Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Hillary Clinton: If My Husband Had Gotten the Warning of Al Queda Attacks...

Sometimes the divide between Democrats and Republicans goes beyond the usual red state/blue state differences. But it gets downright spooky when you realize that Democrats often inhabit a parallel universe where reality, like the meaning of the word "is," can be redefined quicker than the Geneva Conventions.

As usual, evidence of this alternate reality is found in the aura which surrounds Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Take for example Senator Clinton's statement yesterday in response to her husband's interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace:

From Breitbart AP report: UpHillary

"I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks," Hillary Clinton said. "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

The senator was referring to a classified brief given to Bush in August 2001, one that Democrats say showed the Bush administration did not do enough to combat the growing threat from al-Qaida.

Ah yes, the infamous Presidential Daily Briefing given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 (PDF copy here). He received it 36 days before the September 11th attacks. That's 864 hours and clearly there was not enough time to pull down the walls the Clinton Administration had in place to prevent the FBI and CIA from working together, connecting the dots and stop the attacks.

What most of these people, including Senator Clinton, seem to forget is the following warning her husband received on December 4, 1998: "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks...Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks..."(full text here).

That's 778 days or 18,672 hours from the time President Clinton received the warning until he left office. Meanwhile, Al Queda bombed the U.S.S. Cole and continued to plot, train and finance the efforts that led to the September 11th attacks.

And as Steve Coll at the Washington Post writes: "Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton's national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. "

Worse still, throughout the 1990's the Clintonistas, under the direction of Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick were building the wall that blocked the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement (signed memo PDF) which could have prevented September 11th.

Mary Jo White, the Clinton appointed U.S. Attorney for New York, responsible for prosecuting the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, warned at the time that: "The single biggest mistake we can make in attempting to combat terrorism is to insulate the criminal side of the house from the intelligence side of the house, unless such insulation is absolutely necessary. Excessive conservatism . . . can have deadly results."

Ms. White went on to warn: "we must face the reality that the way we are proceeding now is inherently and in actuality very dangerous."

The danger of Clinton's alternate reality universe became apparent to all but the Clintons and their apparatchiks on September 11th.

National Intelligence Estimate Declassified: Confirms Bush Plan is WORKING!

The leak of information from the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, to the New York Treason last week set off a rather large firecracker in official Washington with the selective publication of an excerpt from the report which suggests that the threat from terrorism is getting worse because of Iraq.

In his news conference with Afghan President Karzai (see below) President Bush, pointed out that the problem of Islamic terrorism was growing long before we went into Iraq, long before we went into Afghanistan and long before September 11th.

But the decision to invade Iraq remains controversial as Democrats, many of whom supported the war early on are now, for purely partisan political purposes, trying once again to revisit the decision to invade by using only selective excerpts from the report.

So, President Bush requested that the "Key Judgments" section of the report, a sort of executive summary, be declassified so they may be examined in their entirety.

Here's something the NY Treason's leak didn't cover in the NIE, which was released Tuesday afternoon:

"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."

Got that? Win in Iraq and fewer jihadis will be inspired to carry on the fight! Didn't read that in the paper did you?

If you read the "Key judgments," it's only four short pages, you'll also notice Iraq is just one part of the terrorist problem. The report also describes the success we have had in dismantling the structure of Al Queda and it's effectiveness at coordination, communication and funding for mass attacks.

The report was written before the monster Zarqawi was killed, and it suggested that if he and other senior Al Queda leaders were killed, it 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."

Got that? Killing Zarqawi reduced the threat!

What's left are smaller groups of "self-radicalized cells" such as we've seen in Britain, Canada and elsewhere. But many of these cells lack the sophistication, funding and training to accomplish their goals undetected.

The report also goes on at some length to describe how a strategy that embraces democraticization and encourages more moderate Muslim voices represents the best opportunity to lessen the threat of terrorism:

"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."

Essentially, the "Key Judgments" of the National Intelligence Estimate confirms that the Bush strategy of capturing or killing terrorists while fostering democratic reform in Muslim countries is the correct path to follow. No wonder Democrats would prefer you only read the small portion of the report they agreed with.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

President Bush and President Karzai in White House Press Conference

In this press conference with President Karzai of Afghanistan, President Bush responds to the latest political leak of classified information intended to spin the war against Islamic Fascists.


Remarks by President Bush and President Karzai of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
White House Transcript:

...PRESIDENT BUSH: In recent months, the Taliban and other extremists have tried to regain control, mostly in the south of Afghanistan. And so we've adjusted tactics and we're on the offense to meet the threat and to defeat the threat. Forces from dozens of nations, including every member of NATO, are supporting the democratic government of Afghanistan. The American people are providing money to help send our troops to your country, Mr. President, and so are a lot of other nations around the world. This is a multinational effort to help you succeed.

Your people have rejected extremism. Afghan forces are fighting bravely for the future of Afghanistan, and many of your forces have given their lives, and we send our deepest condolences to their families and their friends and their neighbors.
The fighting in Afghanistan is part of a global struggle. Recently, British forces killed a long-time terrorist affiliated with al Qaeda named Omar Farouq. Farouq was active in Bosnia and Southeast Asia. He was captured in Indonesia, he escaped from prison in Afghanistan, he was killed hiding in Iraq. Every victory in the war on terror enhances the security of free peoples everywhere.

