''His chain of command has to make a recommendation as to how they feel the disposition should be handled, and the decision hasn't been made on that,'' Kent said.
''All sorts of different factors go into deciding which way it goes,'' [Lt. Col. Clifford] Kent[, a public affairs officer at Fort Stewart said, ``from how long a soldier was AWOL, to why they say they were versus why the government thinks they were. All the mitigating circumstances put forward would be considered."
Maybe he should claim he was applying to business school, or was working on a political campaign?
"first profession was in the illegal numbers business in Cleveland. In December 1954, [The Republican Fundraiser] shot and killed one of three men trying to rob one of his gambling houses. Prosecutors determined [the Republican Fundraiser] was defending himself and declared the death a "justifiable homicide."
Twelve years later, also in Cleveland, [the Republican fundraiser] beat a man to death who owed him money on the streets of Cleveland."
"Democratic crocodile tears about `no money' are about as phony as Martha Stewart's defense claims,'' said Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville."
Well...at least he didn't say "Democrat crocodile tears...."
That should be a lesson for Insty and, incidentally, Andrew Sullivan who has dropped in his site traffic precipitously. He's got about 55% of the site traffic that Atrios does.
The King is dead! Long live the King!
UPDATE: Look for Mickey Kaus to start sucking up to Kos and Atrios very soon.
Really? I read the whole transcript. And, while maybe one could argue that the jokes were funny, depending on your sense of humor, self-deprecating they were not.
The only jokes that came close were a defensive reference to the attacks on him over his missing year in the National Guard (pretty lame "self-deprecation" on that one), and a joke about how he needed a deck of cards to remember the names of foreign leaders at the G8 summit.
A Joke that was designed to make him look good, politically, and contrasts his decided indifference to foreign opinions to that of John Kerry who is portrayed as obsessed by it.
Kaus=Hack.
I'm sure he guffawed at Arnold's groping jokes too.
UPDATE: By the way, a sure sign of massive insecurity is the inability to joke about your own failings. Often, massively insecure people tell jokes at the expense of OTHERS.
In Instahack-ese, "interesting," means: "I think this is highly credible, and endorse it, but am too chickenshit to put my own credibility on the line to say so publicly, because it will make me look like a fool or a hypocrite."
What was it that Clarke wrote that got insty all "interested?" Clarke believes that Oklahoma Bombing conspirator, Terry Nichols, may have learned how to make explosives from Ramzi Yousef when both were in the Phillippines at the same time.
Of course, a connection between Nichols and AL QAEDA (because that's who Yousef worked for) destroys a favorite Neocon fantasy that Nichols and McVeigh were working with the Iraqis.
And it's not certain that Nichols was working with Al Qaeda, so much as he was getting training on his own.
That, according to Clarke anyway.
There are differeing accounts of that Nichols/Yousef timeline, however.
Cate McCauley, a private investigator licensed by the State of Oklahoma who was appointed to the McVeigh federal appellate team and was one of the witnesses to his execution, disputes that any such meeting ever took place.
Maybe Clarke had additional intelligence, or just interpreted the same information differently.
This whole issue, by the way, allows me to bring up something I have been mulling over. This whole dispute between Clarke and the Neocons (essentially) is more of a dispute between foreign policy hawks who see different threats against the United States as being paramount.
The Neocons regarded Iraq as the "main adversary." Clarke, and people like Rand Beers and John O'Neill, had the SAME obsession about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
So, to the extent any President, whether Clinton or Bush, was not paying sufficient attention to, or raising enough alarm about, THEIR pet boogeyman, they got upset.
It just so happens that Clarke, in this case, turned out to be RIGHT.
POLITICS OVER PRINCIPLE: More evidence that the White House, and President Bush in particular, care more about politics, and protecting their own asses, than in fighting terrorism.
"U.S. officials say they believe they have found a legal basis for U.S. troops to continue their military control over Iraq.
After months of concern about the legal status of the 110,000 U.S. troops who are expected to remain here after the occupation formally ends on June 30, the officials say they believe an existing U.N. resolution approving the presence of a multinational force in Iraq, approved by the Security Council in October, gives U.S. commanders the authority needed to maintain control after sovereignty is handed back to Iraq."
I guess that makes George W. Bush the Max Bialystock of empire building.
UPDATE: That's good news for Halliburton, and very bad news for our troops whose morale is already low.
"Bush backers . . . plan to continue with a scorched-earth campaign to discredit Clarke and believe in the end they will win out.
Besides trotting out top members of the administration to slam Clarke on TV and radio, the White House released a confidential August 2002 briefing Clarke gave reporters in which he touted Bush's "vigorous" anti-terror actions.
Clarke shrugged it off, saying it had been part of his job to talk up his boss.
"When you're on the staff of the President of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible," he said dryly.
At the White House, nailing Clarke is now Job 1.
"We're all on Clarke patrol," said a senior Bush political strategist.
A Bush political hand said Clarke would have no lasting impact.
"We've knocked down enough of his so-called facts that we're going to be able to beat down the guy's credibility," one Bush loyalist said.
Exhibit "A" in the argument against voting for Bush in November.
Instead of protecting America from terrorists. This White House's number one priority is to protect the President's ass.
He's going to lose his case. Most probably on the grounds that he lacks the standing to sue.
But he's made a compelling argument that the Pledge of allegiance should have the words "under God" stricken from it when recited in public schools and ceremonies.
"Justices gave the 50-year-old Newdow special permission to argue the case because he has not had his law license long enough to qualify. He sparred with several court members, and after 30 minutes seemed to have won their respect.
