should.
• The decision to intercept errant aircraft is not that of the President of the United States. Intercepts are more frequent than you can imagine — and if the decision to intercept fell to the president, no president since the start of the jet age would have had time to do much else. Bill Clinton was not consulted about the Payne Stewart intercept — regardless of whether “interception” included a shoot-down. Cheney knows that, too — or should.
• Cheney said it “doesn’t do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don’t give them instructions to act.” Ignoring the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney needed to issue any order to intercept (and/or fire), it sounds to me like the pilots who finally did get into the air on 9-11 had carte blanche to take out any subsequent commercial flights gone astray.
Of course, the point is moot; once the fourth and final plane went down in Pennyslvania (and all other commercial flights were either grounded or diverted), there was nothing left to shoot out of the sky.
The only thing that was “diverted” — temporarily, at least — was the public’s attention, away from questions which beg answers.Continued…
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Homeland Insecurity, September 11
With Every New “Scramble,” Another Reminder (1/3)
This is Part 1 of 3.
An F-16 fighter jet was sent to investigate a plane carrying Gov. Jeb Bush after it lost radio contact Wednesday on approach to Reagan National Airport in Washington.
It was unclear why the plane lost radio contact at 7:30 a.m., FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said. Once contact was re-established, controllers were able to “authenticate that they were who they said they were,” she said.
The plane, en route from Tallahassee, was allowed to land about an hour later, and Bush went on to conduct his planned business in Washington.
The fighter jet was sent from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland because Bush’s plane was approaching restricted airspace around the nation’s capital.
“But we realized very quickly there was no threat to the capital, we never did an intercept, and we brought our fighter home,” said Canadian Army Maj. Douglas Martin, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command. …Now, this is all fine and good — the Gov’s plane lost radio contact, and our flyboys were scrambled to go see what was wrong. And, despite the temptation to point out the irony of the Bush boys’ plane troubles this year (come on, struck by lightning, twice, within a month? how Old Testament can a message get?), I am sincerely glad to see Jeb back on the ground, safe and sound. (Yes, people, sincerely — I think Jebby’s as bad as his big bro, but I wish no harm to anyone — and with the way I feel about flying — or, rather, crashing — I certainly wouldn’t wish my worst nightmare on anybody… not even Jesse Helms).
However (you knew there’d be a “however”), I have questions:
• Why did Maj. Douglas Martin say “we never did an intercept,” when sending an F-16 into the air to investigate is an intercept? (More about this later.)
• Jeb’s plane lost radio contact at 7:30 a.m. When was NORAD notified?
• When did NORAD give the order to send up the F-16?
• How much time elapsed bteween that order and the takeoff of the F-16?
• How was an F-16 scrambled from Andrews AFB yesterday morning, when it was apparently impossible to scramble one from Andrews on the morning of September 11, 2001?
• How was it possible to scramble the jet before the governor’s plane had even entered restricted airspace (it was “approaching,” not “in” restricted airspace), when on September 11th the first jet was not scrambled until a full 32 minutes after contact was lost with American Airlines Flight 11 — and after Flight 11 had already deviated from its flight path, and after flight attendants made two separate emergency calls to report “a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew”?
• Why is the text transcript of Mindy Kleinberg’s testimony to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States now missing from the commission’s Web site (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/witness_kleinberg.htm)? Kleinberg testified on March 31, 2003, and asked many of the most logical (and damning) questions all Americans (or nearly all) want answered. Specifically regarding the failure to scramble F-16 intercepts, Kleinberg noted:
• Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. … Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to “intercept” commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.
• If that weren’t protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as “Vigilant Guardian”. This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, “fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board.” …
• American Airlines Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost (although planes can still be seen on radar — even without their transponders).
• Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency. Yet, according to NORAD’s official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. — a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.
• Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?
• Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC.
• Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?
• On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.
• Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.Continued…
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Florida, Homeland Insecurity, Republicans, September 11
May 14, 2003
Special “Hunt ‘em Down & Bring ‘em to Justice” Edition
We’re not just going out there to win — we’re going out there for glory! We’re going to yank ‘em, tear ‘em, and rip ‘em! We’re going to roll ‘em around and rip ‘em up! Then we’re going to slaughter ‘em! After the slaughter is over, we’ll come back here, and ring that victory bell… like we always wanted to!
— Coach, Grease
President George W. Bush vowed on Tuesday to bring to justice the culprits in the fatal apartment bombings in Saudi Arabia, saying the attacks showed that the war on terror continues.