Mr. President, as I told you in the Oval Office, our country will stand with the free people of Afghanistan. I know there's some in your country who wonder or not -- whether or not America has got the will to do the hard work necessary to help you succeed. We have got that will, and we're proud of you as a partner.
Tomorrow, President Karzai and President Musharraf and I will have dinner. I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be an interesting discussion amongst three allies, three people who are concerned about the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It will be a chance for us to work on how to secure the border, how we can continue to work together and share information so we can defeat extremists; how we can work together to build a future of peace and democracy in your region, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT KARZAI:I'm very grateful, Mr. President, to you and the American people for all that you have done for Afghanistan for the last four-and-a-half years, from roads to education, to democracy, to parliament, to good governance effort, to health, and to all other good things that are happening in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I was, the day before yesterday, in the Walter Reed Hospital. There I met wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there also I met a woman soldier with six boys, from 7 to 21, that she had left behind in America in order to build us a road in a mountainous part of the country in Afghanistan. There's nothing more that any nation can do for another country, to send a woman with children to Afghanistan to help. We are very grateful. I'm glad I came to know that story and I'll be repeating it to the Afghan people once I go back to Afghanistan.
Mr. President, we, the Afghan people, are grateful to you and the American people for all that you have done. ...

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. We'll have two questions a side. We'll start with Jennifer Loven.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.

Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

Someone remind me who was President when all this was going on?

Now, we continue:
You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE -- it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

And of course we know who published the leak and why. Interesting that the same folks who thought that disclosure of senstitive information in the phony Wilson/Plame CIA leak was such a grave matter that it required a special prosecutor and years of erroneous scandalmongering are pushing this leak.

We continue:
I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means that it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I'm talking about. But once again, there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign, -- to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.

And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible. He'll declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself. And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Clinton Interview Fallout

Count me in the minority of the opinionati who think that Clinton's explosion in his interview with Chris Wallace for Fox News Sunday was deliberate. It's a view shared by Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and John Dickerson at Slate.

Many conservatives are pointing to Clinton yelling at his staff later for setting the interview up as proof that the display was unplanned. But like stories of the all too convenient death of Osama bin Laden, there's often purpose behind a Clinton disinformation effort.

It was pretty obvious to any who watched the video (part 1 & part2) that Clinton was spoiling for a fight as soon as he sat down. From the first question, a softball by Wallace, Clinton was ready to spin. From the transcript:

WALLACE: In a recent issue of the New Yorker you say, quote, "I'm 60 years old and I damn near died, and I'm worried about how many lives I can save before I do die."Is that what drives you in your effort to help in these developing countries?
CLINTON: Yes, I really — but I don't mean — that sounds sort of morbid when you say it like that. I mean, I actually ...
WALLACE: That's how you said it.
CLINTON: Yes, but the way I said it, the tone in which I said it was actually almost whimsical and humorous. That is, this is what I love to do. It is what I think I should do.

So we start off with Wallace reciting a direct Clinton quote and already the master is spinning and contentious.

Clinton spokesman, Jay Carson, had this to say after the interview:"We're fully aware of Fox News's and Chris Wallace's agenda, and President Clinton came in prepared to respond to any attack on his record...When Wallace questioned his record on terrorism, he responded forcefully, as any Democrat would or should."

"He responded forcefully, as any Democrat would or should." That was the plan in a nutshell.

John Dickerson at Slate describes it this way:

... In other words, he went in loaded for bear and blasted like Cheney as soon as he spotted one.

Did Clinton come across a little unhinged? Sure, but that's an advantage in a midterm election where party passion matters. Liberal activists want to see their Washington representatives fight back the way Clinton did. This was a rallying cry and a signal to other members of the party to do the same. Clinton can go to individual districts to campaign for competitive candidates, or he can sell the same message wholesale by banging the table in a single performance on Fox.

Clinton didn't just get the blood pumping among liberal activists. He made a policy critique aimed at the GOP election strategy designed to promote Republicans as the only party competent enough to handle terrorist threats. Each day people are discussing Clinton's performance or Wallace's questioning they will also be discussing which president did more to try to kill Bin Laden. Articles will revisit Bush's Aug. 6, 2001*, Presidential Daily Brief in which he was told al-Qaida was planning a major attack and to hijack planes, and producers will reinterview Richard Clarke, who says Bush dropped the ball. (Clarke's book, which is highly critical of the Bush team's pre-9/11 terror efforts, is in the top 10 on Amazon.)

The former president is also offering his wife the kind of help candidates don't usually get until they bring on their vice president. Bill can attack the right and mend fences with liberal activists, which benefits Hillary but also allows her the distance to stay above the fray.

If Bill Clinton becomes a hero of the liberal activists and liberal bloggers, it will be an extraordinary turnaround. Left-leaning bloggers who play a role in their party's politics usually savage him for triangulating and deal-making as president.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was National Security Advisor in the first Bush term responded to the claims that Bush did nothing about bin Laden in their first months in office:


New York Post

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

For the lefty Kool Aid drinkers who don't think Secretary Rice's statement is enough contradiction to Clinton's latest attempt at media manipulation, The American Thinker offers this excellent point by point, well documented post: "Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions."

And this from Dick Morris, who probably knows the real Clinton as well as anyone:

The real Clinton emerges
by Dick Morris
The Hill

From behind the benign facade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.
The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake....

The Clinton interview has generated an enormous amount of media buzz. Our friend Wordsmith at Hammering Sparks from the Anvil gets into the act:


Sunday, September 24, 2006

Clinton Interview on Fox News: UNBELIEVABLE

Early reports describing the interview former President Clinton had with Chris Wallace for Fox News Sunday suggested there would be fireworks, but WOW! What a display!(Transcript here).

A few adjectives come to mind to describe Clinton's performance: Angry, obsessive, mean, paranoid, combative, hypersensitive.

Clinton repeatedly sat up and reached across towards Chris Wallace. At one point Clinton began tapping his finger on Wallace's notes. Iit looked like Chris Wallace might need Secret Service protection.

Clinton attacked not only "right wingers" and "neocons" but Fox News and accused Wallace of doing the bidding of his evil masters by asking him about his failures.

If Clinton had put the same energy and anger he directed at Chris Wallace into fighting terrorism, September 11th might have been prevented.