"I think he surprised a lot of people. He was superb," said Kenneth Starr, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer who opposes Newdow's position.
"I'd give him an 'A.' He remained undeterred during intense questioning," said Jay Sekulow, chief attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, which also supports keeping the Pledge of Allegiance as is."
"when I see the flag and I think of pledging allegiance, I -- it's like I'm getting slapped in the face every time, bam, you -- you know, this is a nation under God, your religious belief system is wrong.
And here, I want to be able to tell my child that I have a very valid religious belief system. Go to church with your mother, go see Buddhists, do anything you want, I love that -- the idea that she's being exposed to other things, but I want my religious belief system to be given the same weight as everybody else's. And the Government comes in here and says, no, Newdow, your religious belief system is wrong and the mother's is right and anyone else who believes in God is right . . . ."
"on the evening of the 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all . . . but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way . . ."
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred . . ."
"Absolutely, we will look . . . again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Paul Kurtz walked in, passing the President on the way out. Seeing our expressions, he asked, "Geez, what just happened here?"
"Wolfowitz got to him," Lisa said, shaking her head.
"No," I said. "Look, he's the President. He has not spent years on terrorism. He has every right to ask us to look again, and we will, Paul."
Paul was the most open-minded person on the staff, so I asked him to lead the special project to get the departments and agencies to once again look for a bin Laden link to Saddam Hussein. He chaired a meeting the next day to develop an official position on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. All agencies and departments agreed, there was no cooperation between the two. A memorandum to that effect was sent up to the President, but there was never any indication that it reached him."
"In addition to campaign calls, I also spend a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies. (Laughter.) The conversation went like this: "Hey, John, Kim Jung-il here." (Laughter.) "Just wanted to call and let you know you're my guy." (Laughter.)"
The Press whores, as you can see, laughed it up.
Of course, Clinton got in a nice dig at then Governor Bush at the 2000 dinner:
"You know what question really upsets the Republicans on the Census form? Question 19 -- "Are you better off today than you were at the last Census?" (Laughter.) I mean, even a presidential candidate has made this an issue. Just the other day he said he might leave his own Census form blank. Hmmm -- a blank Census form? An adult literacy program? It's starting to add up. (Laughter.) Sounds like a cry for help to me. (Laughter.) Governor Bush even refused to state his date of birth -- on the grounds that it happened more than 25 years ago. (Laughter and applause.)"
But, Clinton was an equal opportunity kidder. He also made fun of Al Gore:
"Look, it's no secret, Presidents and Vice Presidents have always disagreed. So it's time to set the record straight on the whole range of issues where the Vice President and I differ. For example, in June he will reveal his plan to relocate the United Nations Headquarters in Nashville. (Laughter.) A bold, new idea. But I don't agree with it. Indeed, I'm growing more partial to New York every day.
When it comes to campaign finance, we differ. In our beverage of choice, I drink coffee, he drinks ice tea. However, if I'd known back then about the ice tea defense, I'd have drunk tea, too. (Laughter.)
[...]
On technology issues, God bless him, Al invented e-mail. Me -- I just can't find them. (Laughter and applause.) Everybody now knows the Vice President prefers earth-tone; all you see me in is primary colors. (Laughter.) We both share an abiding interest in Buddhism. (Laughter.) But when I visited the Buddhists in India, it cost the taxpayers millions. When Al meets with Buddhists, he turns a tidy profit. (Laughter.)
You think Dubyah would crack a joke that biting about Dick Cheney? Read the transcript above, and you figure it out.
UPDATE: David Corn was there, and takes exception (and offense) to another aspect of Bush's "comedy" slide show.
His accusations are not new. We in the democratic-leaning blogosphere and press have been making many of the same arguments for some time.
What IS new is that these arguments are being made by a credible, sympathetic figure to a very wide public audience. And, the response of the White House is nothing short of petty and hypocritical.
How quickly the White House could have diffused Clarke if they had simply stuck to the line: "We respect Mr. Clarke's opinion, but we simply disagree with him, and believe that the facts support our belief."
No full court press. No changing and contradictory lines of attack. Not smear campaigns attacking the man's honesty, competence and integrity.
A simple dignified response.
But, they chose to be vindictive, which proves yet another plank of our argument against the Bush regime.
I hate to get into predicting polls, but I believe that George W. Bush's "approval" ratings in the next round of them will take a nosedive.
It may not directly translate into increased support for John Kerry...yet. But, it will give Kerry an opening to make himself a credible and attractive alternative.
You see, I think the vast majority of Americans are tired of the Bush administration. They want to get rid of them. Yet, because of the war on terror, and the Iraq occupations, they are very leery of changing administrations in the midst of a crisis.
But, if they lose faith in Bush's ability to even protect us, then it will make Kerry's threshold for acceptance by the electorate that much lower.
A long time ago on this blog, right after I started it, I said that the only thing propping up George W. Bush was 9/11. That if his record and accomplishments relating to 9/11 were tarnished or shown to be harmful, his support would ultimately collapse.
I think we are near that point.
Many people think this election will be close.
Perhaps they are right. Perhaps there will be some phantom vestiges of the electoral college map from where Bush's now amputated public support will manifest itself.
But, I think this is the end of the road for the 1994 Republican "revolution."
"JAN HAUGLAND writes that the success of the Bush anti-terror strategy is demonstrated by the latest from Hamas: An urgent effort to make America feel unthreatened.
Well, they did seem rather anxious to make that point."
Why, God? Why must we suffer these fools?
UPDATE: OK...let me explain.
According to Instadunce, Bush's anti-terrorism policy is WORKING, when a terrorist groups that HAS NEVER ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES announces that it will not attack the United States in retaliation for the assassination of its former leader...by ISRAEL.