“These despicable acts were committed by killers whose only faith is hate and the United States will find the killers and they will learn the meaning of American justice,” Bush told an audience in Indianapolis. …Oh, that’s rich! Excuse me for a moment — I have to wipe the tears from my eyes. This guy is such a card… cracks me up every time…
We will find these people… We will find those responsible and bring them to justice.George W. Bush
September 11, 2001We will find those who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes, we’ll get them running, and we’ll bring them to justice. … We will find them in their hiding places, and we’ll get them moving, and we’ll bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
September 15, 2001Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
October 7, 2001We won’t forget what took place. And we will bring them to justice. We’ll bring them to justice in Afghanistan, and we’ll bring them to justice… And if it’s in our national security interests to bring people to justice, I will use a military tribunal. … My job is to protect the United States people… And that’s exactly what I’m going to do and, at the same time, bring al Qaeda to justice. … Those nations… better be aware… because they will be brought to justice. … But, evidently, there are terrorists who can’t stand the thought of peace, and they must be brought to justice.
George W. Bush
December 5, 2001We get all kinds of reports — that he is in a cave, that he is not in a cave… But when the dust clears, we will find out where he is and he will be brought to justice. … He is not escaping us. … He’s on the run. …we’re going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice.
George W. Bush
December 28, 2001[We must] hunt down the killers and the terrorists wherever they try to hide and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
January 24, 2002First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice.
George W. Bush
January 29, 2002…the surest way to make sure our children grow up in a peaceful and free society, is to be relentless in our pursuit of those who would harm America, those who hate freedom, and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
February 4, 2002We’ve got to find those al Qaeda killers and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
April 5, 2002…it reminds me of what was done to us there on September 11th, and how important it is that… we chase down these killers one by one, and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
May 14, 2002…this country must have the will and the determination to chase these killers down, one by one, and bring them to justice. And that’s exactly what is going to happen, so long as I am the President of the United States of America.
George W. Bush
May 17, 2002The best way for me to do my most important job… is to go on the offense and chase them down one by one, and bring them to justice, which is precisely what America is going to do.
George W. Bush
June 3, 2002You need to know that the United States of America will track the terrorists down, one by one, and bring them to justice. … We’re going to get ‘em on the run, and we’re going to keep them on the run until we bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
July 18, 2002I know that the best way to secure the homeland is to hunt these cold-blooded killers down, one by one, and bring them to justice. And that’s what we’re going to do.
George W. Bush
July 22, 2002I made the pledge to myself and to people that I’m not going to forget what happened on Sept. 11. So long as I’m president, we will pursue the killers and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
September 11, 2002I have told Vladimir Putin … an objective that’s important for the United States — and that is to get the al Qaeda killers and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
September 16, 2002We’re going to hunt them down one at a time… As we work with our friends, we will find them and bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
November 22, 2002And overseas we’re chasing the killers down one person at a time. …this nation will stay on course to find them, to bring them to justice…
George W. Bush
November 27, 2002What’s important is we continue to disrupt his network, to bring people to justice and to “haul ‘em in,” as I like to put it. And, you know, [Osama is] holed up somewhere evidently… and when we find him holed up somewhere we’re going in, either we or our buddies are going in to, to bring him to justice. I promised the people right after September the 11th that we would not — we would not tire in our effort to make sure that not only people were brought to justice, but that our children could grow up in a peaceful society, and I will continue to uphold that promise and continue to do everything in our power to bring people to justice. … I want to know whether or not the top al Qaeda generals have been brought to justice.
George W. Bush
December 13, 2002The terrorists who struck the United States are still determined… But we are even more determined to hunt them down one by one, to disrupt their plans, and to bring them to justice.
George W. Bush
February 20, 2003Stay tuned for the Special “We Will Find WMD” Edition — that is, if I can hunt ‘em all down… and bring ‘em to justice!
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Afghanistan, George W. Bush, Homeland Insecurity, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, September 11
May 12, 2003
Where There’s Smoke, There’s…
…Fire!
U.S. Sen. Bob Graham told a national television audience Sunday that the Bush administration is hiding intelligence information from the American people to “cover up” failures both before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, helped author a House-Senate intelligence report concerning terrorist activity and the role of the nation’s intelligence community. …
[T]he Florida Democrat said the report completed in December remains classified because the Bush administration is afraid to release it.
Calling the White House “one of the most secretive administrations in American history,” Graham… said even testimony given in public has been classified by the White House.