And Clinton couldn't help but take a few cheap shots at President Bush. Pretty rotten behavior since all members of the Bush family have bent over backwards to be gracious to both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Laura Bush even helped kick off this week's Clinton's Global Initiative, another way the former President can use other people's money to build his own ego and attempt to convince Americans he wasn't such a disaster as President.

Talking about Afghanistan Clinton said "I haven't criticized President Bush." Well that would be the one area where he hasn't violated the longstanding tradition where former President's decline to criticize their successors. And so what does Clinton do next? Criticize President Bush's policy in Afghanistan.

Clinton's performance was another desperate attempt to salvage his legacy from the verdict of history which increasingly sees him as ignoring the terrorist threat and setting the stage for the September 11th attacks.

The Fox News Channel will air the interview again later on Sunday. Check your local listings.

Ten minutes from the interview here:

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Bill Clinton Serves Up More Kool Aid for the Left: "I tried to kill bin Laden."

Deja Vu? "I did not have sex..." Oops! "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him [bin Laden]."

Seems former President Clinton is still steaming about the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" that portrayed his Administration as being incapable of following through in efforts to get bin Laden. Clinton's latest attempt to spin history reminds us of his earlier achievements at damage control while he was in office.

Fox News Sunday has an interview with former President Bill Clinton. If you haven't seen the video teaser, here it is. Watch the body language as Clinton leans toward interviewer Chris Wallace and begins wagging his finger.

Remind you of anything? How about this classic:

In his latest interview Bill Clinton says:"I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him." Ah, well perhaps we need to take a closer look at that statement. Clinton "authorized" the CIA got get groups together. But did he ever give the actual kill order?

Isn't that the whole point "The Path to 9/11" was making? Earlier this month we linked to the 9/11 Commission Report analysis by Texas Rainmaker who highlights sections of chapter four showing just how Clinton "failed" to kill bin Laden. And Sparks from the Anvil previously discussed the book by Buzz Patterson, the White House Military Aide who was in the room and witnessed at least one of these events where President Clinton's Administration broke down in their primary duty to protect the American people.

Here's additional perspective courtesy of the Washington Post:

Legal Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides
By Steve Coll
Washington Post
Sunday, February 22, 2004; Page A17

Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton's national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The debates left both White House counterterrorism analysts and CIA career operators frustrated and at times confused about what kinds of operations could be carried out, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials and lawyers who were directly involved.

There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides....

Clinton had demonstrated his willingness to kill bin Laden, without any pretense of seeking his arrest, when he ordered the cruise missile strikes on an eastern Afghan camp in August 1998, after the CIA obtained intelligence that bin Laden might be there for a meeting of al Qaeda leaders.

Yet the secret legal authorizations Clinton signed after this failed missile strike required the CIA to make a good faith effort to capture bin Laden for trial, not kill him outright.

Beginning in the summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

From Director George J. Tenet on down, the CIA's senior managers wanted the White House lawyers to be crystal clear about what was permissible in the field. They were conditioned by history -- the CIA assassination scandals of the 1970s, the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s -- to be cautious about legal permissions emanating from the White House.
Some CIA managers chafed at the White House instructions. The CIA received "no written word nor verbal order to conduct a lethal action" against bin Laden before Sept. 11, one official involved recalled. "The objective was to render this guy to law enforcement." In these operations, the CIA had to recruit agents "to grab [bin Laden] and bring him to a secure place where we can turn him over to the FBI. . . . If they had said 'lethal action' it would have been a whole different kettle of fish, and much easier."
Berger later recalled his frustration about this hidden debate. Referring to the military option in the two-track policy, he said at a 2002 congressional hearing: "It was no question, the cruise missiles were not trying to capture him. They were not law enforcement techniques."

• This report was adapted from "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001," The Penguin Press (New York: 2004), by Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll, who discussed the book online. (Read the discussion transcript).

Thanks to Hot Air for pointing to this excellent article.

Clinton: I Was Going to Invade Afghanistan Too!

In his interview with Fox News, Bill Clinton didn't stop with the claim that he tried to kill bin Laden. He also claimed he was set to go with an invasion of Afghanistan:

Reuters: "Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan -- which we got after 9/11," Clinton said.

The former president complained at the time the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole attack.

"While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters, refuel at night," he said.
If you read the Washington Post story above, you'll see how the CIA feared being blamed by Clinton for any backlash against plans to kill bin Laden. And so here comes Clinton blaming the CIA for his inability to act against the Taliban.

QandO reminds us that in August 2005 Bill Clinton said:

"I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."

QandO gives us the background of multiple points where the U.S. government and the Clinton Administration knew very well that Al Queda was responsible for attacks against the United States, including the USS Cole. For more, see: page 193 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Mike's America's conclusion:

  • The over-lawyered Clinton Administration, led from the top, was incapable of taking the actions which might have saved American lives.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Republicans Love Puppies.... Democrats?

A great campaign ad from Michael Steele, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland:

More Michael Steele on You Tube.
Steele campaign web site.

What a great Senator he would make! Good luck Michael!

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Latest Ad from: Progress for America

A reminder of the history of terrorism. It didn't just start when President Bush was elected:

More here.

Hugo Chavez Starts U.N. Book Club: Buy Three Anti-American Commie Screeds, Get One Free!

Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro's "mini me, called President Bush: a 'devil', 'liar' and 'tyrant' in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday(full text).m During his dazzling performance, little Hugo found time to pimp for the leading architect of the "blame America" movement Noam Chomsky and his book "Hegemony or Survival America's Quest for Global Dominance" (first chapter, afterwords and book notes here).

If you're not familiar with Noam Chomsky, he's touted as "the L. Ron Hubbard of the New Left," ..."He is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our sensei." Here's the lowdown on this lowdown from FrontPageMagazine.