Yet, the fact that Al Qaeda, which HAS attacked the United States (repeatedly), AND OUR ALLIES, has not CEASED to do so somehow is IRRELEVANT to whether or not Bush's anti-terrorism policy is working.
Yes. You read that correctly. Bush's anti-terrorism policy, which is directed at Al Qaeda (and for some reason Iraq), deterred Hamas from attacking us (even though it never had in the past or expressed any serious desire to do so), but has failed to deter...um...Al FRICKING Qaeda.
I suppose one could argue that Bush's antiterrorism policy has also deterred the Irish Republican Army from attacking the United States. Or ETA. Or the FARC. Or just about any terrorist organization out there NOT affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Would that argument make the least bit of sense? NO!
This is such a stupid post, so utterly devoid of brain power, that one has to seriously question how the hell Professor Reynolds ever got into Yale.
"ROEMER: You were running around saying something spectacular is going to happen. You were worried about this. You were on record from 1998 on saying you're at war with Al Qaida.
But why wasn't the United States government more concerned about those attacks on the United States?
TENET: Congressman Roemer, I'd ask you this afternoon when you get Mr. Clarke here, who was the chairman of the CSG, to go through the process of what they were looking at, actions they were tasking, how they thought about this problem. I wasn't sitting in that room.
I'd ask you to think about asking him how we dealt with this in this time period and find out what that response is.
ROEMER: So you're saying that it is the responsibility of the National Security Council...
TENET: Well, the CSG...
ROEMER: ... to develop the policy to go after the terrorists...
TENET: Sir, the CSG is a mechanism where all of these issues come into play every time it meets. What is the threat? What actions do we take?
It's a focal point for the way this government has organized itself around terrorism for years.
ROEMER: So you're saying it's them, not the CIA, that should have been attentive to this?
TENET: Well, the CIA is in the CSG meeting as well. I mean, everybody's at the table. The FBI is there, the NCS is there, CIA is there, domestic agencies are there.
Throughout this time period -- I don't have access to the minutes and recordings of what happened -- what actions were they tasking, how were they thinking about this?
ROEMER: They're going through a bottom-up review...
KEAN: Congressman, we've got to move on. We have run out of time. We've got one more commissioner.
ROEMER: OK. "
THERE ARE RECORDINGS AND MINUTES OF THOSE MEETINGS AVAILABLE!!!!!!!
"Even if Bush had launched a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda immediately after he took office, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11."
This is a clever, if massively dishonest argument.
First, Clarke never argued that launching an invasion, among other things, to get Bin Laden would have prevented 9/11. Nor has anyone else that I am aware of.
Clarke's point was that, if the Bush people had taken the threat of Al Qaeda seriously, they'd have had high level meetings with the CIA Director and the FBI Director nearly ever day, at which they'd be pressured into making sure every scrap of information was examined, and every step was being taken to prevent an attack on U.S. interests.
Everyone remember the "Phoenix Memo," and FBI whistleblower, Colleen Rowley, who pointed to warning signs about a domestic terrorist attack using airplanes.
Thus, as Clarke correctly points out, had these high level meetings been going on, that information might have made it up the food chain, and possibly thwarted the attacks.
Moreover, by making this argument, the warfloggers are EXONERATING the Clinton administration from any culpability for 9/11.
After all, if even a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan couldn't have prevented the attacks, then what else could Clinton have possibly done? Other than take the threat seriously, and prevent the attacks by doing basic domestic detective work, of course. But, Clinton couldn't do that because HE wasn't President any longer.
Insty links to a transcript from a suposed "background briefing" Clarke gave forthe Press in August 2002.
In it, he virtually refutes every single allegation he made in his book and in his interview on 60 Minutes and subsequent interviews.
In other words, it's 180 degrees the opposite of what he's claiming now.
And a quick search of the record indicates that the transcript, sadly, is probably authetic.
One other thing to point out, it doesn't refute the argument that a concerted effort to prevent attacks by the Bush adminsitration, may have prevented 9/11.
It's a refutation of the charge that the Bush administration failed to take Clarke's plan seriously. It also hurts Clarke's credibility. Either he was covering for the Bush administration in that briefing (and probably his own reputation), or he's lying now. Either way, he's in hot water.
For corroboration, here's a CNBC transcript from August 5, 2002:
"FORREST SAWYER, anchor:
In the months since September 11th, there has been a lot of second-guessing about what could have been done to prevent the attacks. And a new report in Time magazine is now suggesting the Bush administration failed to act on a detailed plan to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before it was too late. For details now, we're joined now NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell in Washington. And, Andrea, I gather the administration is not very happy about this.
ANDREA MITCHELL reporting:
Not at all, but, Forrest, as you can imagine, there is a lot of finger pointing going on in Washington tonight, as both the Bush and Clinton administrations argue about just who was to blame.
The Bush White House today strongly denies it delayed a Clinton administration plan to attack Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda until it was too late to prevent the September 11th attack because it resented the Clinton team. Today, the president again gave himself high marks for combatting al-Qaeda.
President GEORGE W. BUSH: Now, we're making good progress in the war against terror. We've hauled in over a couple of thousand of them.
MITCHELL: But in its cover story, Time magazine repeats allegations first reported by The Washington Post last January that when George Bush took over from Bill Clinton, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice refused to accept her predecessor's anti-terror strategy because she considered the Clinton officials, quote, "feckless and naive."
