spinning beyond paranoia

from the New York Times:

"Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00"

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - "More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress."

read it and weep

Great post from Juan Cole

He really sums up the history of this war well:

"The Bush administration responded to these attacks [on September 11] by the former proteges of Ronald Reagan by putting the old Mujahideen warlords back in charge of Afghanistan's provinces, allowing Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to escape, declaring that Americans no longer needed a Bill of Rights, and suddenly invading another old Reagan protege, Saddam's Iraq, which had had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the US. The name given this bizarre set of actions by Bush was "the War on Terror.""

Bush in a box?

from The New York Times:


"But Bush's political opponents said the president is in a box. In their view, either Rove and Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully, or Rove and Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles."

Bush is either deliberately outing CIA agents or he's an idiot, or both.

Is this man a traitor? Or a fool?

MSM starts to get it!

"Why Iraq has made us less safe"

By DANIEL BENJAMIN
Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 4:10 p.m. EDT (20:10 GMT)

"The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims.

"America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization.

"World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.

"Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own.

"The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory."

Finally!

It's starting to come out, how much these people work against America.

Here's what I'd like to see, but don't hold your breath:


Karl Rove, aka Bush's brain, has been caught outing a CIA agent for political revenge against someone who wasn't even in opposition to Bush, but who was just trying to do his non-political job for the US government.

Is there nothing these people won't stoop to?

Or are they really trying to destroy America?

Oh, GREAT!

CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground

Wed Jun 22, 3:35 PM ET

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, officials said on Wednesday."

If you liked September 11, you'll LOVE Bush's second coming. :-(

and then they try to accuse the Democrats of what THEY THEMSELVES DO!

from the Washington Post:

"Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

"He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.""

WHAT CAN BE DONE?!?!?

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO MOVE AGAINST BIN LADIN.

THEN THEY ACCUSE DEMOCRATS OF BEING SOFT ON TERRORISM!

and there are Americans who actually believe them!

The don't even want anyone who COULD find bin Ladin

"When FBI counterterrorism managers were interviewed under oath, they said terrorism expertise wasn't important when promoting or hiring agents"

Wow!

Not only are they not going after bin Ladin, they don't want to hire anyone who COULD go after bin Ladin.

Feel safer after electing Bush, America?

"In sworn testimony that contrasts with their promises to the public, the FBI's top counterterrorism managers say Middle East and terrorism expertise wasn't important in choosing the agents they promoted after Sept. 11."

This whole story is just too unbelievable, that they are finally admitting, after the election, that they just don't give a fried flip about national security, they would rather abolish Social Security. What more do you need to impeach this administration?

They really DON'T want to catch bin Ladin!

"The director of the CIA says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief."

Bush's incompetence in foreign policy was foreshadowed when he couldn't name the Pakistani president during the campaign.

Anyone else remember when Bush warned Syria not to allow any "Bathists" into the country? I mean he really did NOT know that Syria was under Ba'ath Party rule. As if his father had warned China not to allow any Communists into the country.

Under Bush pere and Clinton our worst nightmare in Iraq was a Shi'ite theocracy allied with Iran. Now under Bush fils it's our best option. Ayatollah Sistani plans on us handing Iraq over to him. What's the choice? Civil War with us in the middle? That's a real possibility now. Civil War without us? Great, then the alternative to Shi'ite theocracy is al-Qa'ida theocracy. Invading Iran? Please, we have enough problems with Iraq.

Not to mention the economy. The US is going down the tubes, and those of us who try to point it out and stop it are reviled as traitors. What a country!

They've given up finding bin Ladin!

The Bush administration is reviewing its anti-terror strategy with an eye on broadening its current focus from targeting Al-Qaeda leaders linked to the 9/11 attacks to "violent extremism" a leading American daily reported on Sunday, May 29.

"What we really want now is a strategic approach to defeat violent extremism," a senior administration official told the Washington Post on condition of anonymity.

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-05/29/article06.shtml

Top 10 Questions Progressives Should be Prepared to Answer

Questions from "Democracy Arsenal"

Answers from myself:

1. So? He wasn't a threat. Sure he's a nasty meany, but so are the guys who run Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, North Korea and China. Get the Middle East moving? Where are they going? Besides, since when is Wilsonianism a Republican idea? Since it lost its mind?

2. Yes. The UN is what we make it. It's time the US led the world again, instead of going off on crazy crusades against it.

3. Work to get rid of EVERYONE's nuclear weapons, even our own. Good grief, the isolationists of the 1920s had the Washington Naval conference. What's wrong with today's unilateralists?

4. Yes, but you can't impose democracy on people. We never imposed it on Germany and Japan, we just gave it back to them. We could start at home by enforcing the 1965 Voting Rights Act and counting our own votes. PAPER BALLOTS!

5. How is it against our interests to be better liked? Most of the anti-Americanism I've experienced is so ignorant it's not funny. Let educate people overseas about American reality. More Fulbrights!

6. Most of the ones I've talked to actually think Saddam Hussein actually had something to do with 9/11. Way to go Faux News!