He's called the intellectual inspiration for Michael Moore and the foundation for what little intellectual underpinnings Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pinko movement are capable of expressing.

This is where the ideas that "Bush is the biggest terrorist" and the "U.S. and fundamentalist Christians are a greater threat" crapola comes from.
chaveziranIt should be no surprise to anyone that the dictators like Chavez, or the even crazier Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad find so much in common with each other and the America haters on the left.

After all, both of these loons invest their oil billions to violently oppress their own people while they put into place a world order that runs directly counter to the ideals of freedom and opportunity that both the United States and United Nations represent. And just as President Bush pointed out in his speech the day before, they blame all their problems on the United States. That message finds a ready audience among the American left where delusion and indulging the prejudice of anti-Bush hatred substitutes for reality.

"Now is the time to not allow our hands to be idle or our souls to rest until we save humanity."
Mini Me, UN Address, September 20, 2006

At some point, lefties who swallow the Kool Aid have to be conflicted by these two self-appointed saviors of mankind. It must be difficult to support a man like Chavez who plans to build a natural gas pipeline up to 9,000 km cutting right through the heart of the Brazilian rain forest. Chavez's support for Iran's development of nuclear weapons technology also gets barely a peep from those who claim that U.S. nuclear weapons and environmental exploitation are threats to the planet.

And just as environmental and anti-nuclear concerns are swept away, the leftwing guardians of morality willfully ignore the Chavez record on human rights.
The bible for the left when it criticizes the U.S. in Iraq or at the terrorist detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay is Human Rights Watch. Yet, If you look at the summary page for Human Rights Watch regarding Venezuela, it sounds more like every bad thing the left has ever said about President Bush is true instead in Venezuela. Here are some highlights from Human Rights Watch:

In March of this year I asked "If Bush is Hitler, What is Venezuela's Hugo Chavez?" Beatings and REAL torture of political opponents, firings from state jobs, restricting freedom of the press, freedom of opposition parties and stacking the courts. Peter Mork gives the details in Real Clear Politics.

You can bank on the moral equivalence crowd to insist somehow that the U.S. is just as bad. But they won't find a comparable example of REAL torture or other civil rights abuses of U.S. citizens. Heck, we're still waiting for ONE example of a citizen whose civil liberties have been infringed by the Patriot Act. Surely, by now, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and the handwringers who would handcuff our efforts to keep us safe would have found at least ONE.

The problem with the left today is the same problem they faced with delusion towards other threats to freedom. Whether it's the Nazis or communists, you'll find a leftie who would rather embrace the monsters of our past and future than confront that evil and unite with their fellow countrymen.

I'm reminded of the harsh and biting words of truth spoken so many years ago by founding father Samuel Adams:

'If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.'

Samuel Adams: (American patriot and Politician of the American Revolution. 1722-1803)

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

President Bush to U.N.: Live Up to Your Founding Principles.

Today, President Bush delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. It was not a speech to the diplomats representing UN member nations, but an address that spoke directly to the people in countries in the Middle East and beyond. This direct approach is a reminder that many of those in the room where the speech was given represent the stagnation and failure of regimes which deny their citizens the opportunity to experience freedom and liberty promised in the founding principles of the U.N.

Here's an excerpt of the speech:


President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly
United Nations
New York, New York
White House Transcript:

...Last week, America and the world marked the fifth anniversary of the attacks that filled another September morning with death and suffering. On that terrible day, extremists killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, including citizens of dozens of nations represented right here in this chamber. Since then, the enemies of humanity have continued their campaign of murder. Al Qaeda and those inspired by its extremist ideology have attacked more than two dozen nations. And recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.

Five years ago, I stood at this podium and called on the community of nations to defend civilization and build a more hopeful future. This is still the great challenge of our time; it is the calling of our generation. This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.

The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world." One of the authors of this document was a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik, who would go on to become President of this Assembly. Mr. Malik insisted that these principles apply equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world that was his home.

In the nearly six decades since that document was approved, we have seen the forces of freedom and moderation transform entire continents. Sixty years after a terrible war, Europe is now whole, free, and at peace -- and Asia has seen freedom progress and hundreds of millions of people lifted out of desperate poverty. The words of the Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were written. As liberty flourishes, nations grow in tolerance and hope and peace. And we're seeing that bright future begin to take root in the broader Middle East.
Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings. And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom. For many across the broader Middle East, this is the dismal choice presented every day.

Every civilized nation, including those in the Muslim world, must support those in the region who are offering a more hopeful alternative. We know that when people have a voice in their future, they are less likely to blow themselves up in suicide attacks. We know that when leaders are accountable to their people, they are more likely to seek national greatness in the achievements of their citizens, rather than in terror and conquest. So we must stand with democratic leaders and moderate reformers across the broader Middle East. We must give them voice to the hopes of decent men and women who want for their children the same things we want for ours. We must seek stability through a free and just Middle East where the extremists are marginalized by millions of citizens in control of their own destinies.

Today, I'd like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East: My country desires peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false, and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam, but we will protect our people from those who pervert Islam to sow death and destruction. Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promote the peace.

BushUN2When President Bush recited these words from the UN Charter: "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world" it's pretty clear that too many nations represented in the room have undertaken to either redefine those words or ignore them altogether in a way which makes current U.S. discussions over the Geneva Conventions pale by comparison.

At this point, President Bush directly addressed not specific nations, but the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Darfur and the Holy Lands of Israel and Palestine:

...To the people of Lebanon: Last year, you inspired the world when you came out into the streets to demand your independence from Syrian dominance. You drove Syrian forces from your country and you reestablished democracy. Since then, you have been tested by the fighting that began with Hezbollah's unprovoked attacks on Israel. Many of you have seen your homes and communities caught in crossfire. We see your suffering, and the world is helping you to rebuild your country, and helping you deal with the armed extremists who are undermining your democracy by acting as a state within a state.
To the people of Iran: The United States respects you; we your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture, and your many contributions to civilization. You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential. The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons. The United Nations has passed a clear resolution requiring that the regime in Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program. We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom -- and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.