The Clinton options included: increasing covert aid to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, enlisting support from Uzbekistan, lifting sanctions against Pakistan, dramatically increasing the intelligence budget. President Bush's advisers did not sign off on similar options until last September 4th. Rice gave them to the president on September 10th, one day before the attacks. But tonight, a senior Bush official says there was no Clinton plan to attack al-Qaeda, only options developed after the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, and that the Clinton White House did nothing for more than two years until it ran out of time and left office. As the two administrations traded charges tonight, a leading Republican senator suggested it doesn't help anyone.
Senator ARLEN SPECTER (Republican, Pennsylvania): I don't know that it's useful to turn back the clock and blame anybody. But if so, it wouldn't be the Bush administration. It would be the Clinton administration.
MITCHELL: Tonight a Bush official says that there were no easy choices for the Clinton team and that really none of these strategies would have prevented September 11th. Forrest:
SAWYER: And then there's that un--unanswered "what if" that hangs in the air. If they had followed something along the ideas of this plan, what would they have been able to do with al-Qaeda and Osama himself?
MITCHELL: Well, the problems were that the Northern Alliance was a very unreliable partner. They were involved in drug running. They were involved in embezzlement. There was no clear shot that they were in fact going to help throw out Osama bin Laden. Nor would Pakistan, which was in alliance with the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan. So the whole policy towards Pakistan had to change before that could take place. There was no basing mode in Uzbekistan, a lot of things had to change. That said, there are a lot of people who say that the Clinton team did not move quickly enough after the 1998 embassy bombings and that the Bush team did not move quickly enough to gear up and to make this a top priority before the summer when George Tenet, the CIA director, tasked everyone to try to get up to speed on it because there was so much coming in, so many intercepts indicating that al-Qaeda was becoming more active, but that they could have done something more quickly to get the president to sign off on what eventually became the action plan. But of course it was after September 11th.
SAWYER: You know, Andrea, for all the strategic and tactical questions that are hanging in the air, you get the feeling a lot is about politics and particularly the 2002 election.
MITCHELL: It--it--you do get that idea. And there are also a lot of personalities involved. Sometimes it's as basic as the fact that there is one senior official who was in both the Bush and the Clinton NSC operations, the anti-terrorist operations. He's quoted in the Time magazine--well, he's referred to, I should say, not quoted in the Time magazine article. And there's a lot of back play, you know, as to whether or not there--this is either him trying to claim credit or other people trying to blame him. So you have individual personalities when you get in to a small community of people like this."
This is not going to die down. I hope someone like Josh Marshall can get into this in more detail.
UPDATE: The gist of the stories that ran in early August 2002 can be found in this link.
Ignore the commentary from the Media Reserach Center, and concentrate on the direct quotes from the news reports. Those are accurate.
I'd link to the stories themselves, if I could find them. So I apologize for the MRC link.
I am embarrassed to say that I completely missed this development, even though it occurred in my home state.
Therefore, I am going to propose a little internet activism to make amends.
Send a message to the radio station and express your outrage that this man was fired for simply stating the truth, and exposing possible political corruption in Washington. As Tim Noah says, he should've been given a RAISE. Instead, he was fired. According to Noah:
""While there are some people at the station who seem to be quite proud of my coverage of Nick Smith," Vandenbroek told Chatterbox, "I think there were others that might have been uncomfortable that it was focusing on a member of the Republican Party." There was no blowback on Smith, but soon afterward, a Vandenbroek broadcast pointing out a few dubious claims in President Bush's Feb. 8 Meet the Press interview prompted a complaint to the station from the local Republican Party headquarters. The Bush broadcast "made the owner of the station very uncomfortable," Vandenbroek said. "I got called in and told to stay away from politics." Strike 3 was a mildly intemperate e-mail Vandenbroek sent to the Christian right author Jefferson Scott after Scott declined to appear on Vandenbroek's show to discuss Be Intolerant: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid. Be Intolerant is a manifesto Scott co-authored with Ryan Dobson, son of James Dobson, chairman of the powerful Christian right organization Focus on the Family. "The straw that broke the camel's back was their contention that I violated e-mail policy," Vandenbroek explained."
"On the first anniversary of the Iraqi attack on Private Jessica Lynch's Army unit, the widow of a soldier who died in the fight blasted President George Bush for "lying to America" to justify the Iraq war.
In bitter comments beside the grave of Army Specialist James Kiehl on Tuesday, Jill Kiehl accused Mr Bush of fabricating reasons to launch the invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"The evidence that's starting to come out now feels like he [Bush] was misleading us," Mrs Kiehl said, holding the couple's 10-month-old son Nathaniel, born seven weeks after his father died.
"It's almost as though he had things fixed so it would look like he needed to go to war," she said.
[...]
Mrs Kiehl described herself as "bitter" about Mr Bush's decision to declare war on Iraq.
"It's upsetting that he would have lied to America to get what he wanted," she said.
"In a way, it's like he used people. That's how I feel. I think the reasons for going over there were bogus and misleading."
The message here is, never send our young men and women off to fight and possibly die in a military conflict, unless you honestly and forthrightly state the reasons why for the American people.
Military families are prepared for the worst. They know that the person in their family serving our country in the armed forces, may give up his or her life for their country.
So, while a loss is painful and terrible for those families, in most cases they understand that the conflict their son, daughter, husband, wife, father or mother died in was necessary.
When you LIE to these families...they get justifiably and righteously angry.
Now, the warfloggers and the Bush apologists will claim that it wasn't Bush who made this woman upset...it was you and me. It was the media. It was the Iraqi insurgents.
WE upset her and made her bitter about losing her husband, because we dared to expose the facts and the truth about what happened.
"Don't you know we liberated the Iraqi people from tyranny?" they'll say?