7. The track record. We haven't had a good foreign policy president since Kennedy, or maybe Carter. Reagan caused the end of Communism? Please, that's classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. Clinton? Didn't have a foreign policy, his Secretaries of State had them for him. Bush I? Hey, he got the world to go along with us. I thought you were implying in your questions that that was a bad idea. Face it, Bush II is blowing the war(s), not making hard choices, and not even understanding what the choices are.

8. As long as we are part of the equation, and the other countries involved are democracies, yes, I think the US should cooperate with the extension of international law.

9. The Kellog-Briant pact is still legally binding. Agressive war against a power that doesn't threaten you is against the law. Tojo got hanged for it.

10. For one thing we have a direct national interest in seeing to it that Mexico becomes developed before illegal aliens overwhelm us. Wingnuts like to organize vigilantes to keep the Mexicans out, but if they had good jobs at home they wouldn't come here. I'd also like to see something done about oppression of workers in China. How come wingnuts get so worked up about Saddam and ignore Red China?

Even FauXNews.com sees that the Downing Street Memo is Mostly Ignored in U.S.

FOXNews.com - Politics - Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.

"Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement.

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied."

Galloway's testimony

Simply Appalling has Galloway's testimony:

"[Note: While many copies of Mr. Galloway's opening statement are available on the Web, this is the only complete transcript of which I am aware. Unfortunately, the United States Senate has declined to make the transcript of Mr. Galloway's testimony available. Several readers have asked the source of the transcription. Aside from the opening statement, this transcription was done the hard way--by listening repeatedly to Norm Coleman mumble.]"

...

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

"I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

"I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.

"I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."

Good for you Mr. Galloway!

Shame on you, Mr. Coleman!

Why tell W?

from the Louisville Courier-Journal


"When a small private plane entered restricted Washington airspace Wednesday, the ensuing evacuations at the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court were no drill."

. . .

"The President, who was exercising on his mountain bike in a Maryland wildlife park, was not briefed until well after the crisis had passed.

"Mr. Bush was not told of the incident until more than 50 minutes after two F-16 jets were scrambled to meet the intruder. He got the news more than 45 minutes after the evacuations began and the alert status was raised to red. In fact, he was clueless until after the small plane had landed."

. . .

"That is unacceptable. The President is in charge of the nation's security. If authorities believe the capital may be under attack, he must be told."

Does anyone really need evidence that Bush is losing the war?

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Anti-US protests spread to Kabul

According to the BBC, college students "chanted "Death to America!" and carried banners stating "Those who insult the Koran should be brought to justice.""

Lest you think that college students are necessarily out of touch with the population, "Similar protests took place in other parts of the country. In the town of Mohammed Agha, 40 kms south of Kabul, protesters ransacked government offices and the compounds of two Western aid agencies. A mobile phone mast was toppled.

"The BBC's Andrew North in Kabul says that the authorities are concerned that the demonstrations are being orchestrated.

"Our correspondent says that what may be significant is that so far all they have all happened in the east or south.

"This is where US forces are concentrated in their battle against the Taleban and other militants."

Way to win those hearts and minds, W! :-(

David Horowitz never stopped thinking like a Communist!

David Horowitz’s War on Rational Discourse

By Graham Larkin

" . . . L.A. tabloid editor David Horowitz, liar extraordinaire and author of the incomparable bullshitting manual The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits (Spence Publishing, 2000). This book, much applauded by Karl Rove, promulgates a political endgame in which brute force triumphs over any notions of intelligence, truth or fair play. The author contends that “[y]ou cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin’s injunction: ‘In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.’”

Al Qaeda's 'No. 3': The big catch that wasn't? | csmonitor.com

Al Qaeda's 'No. 3': The big catch that wasn't? | csmonitor.com

"The Sunday Times of London cites European intelligence experts as saying that Libbi "was not the terrorists' third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as 'among the flotsam and jetsam' of the organisation.""

How many number 3's have been caught by now?

Col. David. H. Hackworth, 1930-2005

Soldiers for the Truth:

"Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 – Col. David H. Hackworth, the United States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of death was a form of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue."

World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count

World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count:

"'What it effectively means is that the Bush administration and the CIA haven't been putting the staff resources necessary and have missed 80 percent of the world's terrorist incidents' in past years, said a Democratic congressional aide. 'How can you have an effective counterterrorism policy from that?'"

Who said the United States, under Bush, had an effective anti-terrorism policy? :-(

I just have to love Juan Cole

Informed Comment: "Matthew Haughey says he won't read our blogs if we use the term 'mainstream media' (a.k.a. MSM).

"A news flash for Matt: We don't care.

"We don't care if you read our web logs.

"The difference, Matt, is that we are independent actors, not part of a small set of multi-billion dollar corporations. The difference is that we are not under the constraints of making a 15% profit. The difference is that we are a distributed information system, whereas MSM is like a set of stand-alone mainframes. The difference is that we can say what we damn well please.

"If we were the mainstream media (perhaps better thought of as corporate media), we would care if you threatened to stop reading us. Because although we might be professional news people, we would have the misfortune to be working for corporations that are mainly be about making money."