To the people of Syria: Your land is home to a great people with a proud tradition of learning and commerce. Today your rulers have allowed your country to become a crossroad for terrorism. In your midst, Hamas and Hezbollah are working to destabilize the region, and your government is turning your country into a tool of Iran. This is increasing your country's isolation from the world. Your government must choose a better way forward by ending its support for terror, and living in peace with your neighbors, and opening the way to a better life for you and your families.

To the people of Darfur: You have suffered unspeakable violence, and my nation has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. Yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid -- and we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you. The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust.
The world must also stand up for peace in the Holy Land. I'm committed to two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side-by-side in peace and security. I'm committed to a Palestinian state that has territorial integrity and will live peacefully with the Jewish state of Israel.
Many brave men and women have made the commitment to peace. Yet extremists in the region are stirring up hatred and trying to prevent these moderate voices from prevailing.

This struggle is unfolding in the Palestinian territories. Earlier this year, the Palestinian people voted in a free election. The leaders of Hamas campaigned on a platform of ending corruption and improving the lives of the Palestinian people, and they prevailed. The world is waiting to see whether the Hamas government will follow through on its promises, or pursue an extremist agenda.
Recently a courageous group of Arab and Muslim intellectuals wrote me a letter. In it, they said this: "The shore of reform is the only one on which any lights appear, even though the journey demands courage and patience and perseverance." The United Nations was created to make that journey possible. Together we must support the dreams of good and decent people who are working to transform a troubled region -- and by doing so, we will advance the high ideals on which this institution was founded.

Handwringing Won't Win Wars

Suicidal Hand-Wringing
By Thomas Sowell
Real Clear Politics

When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing. But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.

The issue has been brought to a head by the efforts of Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham to get us to apply the rules of the Geneva convention to cutthroats who respect no Geneva convention and are not covered by the Geneva convention.

If this was just a case of a handful of headstrong senators, who want us to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while we are being kicked in the groin and slashed with knives, that would be bad enough. But the issue of applying the Geneva convention to people who were never covered by the Geneva convention originated in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, and Congress has specifically taken away the jurisdiction of the courts in cases involving the detention of illegal combatants, such as terrorists, who are not -- repeat, not -- prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention.

The Supreme Court ignored that law. Apparently everyone must obey the law except judges. Congress has the power to impeach judges, including Supreme Court justices, but apparently not the guts. Runaway judges are not going to stop until they get stopped.

In short, the clash between Senator McCain, et al., and the President of the United States is more than just another political clash. It is part of a far more general, and ultimately suicidal, confusion and hand-wringing in the face of mortal dangers.

The argument is made that we must respect the Geneva convention because, otherwise, our own soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment when they become prisoners of war.

Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?

No one has suggested that we disregard the Geneva convention for people covered by the Geneva convention. The question is whether a lawless court shall seize the power to commit this nation to rules never agreed to by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the power to make international treaties.

The much larger question -- the question of survival -- is whether we have the clarity and the courage to go all-out in self-defense against those who are going all-out to destroy us, even at the cost of their own lives.

There are too many signs that we do not and those signs are visible not only in our political and judicial institutions but throughout American society and western civilization.

Sheltered for years from terrorist dangers that we so much feared after the September 11th attacks, many have come to act as if those dangers do not exist and that we now have the luxury of dismantling the means by which they have been held at bay this long.

In a country where all sorts of individuals and organizations tap into our personal computers and our computerized medical, financial and other records, some have gone ballistic over the fact that the federal government tries to keep track of who is being phoned by international terrorist organizations.

No amount of security precautions can protect us from all the thousands of ways in which terrorists can strike at times and places of their own choosing -- and eventually strike with nuclear weapons. Our only hope is to get advance information from those we capture as to where other terrorists are and how they operate.

Squeamishness about how this is done is not a sign of higher morality but of irresponsibility in the face of mortal dangers.

I wonder if liberals would like to sign a pledge that should a nuclear device be set to go off in their city and we have a terrorist in custody who knows where it is the lefties don't want us to be mean to him? Should we waterboard him or just hand him the room service menu for Guantanamo Bay while L.A. or New York glows?

Who Lied About Iraq?

Shamelessly lifted from Hard Astarboard:


Just click the box above and open your mind.

And while you peruse the offerings on Google, play this video in the background. Democrats in their own words.

GOP latest video here. GOP video archives here.

Democrats scream that they were "misled" by faulty intelligence? Pretty amazing that many of these statements go back to 1998 when George Bush was Governor of Texas. Quite a feat for an "idiot" "frat boy." that he was able to manipulate intelligence and sucker every Democrat from Bill Clinton on down.
Former Clinton Director For Defense Policy And Arms Control, National Security Council Staff, Peter Feaver:
"How Could Even The All-Powerful Neocons Have Manipulated The Intelligence Estimates Of The Clinton Administration, French Intelligence, British Intelligence, German Intelligence And All The Other 'Co-Conspirators' Who Concurred On The Fundamentals Of The Bush Assessment?"
(Peter D. Feaver, "The Fog Of WMD," The Washington Post, 1/28/04)

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Happy Birthday U.S. Constitution


The U.S. Constitution was approved by the majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention on September 17th, 1787. The document was then referred to the states where ratification from nine states was necessary before the Constitution was enacted. Above is Delaware's official copy of the U.S. Constitution (full size image here). Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution. It did so on December 7,1787 by a unanimous vote of 30-0. More on the ratification of the Constitution from the National Archives.

I was present in Philadelphia for the bicentennial observance of the Constitution's birthday in 1987. The day holds a special significance for me as it is my birthday as well. Warren Burger, the late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court was a key organizer of the event and it turns out it was his birthday as well.

