TSA Director Kip Hawley is an idiot

If this story is true, he truly is. Someone needs to dog this one. (Hat tip to TeamBio.) Read the rest of this post...

Video of my "Paula Zahn Now" torture debate with the crazy man

I'm not sure what I can write about the debate I had earlier this evening on CNN. That is, I'm not sure what I can write without being sued by the absolute freak I debated.

I was warned that we only had like 3 minutes total for the segment, and in TV terms (and in life) 3 minutes isn't a real long amount of time for two people, and a host, to talk about anything. That's the only reason I didn't call the nut on his incredibly offensive, to put it lightly, comments about Islam on the show. You can watch for yourselves via the video below. All I'll say is, and we wonder why they hate us. (Note to CNN: This guy belongs on FOX, not a real network.)

Read the rest of this post...

P.R. Group That Paid Off Iraqi Papers Gets New $6.2 Million Media Contract

Hell, why don't we give 'em a medal.

A public relations company known for its role in a controversial U.S. military program that paid Iraqi newspapers for stories favorable to coalition forces has been awarded another multimillion dollar media contract with American forces in Iraq.

Washington-based Lincoln Group won a two-year contract to monitor a number of English and Arabic media outlets and produce public relations-type products such as talking points or speeches for U.S. forces in Iraq, officials said Tuesday.

Read the rest of this post...

Memo proves Condi lied to the press yesterday

Gee, no one could have ever imagined a member of the Bush administration lying about the war on terror. Raw Story has the details.

A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after becoming National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements she made to reporters yesterday, RAW STORY has learned.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told a reporter for the New York Post on Monday. "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."

Rice made the comments in response to claims made Sunday by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that his administration had done more than the current one to address the al Qaeda problem before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. She stopped short of calling the former president a liar.

However, RAW STORY has found that just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

What a day...John should be on CNN anytime now. Read the rest of this post...

I'm gonna be on CNN's Paula Zahn Show tonight at around 8:15pm EST talking about torture

Any last minute suggestions for talking points?

I'm particularly interested in the history of the Geneva Conventions. Why were they adopted? How well have they worked? What's the response to people who say "well, other countries don't obey the Geneva Conventions, why should we?" Is that true, do other countries routinely ignore the Geneva Conventions? Read the rest of this post...

NIE is now online

Download it here. (The entire text of the document is at the end of this post.)

The document says exactly what critics have claimed. Iraq is fueling more terrorism and terrorists. In particular, there are these two paragraphs:

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

The first paragraph means, and I checked with AJ, our former Defense Intelligence official (who will be weighing in shortly), that the factors fueling international terrorism are greater than the factors hurting international terrorism. The second paragraph says specifically that our war in Iraq is one of the factors fueling an increase in international terror.

Here's the entire document, there's even more in here that is bad news for Bush. He's nuts to release this and claim that it helps him. The only "good" news in the entire document is that it says Bush has caught a lot of Al Qaeda leaders. Yeah, we know that. But the document makes clear that the danger remains, and is increasing, and the war in Iraq isn't helping.

Declassified Key Judgments of the National
Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States” dated April 2006

Key Judgments

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al- Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

[NOTE FROM JOHN: Great, so they've hurt the leadership of Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda itself is still spreading and adapting.]

• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.

[NOTE FROM JOHN: So the number of radical Muslims, i.e., terrorist supporters, is increasing in number and location.]

• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.

• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.

• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

• The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution—an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world—is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.

• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.

• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.

Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al- Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.

• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qa’ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.

We judge that most jihadist groups—both well-known and newly formed—will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.

• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.

While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.

Read the rest of this post...

A second NIE on Iraq exists according to Rep. Jane Harman

There is evidence of a second NIE that deals solely with Iraq. You can bet this is something the Bush administration would hide. TPMmuckraker has the details:

As reported here earlier, here are Rep. Jane Harman's (D-CA) comments this morning about this second secret Iraq report, from CQ Transcriptions:

"I have also learned that there is a [National Intelligence Estimate] on Iraq -- specifically on Iraq -- that has been left in draft form at the National Intelligence Council. That is because some of our leaders don't want us to see it until after the election. It should be clear five years after 9/11 that we need accurate and actionable intelligence -- actionable in real time -- and we need our leaders to read that intelligence and cite it accurately. Sadly, we're doing better on the first piece; we're not doing better on the second piece."

Every American needs to know what is on those reports. The traditional media needs to know. We have all been lied to and snowed by the Bush administration for over FIVE years. Except for a few reporters who actually break stories like the most recent NIE bombshell, most of the media have served as mouthpieces for the Bush spin. The White House has lied about Iraq and national security over and over. The media is getting a chance now to find out the truth. Are they up to it? It sure is a lot easier to just regurgitate the spin of Karl Rove, Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett.

You know that if this second report exists, Bush can't let it see the light of day at least until after the elections. Despite the spin, there is no good news from Iraq. Read the rest of this post...

Man-dog Santorum trails by 14 points

Casey has doubled his lead over the 2008 GOP presidential candidate Santorum since mid August. What's up with the 2008 GOP candidates who forgot they still had to run in 2006? Read the rest of this post...

Democratic message: the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror

Today, House Democrats are delivering the message that Bush's war in Iraq is making harder to fight and win the war against terror. That's the assessment of the entire intelligence community -- all 16 different entities -- in the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate. People who know the intel. community maintain that kind of agreement is rare indeed.

