Hey Corn,

Nice to see you on Hardball without hearing your cell ringing. Did Diane Rehm smash it with a ball peen hammer?

How many times can you guys repeat yourself?

#1
Funny. I'd pay admission to see that.

BTW, David, I look forward to your analysis of the reports.

David, I was really looking forward to the release of your book. I was hoping there would be more airplay about the accusations you have made. I wanted to hear more about the Plame conspiracy. Instead, I believe we're hearing about The Path to 9/11.

Do you feel that you have received the reception you would have had if this ABC debacle hadn't come up?

David,

Eleanor Clift put in a plug for you and Isakoff on The McLaughlin Group tonight. John posed the question: Is the Armitage apology end of story for the CIA leak case? His pundits all thought it was end of story. McLaughlin said No, there will be more. I agree completely and I think you do too.

I heard the second half of the Diane Rehm show live. I'll go back and hear the first half on tape. I think it went well. I missed Hardball. Thanks for the post.

White House Iraq Group

In 2002 and 2003 Rove chaired meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secretive internal White House working group established by August 2002, eight months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. According to CNN and Newsweek, WHIG was ?charged with developing a strategy for publicizing the White House's assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.?[2] WHIG's existence and membership was first identified in a Washington Post article by Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus on August 10, 2003; members of WHIG included George W. Bush?s Chief of Staff Andrew Card, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio, and communication strategists Mary Matalin, Karen Hughes, and James R. Wilkinson. Quoting one of WHIG's members without identifying him or her by name, the Washington Post explained that the task force's mission was to 'educate the public' about the threat posed by Hussein and (in the reporters' words) ?to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. Rove's "strategic communications" task force within WHIG helped write and coordinate speeches by senior Bush administration officials, emphasizing in September 2002 the theme of Iraq's purported nuclear threat

The White House Iraq Group was "little known" until a subpoena for its notes, email, and attendance records was issued by CIA leak investigator Patrick Fitzgerald in January 2004, a legal move first reported in the press and acknowledged by the White House on March 5, 2004

from the misguided one at #116 from the last thread...

Not exactly LOOOONG gone. And his position at the insurance company?

Taken word-for-word from YOUR article... Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000.

You people are like bushbots with your beliefs, to hell with the FACTS. Marvin Bush gone in 200. What year did 9/11 happen??? I believe that was 2001.
Beliefs and no facts, and keep bringing up the same ol' shyt over and over. What, hoping it'll stick this time? LOL

2004 George W. Bush presidential campaign

President George W. Bush publicly thanked Rove, calling him "the architect" in Bush's 3 November 2004 victory speech, after defeating John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

During the campaign, critics alleged that Rove had professional ties to the producers of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth television ads that criticized John F. Kerry's Vietnam-era military service and public testimony against American soldiers, although no evidence of Rove's direct involvement was ever produced.

A few months after the election, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) publicly alleged that Rove engineered the Killian documents controversy during the 2004 campaign, by planting fake anti-Bush documents with CBS News to deflect attention from Bush's service record during the Vietnam War, but other than Rove's supposed motive, no evidence supporting this speculation has ever been publicized. Rove himself has denied any involvement, and Hinchey himself admitted he had no evidence to support this claim.

American Petrocracy

Among the shifting rationales for the war in Iraq, the most plausible motive may be the least discussed: access to oil.

by Kevin Phillips

In sum, the energy-related price of the administration’s dishonesty and massive miscalculation in Iraq ought to be a central discussion point in this election year and again in 2008.

see also:

Yes, It's About Oil, at Greg Palast's site

Short answer: It’s the oil, stupid.

and

Oil and Iraq, by the Global Policy Forum

The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, everything has changed and the companies have been scrambling to grab their share of the spoils. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.

On 13 August 2005 journalist Murray Waas reported that Justice Department and FBI officials had recommended appointing a special prosecutor to the case because they felt that Rove had not been truthful in early interviews, withholding from FBI investigators his conversation with Cooper about Plame and maintaining that he had first learned of Plame's CIA identity from a journalist whose name Rove could not recall.

Following the revelations in the Libby indictment, sixteen former CIA and military intelligence officials urged President Bush to suspend Karl Rove's security clearance for his part in outing CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, told reporters on June 13, 2006 that he had received notification from Fitzgerald indicating that Rove would not be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity, effectively ending the matter for Karl Rove.

On 12 May 2006, freelance journalist Jason Leopold, writing for Truthout, claimed that Rove had been served with an indictment: "[Fitzgerald] instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 [business] hours to get his affairs in order." This was met by a categorical denial from a Rove spokesman. Rumors of Rove's possible impending indictment swirled through the blogosphere multiple times in the Spring of 2006.

On July 11, 2005, Robert Novak said that Rove had discussed Plame with him. On July 15, 2005 Rove's lawyers said that Rove told Novak he had "heard that, too" in reference to Valerie Plame's status as a CIA employee, but was unaware at the time of the name "Valerie Plame." Rove claims to have learned of her name from his conversation with Novak.

On July 13, 2006 Valerie Plame sued Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and others, accusing them of conspiring to destroy her career.

Karl Rove is a Norwegian-American. According to Bob Woodward's recent book, Rove is obsessed with the "historical duplicity" of the Swedes, who seized Norway back in 1814. According to Woodward, this nationalism manifested itself as hatred for Swedish weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Karl Rove's reputation is such that, among both his supporters and critics the phrase "Rovian" has come to be used as a synonym for "Machiavellian". The documentary Bush's Brain ìÖdepicts Rove as the most powerful political consultant in American history and, in essence, a co-presidentî according to USA Today

In "Word Salad", an episode of the television legal drama Boston Legal, in response to being asked if he has read The Da Vinci Code, the character Alan Shore replies, "No, it's enough for me that Leonardo da Vinci was a brilliant painter and engineer without turning him into the Karl Rove of the 16th Century."

You write that Bush and Cheney have not leveled with America about their true agenda. What is it?

Because of their secrecy, it takes a lot of work to connect the dots. I've not connected them all, but enough of them to know that the only agenda they had during the first term was to get a second term -- which meant secretly taking care of their major contributors. Should they get a second term, we know their secret agenda, for they have quietly stated it: They intend to make sure the Republicans control the federal government (all three branches) indefinitely, if possible. In short, the Bush-Cheney agenda is about perpetuating Republican rule by taking particularly good care of major contributors who share their views of the world.

Karl Rove also plays a unique role in the Bush administration. One close observer says in your book that he's "Haldeman and Ehrlichman all in one." Explain.

Rove's unique role is that he is a political guy making policy decisions for political reasons. Decisions in the Bush White House are made not based on what is best for the public interest, rather what will get the president the most mileage with his base, and best political advantage. Not since Nixon's so-called responsiveness program -- which was uncovered during the Watergate investigation -- have we had such overt political decision-making.

The reference to Haldeman and Ehrlichman as explaining Rove was a quip from a friend of mine from the Nixon White House who has had dealings with Rove. Since Rove is a revengeful fellow, my friend will remain nameless. But my friend was telegraphing a lot of information about Rove with this bit of shorthand -- for anyone who has any knowledge of the Nixon White House and Watergate, they know Haldeman and Ehrlichman were the heavies. First, it is a compliment in that both Haldeman and Ehrlichman were very smart, and highly efficient. But what it tells us is that Rove is ruthless, for both Haldeman and Ehrlichman were that too.