Unable to reveal details because it remains classified, Graham said the report provides detailed information that “the American people have been denied” which would help in the continuing fight against terrorists. …
Graham said the adminstration is worried about the Congressional report because, “We have connected the dots.” …Now, while I accord Senator Graham a lot more credibility than I do some of the folks you’ll meet in the following piece (my awe at the uncanny clairvoyance of Mike Ruppert notwithstanding), and I do not believe that BushCo actually ordered 9-11 (if forced at gunpoint to choose between crazy conspiracy theories, I would lean toward LIHOP, not MIHOP), this is nevertheless worth the read in full. As with anything, take what you like from it, and leave the rest:
The greatest deception ever launched. That is how Canadian broadcaster Barrie Zwicker described the U.S. government’s “official” version of 9/11 at an activist-organized event in San Francisco April 21. …
Zwicker called the government’s story of 9/11 “The Big Lie” and likened it to the Reichstag Fire which Adolph Hitler and the Nazis used to launch their murderous attacks against people they deemed undesirable. …
Zwicker said the 9/11 deception was “perpetrated by powerful special interests to jumpstart the war on terrorism,” which he called the “toxic tip” for world domination, and was leveraged by neo-conservatives in the U.S. government who have “hijacked U.S. foreign policy at the behest of Big Arms and Big Oil.”
Media critic of Canada’s non-profit Vision TV, Zwicker produced the video The Great Deception, which analyzes the events of 9/11 and received the largest response of any television program in Canada.
The event featured the film AfterMath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11… Questions the film addresses include: What did the Bush administration know and when; why did the U.S. military fail to intercept the hijacked planes; what ties did the U.S. military and intelligence agencies have with the terrorists and their supporters? …
Zwicker asked the audience for a show of hands about four questions. How many believe, he asked, that elements of the U.S. government not only knew about but also participated in 9/11? … A majority-possibly 80 percent-answered affirmatively to Zwicker’s first question. …
Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the Department of Transportation and an aviation disaster attorney who appears in the GNN film, says that in the year 2000, the Air National Guard scrambled fighter jets to intercept U.S. planes which were off course 80 to 100 times. On 9/11, when four planes were hijacked, these procedures and those of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) were not followed. …
Enteen said the Bush administration is creating fear to justify “their repressive legislation” like the USA PATRIOT Act and to perpetuate the war on terrorism and dissent. …
Zwicker called the American people “ignorant of the extent of the deception about 9/11″ and urged the media’s hypnotic hold on the public be broken so people can begin to “even question” 9/11.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed Under: Canada, Civil Rights, Democrats, George W. Bush, Homeland Insecurity, September 11
Categories
- Africa
- Age & Ageing
- Asia
- Atheism/Agnosticism
- Australia/NZ
- Bisexuality
- Books
- Business/Economy
- Canada
- Caribbean
- Celebrities
- Choice
- Civil Rights
- Crime
- Democrats
- Down-Low/MSM
- Education/Schools
- Employment/ENDA
- Europe
- Events
- Former USSR
- Green Party
- Guest Articles
- Hate Speech
- Health & Wellness
- Heterosexuality
- Homeland Insecurity
- Homophobia
- Housing
- Humor
- Immigration
- Latin America
- Law Enforcement
- LGBT History
- LGBT Organizations
- Libertarian Party
- Media
- Middle East
- Military/DADT
- Movies
- Music
- Outing & Coming Out
- Parenting
- Polygamy & Polyamory
- R.I.P.
- Race/Ethnic Issues
- Random Bigotry
- Random Stupidity
- Religion & Spirituality
- Republicans
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Colin Powell
- Condoleezza Rice
- Council/National Policy
- David Vitter
- Dick Cheney
- Donald Rumsfeld
- Fred Thompson
- Gay Republicans
- George H.W. Bush
- George W. Bush
- John McCain
- Karl Rove
- Mike Huckabee
- Mitt Romney
- PNAC & PNACers
- Republican Sexcapades
- Rick Santorum
- Ronald Reagan
- Sarah Palin
- Science, Nature & Tech
- Sports & Recreation
- Stage
- Style
- Television
- Torture
- Transgender
- Travel
- Uncategorized
- United Kingdom & N.I.
- United States
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Election 2004
- Election 2008
- Election 2010
- Election 2012
- Florida
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New York
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- SCOTUS
- South Carolina
- Texas
- U.S. Congress
- Utah
- Vermont
- Washington
- Washington, D.C.
- Videos
- Women
- Youth
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
Bad Behavior has blocked 1412 access attempts in the last 7 days.