Bush is endangering America and the Democrats are trying to change that.

Congressman Tim Ryan from Ohio says Bush has made us less safe. Period:


Congresswoman Hilda Solis from California asks Bush to tell the truth:



Bush looked like he was coming unglued in his press conference this morning. So angry and so confused. Americans get the nature of the enemy. We want Bush to fight the real enemy. He just doesn't understand that by going to Iraq, he's not only spurred on the jihadists, he lost sight of fighting the real enemy. He and his team cannot grasp that simple concept. His Iraq invasion didn't get the real enemy and is making us less safe. He's dangerous. All he cares about is the politics of terror, not actually dealing with it. Read the rest of this post...

And we wonder why Americans are ill-informed

Check out Newsweek's cover story this week. Actually, Newsweek has a different cover for each region of the world they publish in. If you go to the Newsweek International Edition home page, you can see the listings of the various covers for this week. Check them out and see if the one for the US doesn't stand out a little bit.

Perhaps the headline should be "Losing America."

Hat tip, Rising Hegemon. Read the rest of this post...

Bush refuses to give evidence that he did anything to stop Bin Laden pre-9/11

The man just got asked about it at a press conference, and he refused to give one fact to dispute that he ignored Al Qaeda pre September 11 even though he was warned.

Okay, this is choice. Bush just said the only way to defend America is to deal with threats before they materialize. Yet he failed to deal with the Al Qaeda threat before September 11, even though he was directly warned about it. That establishes a pattern of George Bush NOT dealing with threats before they materialize. So the question is not just relevant, it's critical. We need to know if our president is capable of dealing adequately and effectively with grave threats to our nation's survival. And history shows he is not.

Answer the question, Mr. Bush. You have a history of ignoring every threats before they materialize - usually you're on vacation (September 11, the Asian tsunami, Katrina). So tell us why we should believe you now when the past six years of your administration has been one massive failure to defend against threats before they materialize. Read the rest of this post...

Condi Rice and George Bush did NOTHING after the CIA warned them that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US

Condi Rice blew a gasket this morning, angrily proclaiming that she and George Bush did lots of stuff before September 11 to stop Bin Laden. Putting aside the fact that a detailed Washington Post analysis says she and he most certainly did not, let's just compare one event in the Clinton and the Bush administrations to see how well each responded.

The event? Being warned that Al Qaeda may be preparing an attack.

ThinkProgress provides us with the damning details of how Rice and her boss George Bush ignored Al Qaeda right before they killed 3,000 Americans.

The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: “I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We’ve been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.”

Read the rest of this post...

Condi, who lied to Americans about the Iraq War, challenges Clinton

This is rich. We're in a war that has made Americans less safe because of the lies from Condi and her boss. Now, she's challenging Bill Clinton. Of course, she had run to the editorial board of the NY Post to make her accusations -- that's second best to FOX News for the right wingers.

Remember her infamous line: "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? Given her history of lying to the American people about national security, Condi doesn't have the credibility to challenge anyone else's veracity. Seriously, how can anyone in the media trust anything that comes out of the mouths of any member of the Bush administration?:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Bill Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue al Qaeda, saying in an interview published Tuesday that the Bush administration aggressively pursued the group even before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.

Funny, but that's not what the Washington Post concluded in a devastating analysis of the Bush administration's utter failure to take on Osama and Al Qaeda in the months preceding 9/11.

Condi and her boss knew that there were Al Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the U.S. back in 2001. Condi's boss got a briefing from the CIA on August 6, 2001 titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S." Condi's boss stayed on vacation. That would not have been Bill Clinton's response.

Bush and Rice have been busted. They ignored terrorism in 2001. Now, they've made the world a more dangerous place because of the Iraq War. They lied about that war, now we're all less safe. The media has played along for the past five years, pretending that Bush is somehow a strong leader on national security. He's not. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Just heard Miles O'Brien refer to Bill Clinton's "gasket-blowing" interview on FOX. It's so amazing to see how much the spin from FOX and the right wing influences the rest of the media -- and the rest of them, like Miles, have no idea they've been manipulated and spun. "Gasket-blowing" because Clinton challenged a blatantly partisan conservative? Give me a break.

On the other hand, there's Olbermann via Crooks and Liars. Watch it:

The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration… did… not… try.—

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance, in American history!

Read the rest of this post...

Afghan women's rights campaigner murdered

Another step in the wrong direction for Afghanistan. Bush made plenty of promises and Laura made a visit over to Afghanistan to talk about women's rights hidden inside of a secure bunker zone, but the reality of Afghanistan is that the Bush administration dropped the ball in Afghanistan. The result has been a booming heroin trade in Afghanistan and Safia Amajan being murdered for daring to be successful in opening schools and teaching women how to market their goods. So once again, the US is showing those who stand up and take action will be soon forgotten by the US. What a foreign policy legacy.

At the official end of the Afghan war, America's first lady, Laura Bush, was among those who declared that one of the most important achievements of overthrowing the Taliban was emancipation of women. However, since then female social workers and teachers have been maimed and killed, girls' schools shut down and female workers forced to give up their jobs. The few women out in the streets in Kandahar and other places in the south are covered in burqas. A report by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission spoke of the "systematic and violent campaign" directed against women.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Off to bed. Read the rest of this post...