Sure we did. But that's not why Bush said we were going to war. And that's my point. Had Bush simply said: "Saddam is an evil, brutal man who's crimes against humanity must be stopped, therefore FOR THAT REASON ALONE, we must invade Iraq and liberate the Iraqi people," many would have supported our actions.
Maybe not everyone, but a lot of people. And, more importantly, people like Mrs. Kiehl wouldn't be bitter and angry. They'd understand WHY their loved one gave his or her life in Iraq.
Ultimately, the Bush administration's refusal to level with the American people, and to honestly state the case for war with Iraq, is proof that they didn't trust the American people, or their own judgment.
And, no, just because Bush mentioned Saddam's brutality in a few speeches does NOT mean that this justifications for the war was PARAMOUNT before the invasion. To claim it was is a flat out lie.
It was icing on the cake. The "throw in" argument made to persuade wavering critics of the war.
John Kerry, for all his faults, is not going to send our loved ones to war unless he tells us the real reasons why. This is not mere rhetoric on his part. He LIVED it. He understands the pain, from first hand experience.
The most disturbing news, perhaps, are the signs of a violent backlash in Pakistan to the government's recent military operations against the tribes in the North. Not only that, but there are also suspicions that India and the Government of Afghanistan are using the disturbances to destabilize the Pakistani regime.
"[A] high-level army officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed that India's Research and Analysis Wing as well as the Northern Alliance - which makes up most of the government in Afghanistan - were attempting to exploit the volatile situation in the tribal areas to foment further unrest. "Yes, there are reports of infiltration from across the [Afghan] border and there is a fear that the Afghan Northern Alliance and Indian intelligence will take advantage of the situation and try their level best to further deteriorate the situation," he said.
UPDATE: Incidentally, that statement (and the past actions) by Hamas PROVES, I think, that not all Islamic extremist terrorists are, per se, enemies of the United States.
That's not to say that Hamas is any less a terrorist organization. They are stone cold killers.
But, it blows up the 100% grade "A" horseshit argument of the neocons and their fellow-travelers, that the enemies of Israel are also the enemies of the United States.
They aren't. Yes...that's true even though many Palestinians celebrated the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
Hamas, Hez'b'allah and Islamic Jihad aren't attacking the United States. Yet. Or at least they haven't done so since the early 1980's when we were meddling in Lebanon.
"The problem with this SPIN, is that the CIA Director ALWAYS briefs the President, EVERY DAY, about current threat and intelligence issues. The fact that Tenet was including Al Qaeda threat assessments in his normal daily briefings is even MORE damaging for Bush, not less so.
It means that Bush was IGNORING, or giving short-shrift to the warnings coming directly from the Director of Central Intelligence."
Interestingly, here's what Richard Clarke said about the same subject this morning on CNN:
"Now, let's just look at the facts. The administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director was telling them virtually every day that there was a major threat."
"[T]his morning, the President called the NATO Secretary General. The President thanked the Secretary General for his strong stand against terrorism at NATO following the Madrid bombings. The Secretary General said that the need to stand up against terrorism is something where there's a strong consensus at NATO and he reiterated his commitment to ensure NATO does so. The President thanked the Secretary General for acting so quickly on Kosovo and traveling there tomorrow. And the President reiterated continuing United States commitment to peace in Kosovo.
The Secretary General welcomed this. The Secretary General also noted that most NATO allies with troops in Iraq have now committed to keep them there through July 1st, and that with the transfer of authority and likely United Nations resolution and role, they are prepared to stay longer."
"McClellan did not elaborate on which countries were included in the list of "most" or how much longer they might stay."
Which countries, Scott? I think if you are going to make a statement about foreign countries and by extension, leaders who are supporting your policies, you ought to name them. "Most" is not "All." Which NATO countries are going to pull out their troops? Is it just Spain? Or are there more?
Incidentally, that press conference was pretty hilarious. You ought to read the entire transcript.
"Kerry's break with VVAW came at the end of 1971 during a four-day convention for VVAW national coordinators.
The organization's minutes record that Kerry and three other fellow moderates "resigned" their posts.
But before that gathering adjourned, there was some discussion about the idea of assassinating American leaders who voted to prolong the war, said Nicosia and three veterans who attended the gathering.
Scott Camil, a Florida vet who put forward the idea, says the notion didn't get very far.
"If people considered our plans to be so bad, we would have been charged, and they would have made a big stink about it."
Camil, who was later tried and acquitted with seven other vets for plotting an assault on the 1972 Republican National Convention, said Kerry's opponents are "trying to blacken him with my brush and my ideas, and that's not fair."
Kerry, whose campaign insisted that Kerry had not been present in Kansas City until the FBI reports and VVAW minutes proved otherwise, cannot recall hearing the radical idea.
Still, Barnes and Crandell said no violent plot was seriously considered.
"I don't think any discussion amounted to more than kind of the wisecrack level, because I don't think anyone took it seriously," Crandell said.
"It's just that VVAW was an absolute anarchy," Barnes added. "Everybody had to say something about something."
By all accounts, Kerry was a moderate voice in the group, who took a grim view even of civil disobedience. Many fellow antiwar vets felt he was too traditional.
"A review of the subject's file reveals nothing whatsoever to link the subject with any violent type activity," concludes a May 1972 FBI memo about Kerry provided by his campaign.
By this time, Kerry was engaged in his second, failed run for Congress, embarking on the three-decade political career that finds him one step away from the White House."
A suggest we file this one in the "debunked" pile. Or, at least, the "defused," pile.
I'm still trying to find out more. But, I think the Kerry people have handled this deftly.