A year later, as I was leaving the White House on Constitution Day, I happened across the former Chief Justice outside another building. It must have given him a shock when a perfect stranger walked by and wished him a "happy birthday." A few years later I was introduced to the Chief by a neighbor. I didn't mention our first meeting.

Mike's America Poet Laureate Offers Greetings

Scarlett, the Mike's America Poet Laureate offered birthday greetings for this day. Modesty (what little I have) requires me to edit the last line and defer to the foundation of our freedom:

A Day to Remember

Why does the sun shine so bright.
Why do the flowers stand tall.
Why are the birds so happy in flight.
Why are we having a ball.

I think I know. I think you know.
I'll tell you without delay.
Good wishes we will all bestow.
Because it is the Constitution's Birthday.

Friday, September 15, 2006

President Bush to Congress: Either Make Terrorist Interrogations Legal or They Will Stop

"It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children."

President Bush describes the necessity for congress to pass legislation that allows aggressive interrogation of terrorists to save American lives:
Press Conference of the President
The Rose Garden
White House Transcript:

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

He gave us information that helped uncover al Qaeda cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons.

We've also learned information from the CIA program that has helped stop other plots, including attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East Africa, or American consulate in Pakistan, or Britain's Heathrow Airport. This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country. It's been invaluable to our country, and it's invaluable to our allies.

Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. Making us -- giving us information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives. In other words, it's vital. That's why I asked Congress to pass legislation so that our professionals can go forward, doing the duty we expect them to do. Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question. That's another reason I went to Congress. We need this legislation to save it.

I am asking Congress to pass a clear law with clear guidelines based on the Detainee Treatment Act that was strongly supported by Senator John McCain. There is a debate about the specific provisions in my bill, and we'll work with Congress to continue to try to find common ground. I have one test for this legislation, I'm going to answer one question as this legislation proceeds, and it's this: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue. That's what I'm going to ask.
Q Thank you very much, sir. What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings? And Senator McCain says your plan will put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's -- and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

The first question that we've got to ask is, do we need the program? I believe we do need the program. And I detailed in a speech in the East Room what the program has yield -- in other words, the kind of information we get when we interrogate people, within the law. You see, sometimes you can pick up information on the battlefield; sometimes you can pick it up through letters; but sometimes you actually have to question the people who know the strategy and plans of the enemy. And in this case, we questioned people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we believe ordered the attacks on 9/11, or Ramzi Binalshibh, or Abu Zabeda -- cold-blooded killers who were part of planning the attack that killed 3,000 people. And we need to be able to question them, because it helps yield information, the information necessary for us to be able to do our job.

Now, the Court said that you've got to live under Article III of the Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people, and they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we have asked to do.

And we believe a good way to go is to use the amendment that we worked with John McCain on, called the Detainee Treatment Act, as the basis for clarity for people we would ask to question the enemy. In other words, it is a way to bring U.S. law into play. It provides more clarity for our professionals. And that's what these people expect. These are decent citizens who don't want to break the law.

Now, this idea that somehow we've got to live under international treaties, you know -- and that's fine, we do, but oftentimes the United States passes law to clarify obligations under international treaty. And what I'm concerned about is if we don't do that, then it's very conceivable our professionals could be held to account based upon court decisions in other countries. And I don't believe Americans want that. I believe Americans want us to protect the country, to have clear standards for our law enforcement intelligence officers, and give them the tools necessary to protect us within the law.

It's an important debate, Steve. It really is. It's a debate that really is going to define whether or not we can protect ourselves. I will tell you this, I've spent a lot of time on this issue, as you can imagine, and I've talked to professionals, people I count on for advice -- these are people that are going to represent those on the front line of protecting this country. They're not going forward with the program. They're not going -- the professionals will not step up unless there's clarity in the law. So Congress has got a decision to make: Do you want the program to go forward or not?

I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America.
if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.

Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.
The "Dave" who kept interupting the President is none other than the obnoxious David Gregory, who works for NBC, but must certainly be getting paid by Howard Dean. After answering his question in detail, The President attempted to move on to allow other reporters to ask their questions. But Gregory must feel like he's the only reporter in the room. He demanded that his viewpoint was too important.

Here's just a snatch of what he said:

"But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends -- "
"No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point -- "
"Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that? "
"This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your -- "
"This will not endanger U.S. troops -- "

That's FIVE additional questions that he attempted to ask. President Bush gave some additional responses but everytime he tried to move to the next reporter Gregory would interupt again. Even Sam Donaldson, who was legendary for shouting questions at Ronald Reagan wouldn't stoop to such unprofessional tactics.

Chicken Hawk Express found the video of this exchange at Newsbusters.org and yours truly posted it on You Tube:

And now, a political question:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd also like to ask an election-related question. The Republican Leader in the House this week said that Democrats -- he wonders if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people. Do you agree with him, sir? And do you think that's the right tone to set for this upcoming campaign, or do you think he owes somebody an apology?

THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't have exactly put it that way. But I do believe there's a difference of attitude. I mean, take the Patriot Act, for example -- an interesting debate that took place, not once, but twice, and the second time around there was a lot of concern about whether or not the Patriot Act was necessary to protect the country. There's no doubt in my mind we needed to make sure the Patriot Act was renewed to tear down walls that exist so that intelligence people could serve -- could share information with criminal people. It wasn't the case, Mark, before 9/11.

In other words, if somebody had some intelligence that they thought was necessary to protect the people, they couldn't share that with somebody who's job it was to rout people out of society to prevent them from attacking. It made no sense. And so there was a healthy debate, and we finally got the Patriot Act extended after it was passed right after 9/11. To me it was an indication of just a difference of approach.
Just as we did in the last two posts at Mike's America, President Bush reminds voters that we have a choice this fall between two different approaches to keep Americans safe and fight the war on terror. And the approach offered by President Bush and the Republicans (well most of them) has saved countless American lives and prevented further attacks in this country.