Both Haldeman and Ehrlichman saw the world through a political lens, and what was most likely to help Richard Nixon get reelected. So does Rove. Haldeman was involved with procedure (broadly speaking, I mean who was doing what at the White House, arranging the presidential travel and appearances for maximum political benefit, and constantly mindful of the president's image and making him look good), and Ehrlichman was the substance guy (who developed domestic policies, but accounting for the political impact). Rove controls both.

Had Haldeman and Ehrlichman not received the longest sentences of any of those involved in Watergate, Rove would probably be pleased by the comparison.

Dr. Benson, I've been reading Collapse by Jared Diamond. WE ARE SO DOOMED! Oh, my gosh! It makes one feel hopeless despite some of the good stuff Diamond mentions. Based on the human race's complete history.....we're history!

Karl Rove first came to your attention during Watergate. In what ways is he the reincarnation of Nixon dirty tricksters like Charles Colson and Donald Segretti?

He is way beyond anything Nixon had at his disposal. He is closer to a behind-the-scenes Nixon operator named Murray Chotiner, who could cut off an opponent at the knees so quickly the person did not immediately realize he had been crippled. As I note in the book, the first time I heard the name Karl Rove was when I was asked if I knew anything about him by one of the Watergate special prosecutors who was investigating campaign dirty tricks. I didn't have any knowledge. But I recalled that question when working on this book, and located a memorandum in the files of the Watergate prosecutor's office that indicates they were asking others as well about Rove. Based on my review of the files, it appears the Watergate prosecutors were interested in Rove's activities in 1972, but because they had bigger fish to fry they did not aggressively investigate him.

Colson was brutal, cruel and vicious before he found God (during Watergate). While he once famously said he would run over his grandmother to get Nixon reelected, today I suspect he'd run over his grandmother to convert a few heathens to Christ. Segretti did not engage in the kind of dirty politics that Colson liked to play. Segretti was a political prankster, who only by accident got associated with Watergate. Nothing that Segretti did, that I know of, could be called sinister. Colson, on the other hand, was as nasty a political operative as could be found. Indeed, to this day we don't know the full extent of Colson's activities. He even refused to tell Nixon some of the things he had done (while boasting to Nixon he had done things he didn't want to tell the president). Colson walked out of the White House with any of his papers and records that might cause him a problem. Karl Rove, from what I've seen, makes Colson look like a novice.

Bush has managed to stay above the ugly tactics used against opponents like John McCain and now John Kerry. Does he privately give them his blessing?

Of course. All candidates control their campaigns, and if they don't want such activity, it doesn't occur. As I discovered in talking to people about Bush, he is a highly sophisticated political operator. I've noted in the book that Rove gets the credit for being Bush's political brain. It's an arrangement both men like, because it raises Rove's importance as a political operator, and lowers Bush's exposure. In truth, Bush is probably more politically savvy than Rove. Both men learned their politics from Lee Atwater, who ran Bush senior's 1988 campaign. Atwater made dirty politics into an art form, by which I mean he provided those for whom dirty deeds were done deniability while Atwater's people tore up an opponent's pea-patch and everything else. I expect the 2004 presidential campaign to make Richard Nixon look like a high-road campaigner.

At least until recently, the Bush administration has successfully used the public's fear of terrorism to advance its agenda. You go so far as to agree with Gen. Tommy Franks' dark prediction that another major terror attack on U.S. citizens will drive the country to suspend the Constitution. Why do you fear that?

As I state in the book, I agree for reasons that probably differ from those of Gen. Franks. The short summary of what is really a thread that runs through the book is that when you have a presidency that has no regard for human life, that develops and implements all (not just national security) policy in secrecy, and is driven by political motives and a radical philosophy, it is impossible not to conclude that they will overreact -- and at the expense of our constitutional safeguards. Bush and Cheney enjoy using power to make and wield swords, not ploughs. They prefer to rule by fear. We've had three years to take the measure of these men. I've done so and reported what I found in a book I never planned to write, but because others were not talking about these issues, I believed they needed to be placed on the table.

Bush and Cheney have exploited terrorism ever since 9/11. Now they are exploiting it to get reelected. Should there be an even more serious threat, they have found that when Americans are frightened they can be governed like sheep, which suits Bush and Cheney perfectly. Rather than taking the terror out of terrorism by educating and informing Americans, they have sought to make terrorism as frightening as possible -- using terrorism to launch a war of aggression that is breeding a new generation of terrorists and getting the Congress to pass the most repressive new laws imaginable and calling it an act of patriotism.

Do you think Bush has an enemies list? Are you on it?

I don't believe that Bush, Cheney or Rove are foolish enough to actually maintain such a list -- as was foolishly done in the Nixon White House. But I believe they have long memories. As to how they feel about me, I could care less. As I explain in the book, I used many of my sources on background because this is a White House that takes revenge, and its supporters and surrogates play as dirty as they can get away with. The truth for this White House is not very pleasant, and my writing about it will not be appreciated.

If the Bush-Cheney scandals are "worse than Watergate," why hasn't this administration produced a whistle-blowing John Dean?

First, I make very clear in the book that while the underlying conduct is worse than Watergate, it has not -- yet -- erupted into a scandal like Watergate. Like anyone at the White House, yours truly included, you first try to work within the system -- to right things you know are wrong. Take former terrorism czar Richard Clarke. He certainly tried to get the Bush administration to address the problems of terrorism sooner rather than later, but failed. After leaving government he remained troubled about the Bush administration's failures to deal with terrorism, for he knows better than most that the war in Iraq only added to the problems. So he testified truthfully before the 9/11 commission -- which is all I did. Or take former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. He tried to work within the system. However, he was fired for telling the truth and expressing his well-founded concern about Bush's excessive tax cuts for the upper incomes. This is a presidency that does not like the truth told about their activities.

If, as I believe to be the case, things are going to get rough for Bush and Cheney given the potential scandals they face, others like Clarke and O'Neill may fill the role I found myself having to fulfill. But the stakes are higher now. No one died because of the abuses of power known as Watergate. Too many have died (and more in the future may) because of the abuses of power by this presidency. That's why their abuses are worse than Watergate.

DIANE REHM SHOW, Thursday, September 7 (link)
Michael Isikoff & David Corn: "Hubris"

A detailed review of questionable evidence and faulty intelligence used to plan, market, and defend the U.S. invasion of Iraq .

Guests
David Corn, Washington editor of "The Nation" and a Fox News Channel contributor. He?s the author of the bestselling "The Lies of George W. Bush," the novel "Deep Background," and the biography "Blond Ghost."

Michael Isikoff, investigative correspondent for "Newsweek," a frequent guest on MSNBC and other cable news networks, and the author of the bestselling "Uncovering Clinton."

AUDIO (link)

187 (previous thread on Karl Rove)
.......Fitzgerald himself said that Plame's cover was blown by the Novak story of Wilson's alleged "nepotism,"....

Posted by: Satan's little helper at September 8, 2006 11:01 PM
===============================================
After being `nailed' to the Happy cross, Carrie was deemed by Satan to be in need of assistance....