What do you think the odds are that anyone in the Arab or Muslim world will believe us?
It doesn't even matter if we didn't know about or approve of the attack. Everyone thinks we did. And nothing we can say or do (short of declaring war on Ariel Sharon) will counter that perception.
This is not to say that if this had happened during the Clinton adminsitration, that many would blame us anyway.
But, I suspect that people like Hosni Mubarak, and King Abdullah would BELIEVE Bill Clinton if he told them he didn't know about it.
I also suspect that a significant number (but, perhaps, not a majority) of Palestinians would at least be open minded about our denials.
How can anyone, with a brain in their head, vote for Bush in November?
UPDATE: Richard Clarke on the Clinton adminsitration's response to terrorism, and Al Qaeda:
"By the time 1998 the embassy bombings occurred, I think everyone in the Clinton Cabinet would have said that Al Qaeda is a serious threat. In fact, if you look in retrospect at what the Clinton administration did after those embassy bombings through to the end of that administration -- since now most of it is public knowledge, lot of it was highly classified at the time -- if 9/11 had not happened, most Americans looking at what the Clinton administration did about bin Laden would have said, "What an overreaction. Why were they so preoccupied with bin Laden?"
There was an enormous amount of activity that was carried on if you look at the predicate, prior to the attack on the Cole destroyer in October 2000. The predicate was Americans killed at two embassies in Africa. Yet there was this massive program that was initiated to go after bin Laden. It didn't succeed, but it tried very hard. It did prevent some attacks, and it delayed others. But looked at in vacuum, the Clinton administration activities, 1998 to the end of the administration against bin Laden -- if you look at that without knowing in advance that 9/11 is going to happen, if you can separate that in your mind, the Clinton administration activities against bin Laden were massive.
So the frustration that a lot of us had, that people weren't paying enough attention, largely ended with the 1998 embassy bombings."
The problem with this SPIN, is that the CIA Director ALWAYS briefs the President, EVERY DAY, about current threat and intelligence issues. The fact that Tenet was including Al Qaeda threat assessments in his normal daily briefings is even MORE damaging for Bush, not less so.
It means that Bush was IGNORING, or giving short-shrift to the warnings coming directly from the Director of Central Intelligence.
The question is not whether people told Bush that Al Qaeda was a serious threat. It's whether Bush or anybody else in his National Security inner circle, did anything about it.
Watch what they did, not what they say they did. It's pretty damning.
"It should be noted that a review of the subject's [Kerry's] file reveals nothing whatsoever to link subject with any violent type activity," says an FBI memo from May 24, 1972. "Thus, considering the subject's apparently legitimate involvement in politics, it is recommended that no further investigation be conducted regarding subject until such time as it is warranted."
"During Bush's first week in office, Clarke asked urgently for a Cabinet-level meeting on al Qaeda. He did not get it -- or permission to brief the president directly on the threat -- for nearly eight months. When deputies to the Cabinet officials took up the subject in April, Clarke writes, the meeting "did not go well."
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Clarke wrote, scowled and asked, "why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." When Clarke told him no foe but al Qaeda "poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States," Wolfowitz is said to have replied that Iraqi terrorism posed "at least as much" of a danger. FBI and CIA representatives backed Clarke in saying they had no such evidence.
"I could hardly believe," Clarke writes, that Wolfowitz pressed the "totally discredited" theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, "a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue."
They actually believed the wacky conspiracy theories of Laurie "nutbar" Mylroie. And these loons are running our foreign policy?!?
UPDATE: And what did the Weekly Standard think of the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism prior to 9/11? From an opinion piece by Reuel Marc Gerecht published in the July 30, 2001 issue:
"The Bush administration has continued and actually surpassed its predecessor's display of timidity in the Middle East. The possibility of terrorist attacks recently prompted the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. Marines from military exercises in Jordan and hastily move ships anchored in Bahrain, the home base of the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf. Likewise, pistol-packing FBI officials investigating the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, decided to scoot -- against the counsel of the State Department and the U.S. embassy in San'a -- when they thought a terrorist attack might be imminent.
Which prompts the question: Are we a great power or not? If we are, then what in the world are we doing running from men whose mission in life it is to make us flee?"
Curiously, the article is one of very few in the Weekly Standard's archives that is locked away for subscribers only.
It's also a featured article on the PNAC website ("CowerSuperpowerower"). For some strange reason, this article is unavailable. Click on the link and nothing comes up.
That's NOT true for the articles immediately surrounding it.
Gerecht, in case you are wondering, "is the Director of the Middle East Initiative at The Project for the New American Century and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is recently a contributor to Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign Policy (Editors Robert Kagan & William Kristol; Encounter Books, 2000) and is the author under the pseudonym of Edward Shirley of Know Thine Enemy: A Spy's Journey into Revolutionary Iran (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1997) . . . , " and "a former Middle Eastern specialist in the CIA . . . ."
Funny how that got buried, eh?
Now, I'm not saying that Gerecht is necessarily credible. But, it is interesting that the PNAC crowd thought the Badministrationtion, prior to 9/11, made the "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys," and Prime Minister Zapatero look like General George S. Patton when it came to fighting terrorism.
"DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Osama bin Laden has been a persistent thorn in the side of the Clinton administration, but it may now fall to Mr. Bush to decide how to respond if, as appears likely, the evidence becomes persuasive that bin Laden's group bombed the USS Cole in Yemen.
L. PAUL BREMER, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM AMBASSADOR: The administration doesn't have the option of doing nothing.
ENSOR: Cruise missiles might be part of the answer, but the last time, in 1998 in Afghanistan, they failed to hit Bin Laden and hitting a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan prompted charges its connection with the fugitive terrorist was unproven.
What about going after bin Laden himself with special forces? Tempting, perhaps. But easier said than done.
BREMER: It's not almost a commando raid, it's a military operation of some size, considering that he's got several hundred people guarding him.
ENSOR: Some experts argue going after the fundamentalist Taliban government that harbors bin Laden in Afghanistan might make more sense.
JULIE SIRRS, FORMER DIA ANALYST: Bin Laden helps the Taliban militarily in terms of money and men, and the Taliban give him shelter and the ability to plan future operations. So, really, they're just sort of two links in the same chain.
ENSOR: Also on the new president's plate concerning terrorism: A series of new reports saying major terrorist attacks inside the U.S. are inevitable and that biological or chemical weapons will some day be used here.
GOV. JAMES GILMORE (R-VA), CHAIRMAN, TERRORISM PANEL: And the United States must be ready for that attack.
ENSOR: The Gilmore panel recommended creating at the White House a powerful Cabinet-level counterterrorism director. But the Clinton administration's counterterrorism coordinator disagrees.
RICHARD CLARKE, WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM COORDINATOR: I think the experience we've had indicates that we should not have a terrorism czar.
ENSOR (on camera): Terrorism, and how to structure the government's response to it, is not generally at the top of the list of any incoming administration's priorities, but events have a way of changing that. They will not be surprised, say U.S. officials, if combating terrorism ends up taking even more of President Bush's time than it has of President Clinton's."
Clarke's speaking from the point of view of somebody who had the President's trust and his ear. Little did he realize that he'd be completely shut out of the decision-making process with respect to combating terrorism by the Bush White House.
Otherwise, he might have agreed with Gilmour's recommendation.
"But when it comes to fighting terrorism, [Bush] administration officials say the United States has no new initiatives to offer. Top antiterrorism officials in the U.S. government tell NEWSWEEK that Bush and his lieutenants have yet to put forth a counterterrorism plan. So far at least, the Bush team has kept on Clinton's counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke."
You can also read the transcript from her interview on CNN from this morning.
While I think she's utterly incompetent, and incapable of getting the President to act responsibly, I do agree with here on one point regarding Clarke's criticism of her.
Clarke gave the impression that Rice was totally clueless as to what Al Qaeda even was. I think that's a stretch. Did she give the warning short shrift? Yes. Did she minimize the threat? Of course. Did she carry out the President's desire to push other "more important" priorities, such as missile defense and Iraq? Damn skippy.
But claiming that she is a ditz, is a bit much. She's not stupid. She's just weak.
KICK ASS: Richard Clarke just tore George W. Bush a new one. And Stephen Hadley, responding for the White House, looked like the lying weasel he truly is. You have to wonder about how incompetent the Bush team is when they send Stephen "Uranium from Africa" Hadley out to "refute" Richard Clarke.
UPDATE: Some additional thoughts. That segment on 60 Minutes was essentially a 30-minute attack ad against George W. Bush.
Also, who are the major papers going to get to review Clarke's book? No matter who they peg, the reviewer will be accused of harboring a bias either against Bush, or for Bush.
So, let me make a suggetsion for a reviewer who will be recognized for his fierce independence, his knowledge about counter-terrorism issues, and his integrity: Warren Rudman.
IN MORE PATHETIC NEWS: Joe Lieberman tells Kerry and Bush to tone it down lest they "turn off" voters. Hell yeah! Democrats will turn out, Joe! If the Republicans decide to stay home, that's just gravy.
Oh, and while Joe was busy trying to undercut the Kerry campaign, Chuck friggin' Hagel was DEFENDING Kerry's Senate voting record!
"On the more serious side, one other prominent Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, was also critical of the Bush campaign's attacks on Kerry's Senate voting record.
"The facts just don't measure the rhetoric," he told ABC television.
He said campaigns could take the voting record of any longstanding senator "pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."
So far, Kerry's gotten BETTER support from John McCain and Chuck Hagel than Joe Lieberman. Sure, both McCain and Hagel said the campaigns should tone things down, but you'd expect that from Republicans. Their side isn't as motivated as ours is.
But, Joe...do you still wonder why you got your ass kicked in the primary?
I think, however, that if the Bush campaign's strategy is to paint Kerry as weak and vacillating, it will backfire on them tremendously.
If you attack your opponent as weak, people will be shocked when that opponent turns out to be tough, a fighter, and aggressive.
It undercuts your argument. So far, for all of Kerry's missteps, he's at least aggressively taking it to Bush.
Once Kerry gets his campaign advertising up and running, I think Bush will begin to falter. Bush is trying to keep his head above water, with the anchor of his record tied around his ankles. And every time he gets some traction against Kerry, something comes along to knock him off stride.
For example, read this quote by former Clinton and Bush NSC Anti-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke:
"Frankly . . . I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. . . ."
And that's going to be said on 60 minutes tonight. With a lead in from the NCAA Basketball tournament.
That single statement will get massive news coverage. And it will single-handedly blunt a great deal of the millions of dollars in Bush campaign attack ads directed at John Kerry.
The best part is, it didn't cost the Democrats, or John Kerry, a single penny.
As I said, Bush's RECORD is weighing him down.
People who know better are not going to allow him to get away with lying about this.
"An Army reservist who unsuccessfully fought city officials for an expected promotion after he returned from service in Afghanistan has committed suicide, police said.
Lt. Brandon Ratliff was upset that he could not afford to pay for an attorney to fight the city to get the job, according to an e-mail sent from Ratliff's account to The Columbus Dispatch on Thursday.
The newspaper said Ratliff was found dead in his home with a bullet wound to the head about three hours after the e-mail was sent. Police spokeswoman Sherry Mercurio said Ratliff's death was ruled a suicide.
Ratliff said he was promised a promotion and a raise in September 2002 before he left to serve in a medical unit in Afghanistan. When he returned, the higher-level job had been filled and he was forced to resume his old job, which pays $4,000 less per year.
"I didn't think that I'd have to fight over there and come back and fight these guys," he said last week.
By law, employers must take back reservists returning from military service, with few exceptions.
According to the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, employers must reinstate reservists returning from military service to the job they would have attained had they not been absent. Health department spokeswoman Liane Egle said Ratliff did not formally accept the promotion before his deployment and the city believed it did not have to hold the higher job for him.
A department statement said: "Brandon served this department, this community and this country with high honor and valor. His death is a tragic loss." The department declined to comment further.
His cousin, Cynthia Hellman, said Ratliff was "fed up" and felt he didn't get the respect he deserved. "It all comes down to our military personnel not being treated well during and after their deployment," she said."
In fact, the candidate himself should issue the challenge to these money-grubbing whores...er...media outlets.
They either verify the factual accuracy of the ads before they air them, or face a LAWSUIT from the Kerry campaign. They will get ONE warning refuting the ad, and if they continue to air it, they will get hauled into Court for an injunction.
There are NO First amendment protections for airing false advertsing, even if it's political.
And George W. Bush has no First Amendment right to SLANDER or LIBEL John Kerry.
This is not a "free speech" issue.
If Bush and Cheney want to lie about John Kerry, they will have to do it themselves...in person.
UPDATE: In the meantime, here's a bit of activism each of you can employ in this regard.
If you see one of Bush's false attack ads, write to or call the local TV station that aired it, and read them the riot act. Provide documentation proving that it's a pile of horse manure, and that by rnning it they are committing libel.
Send a copy of your letter or correspondence to your local newspapers demanding that they publish a refutation of the ad in a prominent place within the paper.
Point out that criticizing Kerry's legitimate positions and stances on issues is one thing. But, LYING is quite another. And, Bush shouldn't be able to get away with it just because he's got a pile of money to spend.
UPDATE: Unfortunately, my idea probably will not work because FCC regulations REQUIRE television licensees to air political advertising from qualified candidates, EVEN IF IT'S FALSE OR MISLEADING.
I still think you should complain about the ads, because maybe it will have an effect on editorial coverage of the campaign.
It has a double impact. It helps Kerry fight back against the Bush onslaught, AND it demoralizes the Republicans who thought (much like the aftermath of the Iraq invasion) that it would be a "cake walk."
Phil Carter has more, and questions the Bush administration's decision to significantly reduce our troop committment to peace keeping operations in the region.
"I'm not saying that U.S./NATO troops would've prevented this from happening, but I think there's some question about whether the remaining UN/NATO/U.S. forces on the ground have the strength to stabilize the situation. Since 1999, America has gradually pulled out of Kosovo and Bosnia. And since the global war on terrorism started, the U.S. troop levels in the Balkans have dropped even further. (Ironic, considering the long-time presence of Islamist militants and Al Qaeda agents in the Balkans in support of the Bosnian Muslim population.) According to GlobalSecurity.Org, the U.S. currently has significantly less [sic] a brigade combat team in Kosovo. I am not certain about the strength of the UN mission in Kosovo."
"President Chen Shui-bian and his vice president were shot and slightly wounded Friday in an assassination attempt as they rode in an open vehicle while campaigning a day before an election that could be a turning point in Taiwan's tense relationship with China.
No arrests were reported and it was not clear who fired on Chen. The street in his hometown, the southern city of Tainan, was choked with supporters on the eve of the landmark election and a simultaneous referendum.
Some analysts predicted the attack could boost Chen's chances in what had been seen as a close vote. Chen has angered the Nationalist opposition and Beijing by championing a separate identity for Taiwan.
One analyst suggested it was most likely the work of a "deranged individual," adding that it was "inconceivable" that opposition parties or the Beijing government could have been behind the attack."
"Thousands of Pakistani army reinforcements joined a major offensive Friday in tribal border villages where al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri and hundreds of other militants are believed surrounded, while Afghan authorities reported the arrests of midlevel terrorist leaders on their side of the border.
Army spokesman Gen. Shaukat Sultan said the army believes some 300-400 militants � a mix of foreigners and local Pakistani tribesmen � are holed up in fortresses in several villages in lawless South Waziristan, where Pakistani paramilitary forces began an operation against al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives four days ago.
"From the type of resistance we are getting ... the militants could be anything from 300 to 400," he told a news conference."
And, quite frankly, given the intensity of the fighting, you know U.S. special forces are helping out. And I can't believe U.S. regular forces, and air power are not being employed either.
This is supposed to look like a purely Pakistani operation. And, who knows? Maybe it's TOO MUCH of one?
UPDATE: At least one report claims that Zawahri got away.
If so, you wonder whether it was wise to leave the bulk of the operation to the Pakistanis, even if we did have our own forces participating. If true, this is a massive embarrassment, and a repetition of the whole Operation Anaconda fiasco.
UPDATE: More official hints from Pakistani officials that al-Zawahri got away. Notice that NONE of this is in the U.S. media? Gee...I wonder why?
ANOTHER UPDATE: Condi's already doing some ass covering to "lower expectaions."
Expect an "official" announcement that al-Zawahri escaped AFTER the evening news broadcasts have run, and smack dab in the middle of the NCAA toiurnament games...when nobody's paying any attention.