Politically Correct Handling of Gitmo Detainees Invites Further Attacks

We're told that if we observe a standard of treatment for the murdering terrorist scum held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba that is above that required by International Law that the terrorists still on the loose will respond by respecting the human rights of Americans and others they come across. So far, it hasn't happened that way.

Further Adventures of Indigo Red reminds us kind of monsters we are dealing with. FAIR cites the gruesome torture and mutilation of Private Kristian Menchaca and Private Thomas L. Tucker whose bodies were found in Iraq with their mouths of their severed heads stuffed with their mutilated genitals.

Meanwhile, playing loud music in a cold room is considered torture to the animals who would do commit these atrocities and brag about it.

And when was the last time you saw a report in the world media about the condition of prisons throughout the world where there was no health care, nothing but bread and water, no sanitation???

Too bad we can't just pay Cuba to take our detainees to the other side of the fence at Gitmo and treat them like the Cuban librarians who die in Cuban gulags for the offense of lending banned books.

Here's more:
A Deadly Kindness
by Richard Minitier
New York Post:

...The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.

The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.

Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees. No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.

What if a detainee confesses a weakness (like fear of the dark) to a doctor that might be useful to interrogators, I asked the doctor in charge, would he share that information with them? "My job is not to make interrogations more efficient," he said firmly. He cited doctor-patient privacy. (He also asked that his name not be printed, citing the potential for al Qaeda retaliation.)

Food is strictly halal and averages 4,200 calories per day. (The guards eat the same chow as the detainees, unless they venture to one of the on-base fast-food joints.) Most prisoners have gained weight.

Much has been written about the elaborate and unprecedented appeal process. Detainees have their cases reviewed once a year and get rights roughly equivalent to criminals held in domestic prisons. I asked a military legal adviser: In what previous war were captured enemy combatants eligible for review before the war ended? None, he said.

America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa. There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.

Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Whose Side Are Democrats On? Part II

Tanker Brothers found this video of Matt Lauer interviewing President Bush regarding the aggressive CIA interrogation methods that helped us stop multiple attacks against U.S. citizens:

Matt just doesn't seem to get it does he? President Bush is doing everything he can to protect the lives of Americans, like Matt and his family. Yet all Matt can do is nit pick.

Last week, President Bush described in detail how effective the CIA interrogations of terrorists has been and hinted at the attacks which were thwarted.

OK to Shot Terrorists. Just Don't Play Red Hot Chili Peppers

The New York Treason gives further details of the capture of Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002. Zubaydah had been wounded in battle and would have died of his wounds without the medical care provided by the United States. Later, Zubaydah was placed naked in an airconditioned room while music from the band Red Hot Chili Peppers was played very loud.

He cracked and provided the information which led us to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks.

Some torture. Meanwhile, just last week, the Iraqi government took control of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, site of the panty-"torture" the sensational story which was beamed around the world for months. Just one problem with the handover: some of the prisoners begged to be allowed to go with the Americans who "treated us better," said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism. Wordsmith has the full story.

Contrast President Bush with Senator Reid

As we did with the two videos in the post below, let's contrast again the efforts that President Bush is undertaking to keep us safe. Efforts which have WORKED!

Contrast them with the attitude of Democrats expressed so well in this video with Senator Reid standing with Democrats from both the House and the Senate:

Whose Side are YOU On?

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Whose Side Are Democrats On?

Now that the September 11th anniversary is past, it's time to return to politics and ask: "whose side are you on?"

When the fanatics in Islam demand we "embrace Islam or be slaughtered" how will you answer?

These might be difficult questions for some Democrats. After all, they've been indoctrinated into the groupspeak of moral equivalence and multiculturalism. Any absolute endorsement of the American ideal over the vision of Islamic fanatics/fascists/terrorists/evildoers/radicals (pick one) would violate those principles.

But Osama bin Laden made it clear that U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East and abandonment of Israel to it's fate at the hands of the Islamic Fascists wasn't enough to stop the carnage. The stakes were raised when Bin Laden also demanded that Americans abandon the U.S. Constitution and submit completely to Isalm and "discard[]all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion [Allah] sent down to His Prophet Muhammad" and replace U.S. law with Sharia law as interpreted by bin Laden.

The Iranian President, a Shiite, made the same invitation to Islam as his Sunni counterpart, bin Laden in a letter to President Bush.

Other than Cindy Sheehan and the most vile leftists, I doubt there are many Democrats or liberals who would submit to the will of Islamic fascists. So why then do so many Democrats spend more time fighting against the efforts of their countrymen dedicated to winning the war against the evil of Islamic fascism than they have in condemning and combating terrorism?

It's been said before that if Democats in office during the Clinton years had devoted half the time to combating terrorism and getting bin Laden that they have recently invested in a pitiful attempt to stop the film "The Path to 9/11" from being seen we might never have suffered the attacks of September 11th.

They say great minds think alike. So when the American Thinker published similar musings it got my attention. Here's an excerpt:

The Moral Emptiness of the Left
By James Lewis
The American Thinker

Life consists of choices, and no choice is graver than war or peace. The 9/11 assault on New York City and Washington, D.C. posed such a choice. Should we go to war against bin Laden and the Taliban? The answer had to be “Yes” or “No.” Those who deny that the President of the United States was confronted with that choice are not morally serious. They do not live in this world.
Once the Taliban were thrown out, the Administration faced another hard choice. Two hateful regimes were known to support the kind of terrorism that endangered this country. Dealing with them was going to be much more difficult.
[N]o sane person could doubt that Saddam had terrorist connections, and that he tried to get his hands on nukes as far back as the late 1970s, when his first nuclear reactor was built by the French. So the question had to be faced: Is Afghanistan enough? Or should we also knock down Saddam?