Only, this `Satan's little helper' comes from the "100 or less" side of the IQ bar. The last thread is about Rove! Why then, does Satan helps Happy out by posting "Plame's cover was blown by the Novak story"?

Hey, Satan, Gotcha! Always a pleasure to defeat the side of darkness! Now, I got to go into darkness & rest up for a plateful of ball games manana!

"After being `nailed' to the Happy cross, Carrie was deemed by Satan to be in need of assistance...."

Happy, this is a blog. Everyone who comes here reads and posts. Don't act so surprised. You're an idiot.

David, where can we see the incomplete Senate Intelligence Report? I say incomplete, because they never got anything from the Office of Special Plans, where the real subterfuge was going on.
*subterfuge :
1 : deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade
2 : a deceptive device or stratagem

Is the report posted anywhere as a .pdf??

Here's a little truth: The President pretends Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. It is not now, and never has been. His disastrous decisions have made Iraq a fuel depot for terror - fanning the flames of conflict around the world.

The terrorists are not on the run. Worldwide, terrorist acts are at an all-time high, more than tripling between 2004 and 2005. Al Qaeda has spawned a vast and decentralized network operating in 65 countries, most of them joining since 9/11. The Taliban now controls entire portions of southern Afghanistan, and just across the border Pakistan is just one coup away from becoming a radical jihadist state with nuclear weapons. The Middle East is more unstable than it has been in decades. Hezbollah flags fly from rooftops in Shiia slums of Sadr City and Iran is rebuilding Southern Lebanon. We have an Iraqi Prime Minister sustained in power by our forces, who will not speak against the Hezbollah terrorists, who will not say that Israel has a right to exist, and who will not condemn the Iranian nuclear program, who will not even as a national leader support the national army over the Shiite militia. In other words, the Iraq government that the administration cites as the front-line force in the fight against terrorism won't even take our side when we are fighting terrorists. No American soldier should be asked to stand up for an Iraqi government that won't stand up for the values and interests that draw them into battle every day. Oh, and the 9/11 commission recently gave our government a failing grade on implementing intelligence reforms.

I love watching movies, but with the world looking the way it is right now I think this is a good time to stick with just the facts. After Iraq, we've all had enough fiction to last a lifetime.

Who said this?

ÖIn his bunker under the White House, Vice President Cheney was not notified about United 93 until 10:02óonly one minute before the airliner impacted the ground. Yet it was with dark bravado that the vice president and others in the Bush administration would later recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93. "Very, very tough decision, and the president understood the magnitude of that decision," Bushís then chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC News. Cheney echoed, "The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down a plane full of Americans is, a, you know, itís an order that had never been given before." And it wasnít on 9/11, either.

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, whichóthough no one knew it at the timeówas 15 minutes after the attack was over.

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

(link)

= = = =
On yesterday's Diane Rehm show, Corn tells the story of Pillar being interviewed and being asked the question, "So you're saying the president lied?" Pill pauses and says, "Those are your words not mine." For the trolls and all those with an IQ of less than 100, that means "Yes, but I didn't say it."

This book is good for Corn's career. It's straight reporting not politcal commentary. The Bush administration policies have made it an easy move for Corn to crossover.

Hey David,

I just ordered your book on Amazon where it is #1. I can't wait to read it. Thank you for seeking the truth and speaking it.

BYU prof on paid leave for 9/11 theory

Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday in order to review his controversial research on the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Jones published the paper, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Collapse?" online and began lecturing about his theories, which stated that the planes crashing into the towers created a diversion while an unnamed group, possibly the U.S. military, had planted bombs inside the towers.
Jones in recent media interviews said materials found at Ground Zero and studied at BYU found traces of thermite, an explosive compound used by the military. However, Jones refused to name any specific people or groups responsible for the explosion.
"We are looking at the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of Dr. Jones work, and the fact this work hasn't been published in appropriate scientific venues," said Carri Jenkins, a BYU spokeswoman.
---
---
"BYU has a policy of academic freedom, but what's expected is that professors submit their work to academic peer reviews so it can be challenged and debated by experts," Jenkins said.
It is a "rare" occurrence for a tenured professor to be put on paid leave. Jones has taught at BYU since 1985.
Jones, who has focused on cold fusion in the past, has had no other research cause such a stir, Jenkins said.
The review will be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.
Jones did not immediately respond to telephone calls this morning.
============================

and in another article BYU said again that they don't support his accusations...

BYU made this statement last night.

"Physics Professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty.

"We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."

The university added, "BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' works on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues."
===============================
Another one bites the dust. lol But in all fairness, our misguided conspiracy theorists here have split from this wack job and instead support the economist wacko that said there weren't any planes at all.

I'm waiting for one of our CT's to say something like... "the big bad meanies are silencing anybody that don't believe them, threatening their jobs... they are getting desparate now!"

But of course, all that Steve Jones would have to do is submit his work to peer review, which is the university's scientific standard. Judy Wood wouldn't do it either. Why would anybody believe anything they say???

ugh! David Corn just signed offline. I was hoping he could link us to the Senate Intelligence Report.

Links to Iraq Intelligence Phase II Reports

Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments

The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress

Bush the Pitiful

People are beginning to feel sorry for President George W. Bush. And with good reason.

A new poll by Harris Interactive published in the Financial Times reveals that our traditional European allies regard the United States as a much greater threat to world stability than Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

In European opinion, the axis of evil is Bush's America.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Bush will "stay the course" no matter how many people have to die. In his sad little cocoon surrounded by "yes-men" he has never made a single error. The arrogance of ignorance is an insult to every American citizen.

"They were so strong in their beliefs that there came a time when it hardly mattered what exactly those beliefs were; they all fused into a single stubbornness." ~ Louise Erdrich

capt

"Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance." ~ Anthony J. D'Angelo, The College Blue Book

35. Thanks Capt. Has anyone told you you're good lately? You're good.

Retired Marine General Paul Van Riper was the eighth retired general out of twelve to call for Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation:

"If this leader is not capable of doing it, now going in excess of five years, has not demonstrated he is, then perhaps it is time to find a new one. If I was the president, I would have relieved him three years ago."
-- Ret. Marine General Paul Van Riper, Fox News, 6/24/06

Demand a Vote of No Confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld

Thanks

IN-08: Father Slams GOP For Putting Dead Daughter In Attack Ad

The father of a murdered young girl is furious with GOP Rep. John Hostettler and national Republicans for using his daughter in a TV attack ad which paints Hostettler's Dem opponent, local sherriff Brad Ellsworth, as soft on crime. The father, Jimmy Jenkins of Evansville, Indiana, says: "I've got politicians using this for political gain, which upsets me every time I hear it." Though the ad's since been pulled, an NRCC rep was completely unrepentant, saying: "The ad spoke for itself." More details here.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

There are no words to describe the grief caused by the loss of a loved one. A young daughter's murder is not a political pony to ride for some ratings.

When did we get to this point? How on earth do politicians or their handlers think such a thing is okay? I am ashamed for them. How low can they go?

capt

Since the Corn-nutters are so infatuated with former military personel, what will they say about
retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2002/2/15/145708&s=lh

DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Clinton aide says
9/11 film 'correct'
Producer consulted with military attach?
who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 8, 2006
3:33 p.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
? 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Buzz Patterson with President Clinton
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.

Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.

Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.

The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.

As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.
Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (FrontPageMagazine.com)

During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics.

"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice."

Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.

An ABC executive who requested anonymity told the Washington Post the network has made "adjustments and refinements" to the drama that are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" by federal officials that left the U.S. vulnerable to attack, and "not any one individual."

Yesterday, the New York Post reported Clinton wrote to ABC officials, complaining the "content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, according to the Washington Post, has described a scene, in which she is depicted, as "false and defamatory."

The Senate Democratic Leadership sent a letter to Robert Iger –†president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. –†urging him to cancel the "grossly inaccurate" drama.

The Democratic National Committee today said it delivered a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures to ABC's Washington office calling on the network to drop its "right-wing factually inaccurate mocudrama."

Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.

Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a "conflation of events," but Berger, in a letter to Iger, said "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.

The scene in "The Path to 9/11," as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children's toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

"Berger was very agitated, he couldn't get a decision from the president," Patterson said.

Patterson noted he wasn't sure what Berger wanted to do –†whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no –†but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

In "Dereliction of Duty," published by Regnery in 2003, Patterson recounts an event in the situation room of the White House in which Berger was told by a military watch officer, "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike."

Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

Patterson writes: "We 'studied' the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed."
Harvey Keitel plays counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill in ABC's "The Path to 9/11

In another "missed opportunity," Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

As WND reported, Berger was the focus of a Justice Department investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.

FBI agents searched Berger's home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.

Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his clothing. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

Patterson said Berger's response to the "The Path to 9/11" is similar to his response to the accounts in "Dereliction of Duty," insisting the incidents attributed to him "never occurred."

Patterson said his book put him under intense pressure from Clinton officials –†an aide even spoke of taking away his military retirement benefits –†but when the title reached No. 1 on Amazon.com, "they shut up."

There are others who can corroborate his accounts, Patterson insisted, but they are still in military service and therefore legally bound not to come forward and make statements.

Three of the four other military aides who rotated being at the president's side were additional sources for his book, Patterson affirmed.

If ABC ends up pulling "The Path to 9/11," it won't be the first time Democrats have succeeded in pressuring a network not to air a politically charged film during a major election season.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, as WND reported, the Sinclair Broadcast Group canceled a planned showing of "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." The documentary featured former POWs who told how John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was used as propaganda against them by their North Vietnamese captors, allegedly intensifying their persecution and prolonging the war and imprisonment.

Obvious Question in Plame Case Had Early Answer

The public fixated on Robert Novak's source. The prosecution probed other leaks and crimes.

Yet the information on Armitage first revealed in a new book (HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War) along with court filings and interviews with former White House staffers and others familiar with the inquiry, suggest Fitzgerald pressed ahead because he learned quickly that Armitage was not alone in discussing Plame with reporters. Top White House officials had talked about her as well.

Fitzgerald, who had been the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed special counsel Dec. 30, 2003, taking over a probe initiated by the Justice Department three months earlier at the request of the CIA.

According to the book "HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War" by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Fitzgerald had barely arrived in Washington when he received a thick binder filled with FBI reports. They summarized interviews that agents had conducted with Armitage, Rove, Libby and others.

And the reports made clear that senior White House officials had been discussing Plame's status not just with Novak but with other Washington journalists including Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

Early on, the prosecutor learned that Rove may have been a corroborating source for the information Armitage provided to Novak. That fact alone would have compelled the special counsel to push on with the investigation, in the view of some experts.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

The idea that somehow Fitzgerald and the MSM have been unfair to the WH and Bush is very funny.

capt

ABC follows a path to shame

Surveying the smoking ruin that is ABC's reputation after the "The Path to 9/11" debacle, it's hard to know whether you're looking at the consequence of unadulterated folly or of a calculated strategy that turned out to be too clever by half.

At the end of the day, it probably doesn't make much difference because, either way, the lacerating controversy surrounding the network's docu-dramatic re-creation of events leading to Sept. 11 is an entirely self-inflicted wound. For most of the week, ABC rather haughtily attempted to characterize itself as the victim of philistines, or self-righteously as a champion of free speech or, more pathetically, as just plain misunderstood by people who just don't understand how television is done.

It is none of those things.

It's an opportunistic and self-interested organization that somehow thought it could approach the most wrenching American tragedy since Pearl Harbor with the values that prevail among network television executives —†the sort of ad hoc ethics that would make a streetwalker blush —†and that nobody would mind.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

ABC will reap what it sows, eh?

capt

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security (Hardcover)

by Robert Patterson

Availability: In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.

140 used & new available from $0.98

A dime novel fantasy that is not worth what it costs to ship it.

From the post above:

"There are others who can corroborate his accounts, Patterson insisted, but they are still in military service and therefore legally bound not to come forward and make statements."

That was back in 2002? Sure, I bet "others can corroborate" but until then a single source is weak, eh?

"Patterson insisted" - I am sure he does.

capt

RE:45
"Patterson insisted" - I am sure he does.

just like CORN insisted on this blog that ROVE WOULD BE INDITED!

45-A dime novel fantasy that is not worth what it costs to ship it.

Is that your endorsement for "HUBRIS" ?

Dont act like there is no other corrabation,capt-

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/7/203153.shtml?s=lh

Dick Morris: Clinton Attack 'Outrageous'
Dick Morris
Friday, Sept. 8, 2006

The attack by Bill Clinton and his allies on the upcoming ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" is "outrageous," charges former Clinton aide Dick Morris.

As NewsMax has reported, Clinton through his surrogates have demanded that ABC "correct all errors" in the docudrama or pull it from the air, charging that it is a "fictitious rewriting of history" regarding Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat.

But Morris claims that Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and the president himself "were both responsible for failing to catch or kill Osama bin Laden on several different occasions."

Morris served Clinton as an adviser for 20 years and notably as Clinton's senior campaign strategist during his 1996 re-election.

Morris states that the evidence for this failure is documented in the 9/11 Commission's report and summarized in "Because He Could," the book about Clinton that Morris co-authored with his wife Eileen McGann.

The commission's report, released in the summer of 2004, "highlighted the weak, incompetent, hesitant, and inconsistent attempts of the Clinton administration to kill or capture Osama bin Laden," according to the book, which devotes an entire chapter to Clinton's mishandling of the threat.

"The report's account shows the president and his advisers at their worst."

One time, the United States "canceled an attempt to kidnap bin Laden out of concern that we might injure or kill him and be accused of using assassination as a policy tool," Morris told NewsMax.
"The president had yet to make a finding that it was OK to kill bin Laden. The reason he had not is that he did not yet know bin Laden's connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The reason he did not know that is that he did not fast-track the investigation.

"A second time, we did fire missiles but alerted the Pakistani military to our plans and they tipped off bin Laden, and he escaped."

According to the commission's report, the United States alerted Pakistan because the missiles targeting bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan, had to cross Pakistan, and U.S. officials did not want Pakistan to think the missiles came from India.

"A third time, our plans to attack by missile were canceled, partially out of chagrin over having missed him before and partially because we had just bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by mistake and were worried about being called trigger happy," said Morris.

"The president was also concerned about civilian deaths in any such attack.
"The underlying theme of the ABC coverage, that he was distracted by impeachment, is of course true. But more so, he was gun-shy" because he was afraid conservatives would say he had launched a failed attack "in an effort to 'wag the dog' and distract people from the Monica Lewinsky affair."

Morris concluded: "His fear of such attacks on him inhibited him from acting."

I know that DICK MORRIS is like Benidect Arnold to you libs, but he did work for Cinton for over 20 years and knows him quite well, as a matter of fact lets see if BILLY CLINT will verify DICKS book.....

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2002/2/15/145708&s=lh

Ex-President Bill Clinton racheted up his rhetoric on Friday in order to convince an audience that he did everything possible to stop terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, claiming that he had considered invading Afghanistan with attack helicopters and weighed a plan to bomb bin Laden's hideout in Khandahar.

"I actually trained people to do this. We trained people," Clinton told a Long Island Association luncheon crowd in Woodbury, New York.

"But in order to do it we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat, maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval."

Clinton said the option to bomb Khandahar was considered because they had tracked bin Laden to a compound in the city.

"As far as we knew, he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar, where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

"So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children, that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him," the ex-president explained.

Clinton said that from a post-9-11 perspective he might have been wrong not to order the bombing. "But at the time we didn't think [bin Laden] had the capacity to do that," he added.

Contrary to the accounts of a number of former White House aides who described him as distracted by his scandals and dismissive of the terrorist threat, Clinton told the Long Island audience, "A lot of people thought I was too obsessed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

As for the failure of August 1998 cruise missile attacks he launched on bin Laden's Khost encampment, Clinton said he believed the terrorist mastermind was tipped off just hours ahead of time.

"I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there," the ex-president said, adding, "I think we were ratted out."

Clinton also defended his administration against charges that it refused to accept Sudan's offer to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. six years ago.

"In the period when the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again, they released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him - though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Clinton said that by 1999 he began to consider options like the helicopter attack and the bombing of Khandahar.

"So I tried hard [because] I always thought this guy was a big problem."

He also pointedly reminded the audience that for its first eight months, the Bush administration was no more successful in getting bin Laden than he had been.

"Apparently the options I had were the options that the president and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people involved had for the first eight months, until Sept. 11 changed everything."

But, said Clinton, "I did the best I could with him. I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did."

Sounding like a man thoroughly haunted by the failure to eliminate the notorious terrorist, the ex-president added, "Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man."

Clinton's long peroration on bin Laden came during a pre-screened question-and-answer session following a speech in which he argued that America should mount a second Marshall Plan to save Mideast nations from the scourge of terrorism.

Though the event was promoted as likely to be sold out, the ballroom at Woodbury's Crest Hollow Country Club was not quite full, with approximately 800 people on hand to hear Clinton speak. Many left before the question-and-answer session had ended.

Clinton's speech was closed to the press except for a pre-approved group of reporters (NewsMax.com attended via alternate credentials).

THIS IS WHY THE DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS ARE SO AFRAID OF "PATH TO 9/11", BECAUSE IT DESTROYS SO MANY OF THE CORN-NUTTERS DELUSIONS....

David Several months ago I had read at one of the Senate sites that Phase II had been divided into 8 sub sections and that only part of the investigation would be released. I believe that sections 5-8 would not be completed at the time of the release.
If I remember correctly (R) Senator Patrick Roberts removed (once again)the investigation of the Office of Special Plans and passed it on to the Inspector General at the Pentagon(an in house investigation).
Questions.. !. How can there be any conclusions made about pre-war intelligence if the main office and group of people in that office have been off limits to congress?
2. Will there be a report from the Pentagon on their findings having to do with the Office of Special Plans?
3. Will this most recent report be used to diflect from the involvement of Feith, Woolsey,Perle, Leddent etc. in the run-up to the invasion?
4. Will Ahmed Chalabi and the INC be used as the fall guys for the false pre-war intelligence? The U.S. will be unable to access them or hold them responsible for their involvement?

Dick Morris, isn't he the guy that got canned for having a liason with a hooker? Something that really indicates his reliability. I believe anything this asshat says sure I do. Keep on drinking the Kool Aide, you will slowly osmose into the slugs that are giving it to you, then you will be happy when you are finally in the nirvana of their constructed world. It just won't look anything like reality. Enjoy the new lifestyle, you guys deserve it. Ha!!

Why the Nazi party will win in 2006 and well into future elections? The American people have chosen to stay the course. Staying the course is more agreeable than considering one of the cardinal sins of pride. Americans are a proud people who believe that they are never wrong. Only Americans are good, holy, and saintly people without a blemish of sin on their souls. The die has been cast and it will remain forever cast. Even with more murders and war crimes committed by the American rulers and people, Americans will look with favor upon these murders and war crimes through the centuries. With early Christianity it was said that non-Christians would say, "Look at those Christians and how they must love one another." In the coming centuries people will say about the Americans, "Look at those Americans and how filled with hate are they."

Don't Nuke Iran

Violence is a choice. We demand non-violent solutions to our common problems. Negotiated solutions to the current crises must also include our parliaments and NGO's- the voices of civil society.

We demand a non-violent world where human security is the basis of our global security. We pledge to create such a world ere the basic needs of all people are addressed. Global security is enhanced when individuals and their families have a stake in and hope for their own futures-their human security is part of our global security.

No more military attacks. No more war.

LET US NOT FORGET THAT WAR IS A CHOICE AND BUSH FAVORED MURDERS AND WAR CRIMES. THE GLORY OF BUSH IS MAN FULLY AND TOTALLY DEAD.

Alan, he was LOOONG gone from the insurance company before any settlement was reached also,
doesn't mean anything, the important fact is the non-disclosure in general. Same shit, different cover-up. Dr.Jones did not "bite the dust." This attempt to shut him down was bound to happen, I'surprised it took this long.

MSNBC Poll

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 56109 responses

55% Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.

39% No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11.

6% I'm not sure.
==========
That the people are waking up is a fact, not a prediction. The "wack jobs" are becoming the majority.

The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.

Well, duh. There are many "unanswered" questions in life. There are questions for which there are no satisfactory answers, because questions are often asked for different reasons.

It is illogical to infer that the 55% are all in "agreement" -- the true "wack jobs" on 9/11 will always remain in the minority.

#46 You had such a long post, I did'nt read all of it. Your post at this thread are long as well. My point is that Israeli attacks on Palestine and Lebanon are way out of line, and that the spiral of violence never stop. Negotiation is the only way to solve problems between different religions and cultures. I might be a dreamer, but dreams often come true, if you put some effort to it.

Excuse my English, I'm just an ignorant European.
I'm leaving you now, going to Turkey for a 2 week holiday. Keep the blog going! Will be back at the end of October. See yah!

Erling

26
....Everyone who comes here reads and posts. Don't act so surprised. You're an idiot.
Posted by: O'Reilly at September 9, 2006 12:54 AM
================================================
Only an absolute true low-IQ "idiot" will claim that all who come to the Corn blog "posts"! To be clear, this means you, O'Reilly!

IF "Everyone who comes here reads and posts", David would have shut this low-traffic blog down ten$ of thou$and$ of dollar$ ago!

The lack of logic among uber Liberal Cornuts just never cease to amaze me! But, that's Entertainment!

52
.....There are many "unanswered" questions in life. There are questions for which there are no satisfactory answers,.....

....the true "wack jobs" on 9/11 will always remain in the minority.
Posted by: Micki at September 9, 2006 10:43 AM
=============================================
Couldn't agree with you more!

I may add, on most "questions in life", the Government is incapable of providing the optimal answers, if they exist!

Micki, Congrats on being Happitized, at least on this one post!

If the Northwoods project had been approved by Kennedy, thank God it wasn't, there would be a large chunk of the population who would remain in denial to this day about the facts of that plot, insisting that our govt. would NEVER commit such a fiendish crime. Believing that the govt. lies and covers up many things is very common, the reasons for those beliefs are beside the point. When enough people realize we have been conned change will happen. Being caught in dozens of lies is reason enough for bushco to face trial, there is no reason to ever believe anything they say about anything.

The fact is the govt bears a responsibility to its public to explain...the current GOP secret govt abhors having to explain itself and therefore, naturally, conspiracy and conjecture abound. If the far right has an issue with how most Americans view 9-11 they should hold THEIR leaders responsible for doing a poor job of investigating and reporting as opposed to simply screaming about the LEFT

Some Uplifting News: The space Shuttle Atlantis has blasted into space at 10:15 AM CST!!

More uplifting still.......(in its entirety)

America is Doing Fine Since 9/11, and It's Because of The People
Friday, September 08, 2006
By David Asman

America is doing just fine five years after the 9/11 attacks. There have been a lot of inconveniences, but no subsequent attack.

Our economy took a big hit, both in paying for the attacks and in subsequent military and intelligence spending, but we’∂e created more than a million more jobs in our economy, and the stock market (both the Dow and the Nasdaq) are up substantially since the attacks. (boldface mine)

The day before the attacks, the Dow Jones average was at 9,605 and the Nasdaq was at 1,695. Today the Dow’≥ over 11,300 and the Nasdaq is over 2,100. Overall, we’∂e added, $2 trillion to our economy through our hard work and determination.

So does this mean our Republic and our economy can overcome any attack? Yes!

That may sound na?ve. But let’≥ think of the worst that could possibly happen: Terrorists getting nukes. If terrorists nuked New York, Washington, D.C., L.A., Chicago, Miami and Dallas tomorrow, we'd take a horrendous hit. But we’§ still exist as a nation.

So how could the political, business and financial hubs of the nation be destroyed without the country folding? Here’≥ another one-word answer: Decentralization.

Unlike other nations, even unlike other democracies, our social, political and economic underpinnings are not dependent upon or controlled by a centralized authority. They begin with the individual. The central authority draws its strength and direction from the individual, not the other way around. The central authority is merely a reflection of the individual, families of individuals, communities and states.

Even when it comes to the vital issue of security, it starts with the power of one. Yes, of course we have a strong military and police forces. But the Constitution recognizes that the defense of the United States begins with the individual, who is empowered with Second Amendment rights to protect his life, his property and his freedom. If the central authority were to be destroyed in a flash, every citizen has the authority to defend their own rights, as laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now to the economy. Our economy is the strongest in the world because it, too, is modeled after this decentralized model. Obviously, the free market is more productive than any socialist model. But our economy is even more dynamic than European economies, which draw their strength from a relatively few companies that are usually controlled by a small number of super rich families. What guides our economy is what economist Joseph Schumpeter called ңreative destruction.ӠCompanies and rich families dissolve relatively quickly here, clearing the path for more dynamic and more innovative companies and designs.

I do a show with the folks at Forbes Magazine [҆orbes on Fox,Ӡevery Saturday morning at 11 a.m. ET]. And every year Forbes publishes a list of the worldճ richest people. Of the worldճ 793 billionaires, 371 are from the U.S., most of whom did not inherit their wealth. Indeed, whatճ most remarkable about rich Americans is not how many of them there are, but how quickly family fortunes disappear. Sure, there are the Rockefellers and Kennedys that have wealth for several generations. But most rich folks here cannot buy a seat in some controlling elite, like they do in other cultures. They eventually die out, or are beaten out, in our free market.

And that’≥ the not too secret secret to our success: Our Republic and our economy will survive precisely because we are a republic. We are a nation of individuals and communities, the blend of which cements the center. Politicians and corporate executives may think that they're at the center of our economy. But at the core of our economy, at the core of our nation, are those that have always been and those that can never be killed off by terrorism: The People.

and I'm open to hearing why Bush is so afraid to debate the president of Iran...any human worth their salt would be willing to at least attempt that avenue before the need for millitary becomes all that's left sans threats and sanctions...our president is a coward and should be removed so we can vote someone in with the 'grapes' to handle things

'Tsup Cornpeeps. A little weekend getaway for the soldiers of polifortune. Some linky fun:
~For those fans of the Fartinator, you can take a trip back through time to see the Gropinator hustling his mad skillz on a Brazilian Muffette. NO, this is NOT a mockumentary a la Disney's Wonderful World of Wingnuttery. That's really Arnold being Arnold. Or Arnold being Clenis, hard one to call.

~A question for the Disney Fans. Have Animators always been so daft? Why do the rightwingnuts hate anatomical accuracy?

~Maybe Stormy the Weatherdog can help. Yes. Folks in East Texas get their weather from a dog. It AIN'T a big step up from being informed by a dog to being informed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. They both got their degrees from the same University. Stormy, Rush, Rove and Hannity all got their degrees from the same university. Then again, Dumsfeld and the Fartinator got their degrees from Ivy League universities. Idiots abound in today's GOP.

history also shows that when empires become too sure of themselves and when its people become unwilling to act that all empires fall...hopefully the GOP can put country before power and gracefully take a hike while we still have a chance at repair

The big questions in life have nothing to do with crimes commited and covered up. Every crime has a foundation, good detectives are able to find the truth by investigating every available angle, following the money is a good place to start. Anyone who makes an effort to impede an investigation would normally be at the top of the suspect list, especially if they have been caught in numerous lies and forced to change stories. bushco apparently inhabits a world that is above the laws the rest of us are subject to, but they won't be in that world forever, eventually they will have to rejoin the rest of us. And I am glad there are so many who do not accept their rhetoric without question, blindly assuming these liars are telling the truth in the one instant that has been the foundation of all their blood wealth and the near destruction of our country. Just knowing they are lying is all that matters right now, the rest will follow.

first step is Dems retaking the house...a govt cannot be considered democratic if it is run by one party alone, especially when the president turns all other branches of govt into his lapdogs

ed, there are people who self-describe themselves as definitely NOT on the left who promulgate 9/11 conspiracy theories. I do not think this is a Left v. Right "issue." Many people thrive on conspiracies because it gives purpose to their lives.

Sure, the government has a responsibiity to tell the people the truth, especially when it comes to starting unnecessary wars of choice, but the bush regime has always been long on manipulation, and short on facts.

This is the most deceptive regime in the history of the United States -- that's how they intend to stay in power.

we are still in agreement Micki

conspiracy is the child of a lack of information, shreds of doubt are stamped out over time by hard fact...since hard fact has not been provided by the RIGHT I feel they are to blame (note: I don't buy any of that 9-11 Bush flew planes into NYC on purpose stuff just because its too coincidental, not because I don't think they are evil enough)

The LEFT is castigated daily for asking any questions about 9-11 and blocked by the RIGHT from doing so

There is a deep and bitter divide in this country since Bush took office and I feel that is also the fault of the RIGHT and a reason why the country cannot join on any issues right now

But yes I agree "the government has a responsibiity to tell the people the truth" and that folks on both sides of the fence assume craziness was afoot that day in some minority

Satan gets paid in fool. A crunk post by Hapless at 2 in the morning. You old-timers need to let us young bux handle the g&j. How many PWI convictions does that make for you Hapless?

What? No defense of the lawlessness of the White House? Just a lame "gracias" for setting you straight? "Why then, does Satan helps Happy out" Jeeeebus on a stick, Hapless, anybody helpsing you with the talkie talkie? And why are you tripping on 'Merka's lingua franca? I happen to think it is teh shit!

This might be more up your alley, given that you prefer the bullshit that emanates from the Oral Office:

Remember when the GOP's trained seals were all aclappin' over the drop in violence in Bagdad after the extra troops were moved in? They said that the temporary shift in troop allocations had quelled the violence. And once again, Reality shows that it has a decided liberal bias -- What Dropoff? August Death Total in Baghdad Morgue Triples

"It turns out the official toll of violent deaths in August was just revised upwards to 1535 from 550, tripling the total. Now, we’re depressingly used to hearing about deaths here, so much so that the numbers can be numbing. But this means that a much-publicized drop-off in violence in August – heralded by both the Iraqi government and the US military as a sign that a new security effort in Baghdad was working -- apparently didn’t exist."

Not enough lies for ya? How bout this one [via Billmon]?

STRATEGERY

"In a speech laced with quotes from Osama bin Laden, President Bush said on Tuesday that five years after the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda wants to set up a violent, radical Islamic caliphate based in Iraq and vowed he would not let this happen on his watch."
Reuters
Bush warns of Iraqi caliphate
September 5, 2006

"We have significantly degraded the al–Qaida network . . . Terrorist networks today are more dispersed and less centralized. They are more reliant on smaller cells inspired by a common ideology and less directed by a central command structure."
The White House
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
September 5, 2006

Boo! Crapped your pants, didn't ya, Hapless? Are you skeert, yet?

Do You Feel Safer?

Osama bin Laden's still free, global anti-U.S. feelings are rampant, our military is stretched thin -- and Bush says we're more secure.

[..]

Then there's Iraq. Why did we go to war in Iraq, a state that had nothing to do with 9/11? Well, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Despite all the rhetoric about "new ways of thinking," the administration seems unable to break old state-centric habits. We went to war in Iraq because Iraq, like Mt. Everest, was there. And we approached the Iraq war as if it were 1941, not 2003. We had a fine plan for pummeling the Republican Guard, taking Baghdad and ousting Saddam Hussein —†but no plan for preventing postwar Iraq from deteriorating into civil war or becoming a terrorist training ground.

No, Mr. President, I'm not feeling safer. The administration's war planners are yesterday's men: They talk tough, but they never learned the lessons of Vietnam, much less the lessons of 9/11.

Effective counter-terrorism means more than just beating the war drums. If we really want to make this nation safer, we need to get serious about human intelligence —†gained not through torturing the people we capture but through investing in the linguistic and cultural skills we'll need to understand the Islamic world. And we need to address the political grievances that drive ordinary people to support terror in the first place.

Not interested? Fine, have some more Kool-Aid. Just don't try to make the rest of us drink it too.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

A very good piece.

capt

Free Market News POLLS

A court order has stayed the shredding of Ohio's 2004 presidential-election voting records. The GOP is reportedly upset. Was there large-scale vote fraud in Ohio?

Yes 75%
No 25%
==========
The people know about this too.

Seems clear to me that one does not need to be a republican to be a neocon.

How very sad, eh?

capt

now voting fraud I completely subscribe too...The GOP definately worked the polls and will try and do so again

ed, I do not believe bush flew planes into buildings on purpose, in fact I don't believe he had anything to do with it beyond his role in going along with it. The fact that the SS allowed him to remain at a well publicized location for a 1/2 after the news that planes had been rammed into buildings, when even Mary Cheney was whisked to safety ASAP, proves that they somehow knew he was not a target that day. It is unheard of for the SS assigned to protect the presidents life to be so lax in the face of an obvious terrorist attack. A conspiracy is just a plan between two or more conspirators, a theory is simply guesswork as to what the plan was and who was involved. The bushco conspiracy theory is just that, a theory, and not even a very good one. The fact that they ARE the most devious and deceptive administration ever is reason enough to doubt their story. The fact that they lied to start a war that has gotten at LEAST 3500 of our American troops slaughtered and thousands wounded for life shows that they do not care in the least for the suffering they inflict on their own citizens, soldiers or civilians. No amount of misery and grief enters into their planning and taking of profit. They are completely without conscience and that they would sit back and allow those attacks to occur to further their greedy agaenda should not shock anyone who has witnessed what they are capable of.

come on ed, that's just a conspiracy theory! Even David Corn doesn't believe it, or so he says.

wasn't saying ya did...

cripes hopefully the trolls will be along soon so we can have someone to argue with LOL

alls I was saying is I believe in election fraud being done by the GOP but don't believe Schrub and co. could have orchestrated the 9-11 incident

I think the conspiracy folk are multiplying based on a secretive GOP govt and the administrations mutiply already disclosed lies...hard to blame them for being skeptical all things considered

the real manipulation came after 9-11 when the GOP used that event to create a one party one branch system with complete control over the media...the ABC fiasco is just the latest debacle in that vein

do I think Bush and his cronies knew about the coming 9-11...yup, Condi had the memo it read Osama Bin Laden planning on attacking within the US...too bad the partisans care more about hating Libs then defending their homes!

come on ed, that's just a conspiracy theory! Even David Corn doesn't believe it, or so he says.

which point?

Anyone know if these numbers are accurate? Troops wouldn't be caught dead in Iraq. 40K deserters in the Fartinator's war vs. 50K in Vietnam? It's so hard to tell these days with the rightwingers buying reporters left and right. Getting fired for writing payed-for stories always lands these guys in the velvet-lined offices of the GOP. Sweet. [All via HuffPost]

And speaking of the money behind the rightwingnut media. Is the $$$$$$$ behind the Wonderful World of Disney's Wingnutty Mockudrama of 9-11 coming from known Clenis-hater R.M. Scaife?

Forgot to credit Billmon in the earlier post. My bad. That one's here.

if you meant voting fraud heres just a taste

Among the issues raised in 2004 were:

Obstacles to voter registration.
Improper purges of voter lists.
Deliberate voter suppression.
Practical impediments to voting, such as excessively long lines.
Accuracy and reliability of voting machines, and ease of undetected interference in their operations ("hacking"), especially those employing electronic voting.
Other inaccuracies in the official count of votes cast on Election Day, whether through carelessness or deliberate tampering.
Problems with absentee ballots and provisional ballots--wiki

if you meant the plane thingy I already said that was false and no where above said otherwise

not to mention "working the press" at the peril of voters being properly informed on the issues

UPDATED: Conservatives helping sink 9/11 film

Update: Make your voice heard HERE... just enter your info and they'll call Robert Iger's office for you.

***

Thinkprogress has compiled conservative opposition to ABC's Path to 9/11. Meanwhile, unconfirmed rumors are spreading that ABC is canceling the movie

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’¥ deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt's blog:

One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that's Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it's slanderous, I think it's defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain's Quarters blog:

If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that's no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn't happen.

For sources and more quotes go to Thinkprogress

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

I must retract my previous statement that all GOPhers were two faced bastards, I stand corrected it is more correctly most all GOPhers and neocons.

capt

ed, I was talking about the vote fraud and I was joking. My point was that a lot of people think it's bullshit, including David Corn. A lot of evidence says otherwise, just like a lot of evidence contradicts the bushco 9/11 story. How can anyone say they know for sure what happened when they lie about everything?

HA ok didn't catch the sarcasm LOL gonna get some coffee so I can sharpen up the senses

funny we have impeachments only for adulterers and not liars

as for the ABC thing yes some GOPers have sided with reason, I think its the rats off the sinking ship phenom...with the GOP bound to fall the media may need to cozy up to thye truth so they don't go down with them

Not exactly a chuckle like the Thursday night funnies (thanks SLH) but . . .

"conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so."

Mortgage their WHAT? Credibility? I would like to see the paperwork that supports any claims of credibility.

lolololo

capt

"How can anyone say they know for sure what happened when they lie about everything?"

They lie about everything EXCEPT 9/11.

Jeeze, asking for an investigation is wack, just STFU and accept the official version - that will make you the smartest person posting here, smarter than Paul Craig Roberts even.

capt

The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.

Well, duh. There are many "unanswered" questions in life. There are questions for which there are no satisfactory answers,

all the more reason to demand a real investigation instead of a whitewash cover-up.

capt, I am so dense, dishonest and dumb I have no hope of measuring up to the "Alan" standards of smarts and common sense. spy, that was an amazing bit of arm waving, two completely opposing points in one post! Plus a dab of condescension.

A little animation

Not for the funny-bone more for the irony-board.

HA!

capt

U.S. count of Baghdad deaths excludes car bombs, mortar attacks

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. officials, seeking a way to measure the results of a program aimed at decreasing violence in Baghdad, aren't counting scores of dead killed in car bombings and mortar attacks as victims of the country's sectarian violence.

In a distinction previously undisclosed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said Friday that the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution.

That has allowed U.S. officials to boast that the number of deaths from sectarian violence in Baghdad declined by more than 52 percent in August over July.

But it eliminates from tabulation huge numbers of people whose deaths are certainly part of the ongoing conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Not included, for example, are scores of people who died in a highly coordinated bombing that leveled an entire apartment building in eastern Baghdad, a stronghold of rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Johnson declined to provide an actual number for the U.S. tally of August deaths or for July, when the Baghdad city morgue counted a record 1,855 violent deaths.

Violent deaths for August, a morgue official told McClatchy Newspapers on Friday, totaled 1,526, a 17.7 percent decline from July and about the same as died violently in June.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

From CLG: "the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution. U.S. count of Baghdad deaths excludes car bombs, mortar attacks"

I guess the deaths from car bombs and mortar attacks stem from the illegal occupation, call it a bonus of sorts.

capt

If the Northwoods project had been approved by Kennedy, thank God it wasn't, there would be a large chunk of the population who would remain in denial to this day about the facts of that plot

lol More speculation. IF... I'd bet there are hundreds of wild-azz plans that'll never see the light of day because they were just that, wild-azz plans. Pick one and base a whole mountain of bullshyt out of it, why dontcha! hahahahahahaha
Beliefs and speculation seems to be all of y'allz main points. No need for facts to seep into their fantasy world. Notice the security thing... The bush brother had been gone from that company for over a year before 9/11, but he's still leading them in some conspiracy. yeah, right

Friday, September 8, 2006 Indications add up to government conspiracy
Seattle PI JAMES MORGANTE GUEST COLUMNIST

An Aug. 8 Seattle P-I editorial asked, "Where are the facts? Where is the evidence?" about government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
The case for complicity begins with motive and benefit. In his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard," Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that the key to global dominance in the 21st century lies in control of Central Asian oil and gas reserves. Establishing a U.S. presence there would require the kind of military deployment that only "a direct external threat" could justify.
And in a 2000 paper titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," Project for a New American Century, whose founding members were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, argued for vast increases in military spending to assure American global dominance. Such a process, PNAC said, would take time absent "a catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." Military deployment into Central Asia followed 9/11, as well as their desired increases in military spending.
The symmetry between the 9/11 attacks and U.S. policy goals is but the backdrop to the case for government complicity. The picture becomes clearer through considering the following: #
Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani intelligence service, was in Washington when the attacks occurred, conferring with government officials. The Indian press subsequently implicated him in wiring $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker. When the story broke, he was pressured into retirement at U.S. insistence. His link to the attacks was never pursued. #
Two FBI agents approached attorney David Schippers with specific foreknowledge about the attacks. His repeated calls to Attorney General John Ashcroft were never returned. An article in New American on March 11, 2002, corroborated the agents' story. They claimed that knowledge of the plot was widespread within the FBI for months before 9/11. #
The air defense system breakdown on the day of Sept. 11 was unprecedented. Well-practiced protocols for dealing with suspected hijackings failed to function for an astonishing 90 minutes. The little-known existence of "coincidental" military war games has since been exposed, which undoubtedly caused confusion. And now, the chairman and vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission claim (in a new book, "Without Precedent") that the military was less than completely honest.
From the beginning, the Bush administration delayed and otherwise impeded the investigation, preferring to focus on the foreign invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq enabled by the attacks.
Those are but some of many indications that together add up to government complicity. In the words of David Ray Griffin, world-renowned theologian and truth advocate, the agenda and events surrounding 9/11 reveal a "deeply perverted value system" at odds with that of the American people. For the sake of the common welfare, the truth behind 9/11 must be exposed.

James Morgante is with Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Seattle (www.mujca.com). Other contributors were Rebecca Em Campbell, Deborah Crowe, Connie Eichenlaub and Roger Herbst, all of the Seattle 9/11 Visibility Project; and Richard Curtis, Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
============
Another thing, Mohammad Atta was seen on Abramoffs casino boat by the FBI shortly before 9/11, what the hell was he doing there and why was it ignored? The "wack jobs" are gaining ground. The Seattle Times picked up the WaPo article as well.

great cartoon capt thanks for the link

Alan you sir are a sheep and have no interest in facts...if Bush has nothing to hide then why not investigate...Libs currently have IFs because the current admin DOES nothing, but fear not partisan troll...soon you shall be in the minority and then you'll have all the IFs you can stomach

"Truth fears no questions."

~ Anonymous

"I'd bet." HMMMM, sounds like speculation to me. The Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't consider Northwoods to be a "wild-azz" (azz?) plan, they were dead serious, apparently the PNAC neocons thought it was a great idea. The bush brother is leading the conspiracy? I never said that. You brought up his involvement with one of the insurance companies that had coverage for the WTC's, yet he left way before any settlement was reached, what's the