Now this is the real world—not the dream world of those who believe they know all the answers. The United States faced another agonizing choice, where every avenue had its risks. Knocking over Saddam was full of danger and a failure to act was also dangerous. Passivity wouldn’t fix this. Pacifism wouldn’t solve it. You had to do something or get off the pot. Either way you could be wrong.
Well, here we are again. Uncertainty applies just as much to Islamofascist threats. Everything we do (or fail to do) involves gambles. And as much as the higher-ups of the CIA deserve criticism for constantly back-stabbing the Bush Administration, they cannot be blamed for failing to penetrate what Winston Churchill called “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” No intelligence agency can simply use magic to pull reliable facts from a welter of imponderables. It hasn’t been done. It probably can’t be done. You certainly can’t bet your country on it.

The Left, the media, and the Democrats are still steeped in denial of those simple, stubborn facts. Maybe reality is just too frightening for them. Whatever it is, to live in such denial is to surrender any claim to moral seriousness. It utterly disqualifies one to be a decision maker. We can thank our lucky stars that Bush, Blair and Cheney are adults.
The greatest disappointment since 9/11/01 has been the total moral vacuity of the Left—a complete and utter nullity—both here and in Europe. Today, five years later, psychological denial still rules the day, and the few Democrats who raise their heads above the screaming mob are chased out, like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

One-third of American voters are still being suckered by the left-wing media, who live in some sort of Toon-Town where you can Have your Cake and Eat it Too, where Lunches are Free and Health Care is Too, and where there are no ideological killer movements in this world, and to achieve World Peace you just have to point your finger at the “Warmongers” and scream really loud. The Left is now populated by “mewling, puking infants,” as William Shakespeare put it, utterly lacking an understanding of the world as it is.

It is a sad sight to behold. We need unity, not denial. As it is, the Left has become a Fifth Column, fighting the civilized world and busily explaining away danger. The New York Times can get away with sabotaging our fight for survival against the worst fascist movement since you-know-who. The Left is even descending to Nazi slogans and scapegoating Jews. A generation ago, who would have believed it?

Yet the world keeps moving. Yesterday’s decisions are past, and we have to live with their consequences. It is five years since the outrages of 9/11. The elected Iraqi government has Saddam on trial in Baghdad, but Iran is speeding toward nuclear weapons. For almost three decades the Mullahs have been shouting “Death to Israel! Death to America!” at the top of their lungs—- ever since a feckless Jimmy Carter allowed Khomeini to take over the geostrategic fulcrum of ancient Persia.

And liberals are still telling us that Tehran doesn’t really mean it. How do they know that?

In the loudmouth department Ahmadinejad even out-does Saddam. The AP just quoted him as saying:

“You must bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation … If you do not return to monotheism and worshipping god and refuse to accept justice then you will burn in the fire of the nations’ fury”, Ahmadinejad said.
“I officially announce that Iran has joined the world’s nuclear countries.”

We can forget about national unity in facing Tehran, too. The demented Left will never understand that we must make our choices—again—with gaps in our knowledge. Because the Mullahs are expert at psychological warfare—lying—we will not know what decisions are right for a long time. All we know for sure is that the mewling, puking infants of the Left will blame any adults in sight, for the anxieties of having to live in the real world.

And yet, who would choose to put the screaming infants in charge?

Taking the rehtorical stick to the mewling pukes of the left a bit more strongly, Confederate Yankee offers the following in Day of Denial:

Day of Denial
Confederate Yankee:
... Five years later, American Democrats have more hate in their hearts for their own President than they do for the terrorists that killed almost 3,000 of their countrymen. They refuse to confront terrorism. Some would rather blame America and the world they think they understand, rather than face up to the fact that the world we all thought we knew was just an illusion. They are in catastrophic psychological denial, and cannot face the fact that "the other" they have spent their lives providing moral equivalence for were the ones who attacked our country.

It is so much easier to blame Bush than face the fact that we were attacked because we are the beacon of freedom for the world, and the greatest threat to radical Islam. It is so much easier to blame Bush, than realize that decades of denial led us to that horrific moment. If they can only blame Bush for that day—and every day since that their worldview has been shown to be vapid, self-serving, and a fraud—then their denial can go on, and "reality-based community" can continue to live in a world that has refuses to learn, to adapt, to change.

The Left refuses to learn from 9/11 and knows no way forward. It is why they grasp so insistently to the past, clinging to what was and what might have been, instead of moving forward to forcefully determine what should be and what must be done to secure our freedoms for the future. It is they that childishly insist for the "Perfect War" theory, stating a belief that any war not fought with perfect foresight and accuracy is wrong, while knowing securely no war has ever met their standard.
They show that they hate the present and don't understand the lessons of the recent past. They strive for stagnation and stasis and blaming ourselves, but they offer no hope for the future.

They blame Americans for radical Islamic plans for world domination. They vilify our troops instead of the terrorists they fight. They attack western governments fighting for freedom instead of eastern governments and the terrorists they sponsor that are fighting for oppression and destruction of our way of life.

The Left offers America and true liberalism a death sentence, seeking to repeat the failed policies of 30 years in denial.

We will not listen to them again.
That, perhaps, is their greatest fear of all.

A Simple Choice on November 7th:

In seven weeks, the American electorate will be offered a simple choice between two clear and competing ideas. We can either choose to support the party which takes efforts to fight the war against Islamic Fascists and protect the American people seriously or we can elect Representatives from the other party whose confusion and oft-described ambivalence towards those issues are clear.

Two short videos (even for you dialup dinosaurs) illustrate the difference in attitude and perspective:


Whose side are YOU on?

Reminder: Only a few weeks remain to register new voters or re-register voters who may have moved since the last election.
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator