Web video 'shows US soldiers' bodies being burned'
An al-Qaida-linked group posted a web video today purporting to show the bodies of two American soldiers being dragged behind a truck, then set on fire in apparent retaliation for the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by US troops from the same unit.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council – an umbrella organisation of insurgent groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq – posted another video in June showing the soldiers’ mutilated bodies, and claiming it killed them.
It was impossible to identify the bodies, but the footage was believed to be of Pfc Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Pfc Thomas Tucker, 25, who went missing after being attacked by insurgents on June 16 at a checkpoint south of Baghdad. Their remains were found three days later, and the US military said they had been mutilated.
The video showed masked men dragging the corpses, first by hand and then behind a truck, beheading one of them and then setting them on fire. Below the graphic footage is a subtitle: “The two soldiers belong to the same brigade of the soldier who raped our sister in Mahmoudiya.”
The US military has charged five soldiers, including two sergeants, in connection to the March 12 alleged rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza in the Youssifiyah area and the killing of her parents and a younger sister.
P.S. if anyone has a link to this film please post it in the comments.
Terror
Geneva Conventions
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Hezbollah rearmed, Nasrallah tells rally
BEIRUT -- In the mix of theater and pulpit that makes for a Hezbollah rally, the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, appeared yesterday before hundreds of thousands of supporters for the first time since its war with Israel ended last month
His message was defiant, with the bravado the crowd expected: Hezbollah is stronger than before the war, it has more than 20,000 rockets, and its fighters have replenished their arms.
Kamal Ribai, a soft-spoken businessman in the crowd with his son and two daughters, thrust his fist into the air. ``At your command, Nasrallah!" he shouted, as six balloons floated carrying Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.
``This is all of Lebanon you see around you," Ribai said confidently, waving his hand. ``It's all of Lebanon. Look at it."
``The real majority," he said, referring to Hezbollah and its allies. ``As long as they stay united, nothing will go wrong."
Hezbollah's call for the rally this week unleashed a wave of anxiety and anticipation in Beirut. Some saw Nasrallah's appearance as a way to reinforce the notion of victory to his supporters, who bore the brunt of a 33-day conflict. Others saw it, more darkly, as a first step toward delivering the state to Hezbollah.
Ribai talked of Nasrallah with a certain awe. Nasrallah's son, Ribai pointed out, had been killed fighting Israeli troops occupying southern Lebanon in 1997.
``Somebody who sacrificed his own son's life? He did everything he could for this country. He asks you to come celebrate this victory. Why would I think twice about it?" he said.
Some people flashed V-for-victory signs. Others joined chants. ``O God, O God, protect Nasrallah!"
``No army in the world will be able to make us drop the weapons from our hands!" Nasrallah shouted.
Terror
His message was defiant, with the bravado the crowd expected: Hezbollah is stronger than before the war, it has more than 20,000 rockets, and its fighters have replenished their arms.
Kamal Ribai, a soft-spoken businessman in the crowd with his son and two daughters, thrust his fist into the air. ``At your command, Nasrallah!" he shouted, as six balloons floated carrying Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.
``This is all of Lebanon you see around you," Ribai said confidently, waving his hand. ``It's all of Lebanon. Look at it."
``The real majority," he said, referring to Hezbollah and its allies. ``As long as they stay united, nothing will go wrong."
Hezbollah's call for the rally this week unleashed a wave of anxiety and anticipation in Beirut. Some saw Nasrallah's appearance as a way to reinforce the notion of victory to his supporters, who bore the brunt of a 33-day conflict. Others saw it, more darkly, as a first step toward delivering the state to Hezbollah.
Ribai talked of Nasrallah with a certain awe. Nasrallah's son, Ribai pointed out, had been killed fighting Israeli troops occupying southern Lebanon in 1997.
``Somebody who sacrificed his own son's life? He did everything he could for this country. He asks you to come celebrate this victory. Why would I think twice about it?" he said.
Some people flashed V-for-victory signs. Others joined chants. ``O God, O God, protect Nasrallah!"
``No army in the world will be able to make us drop the weapons from our hands!" Nasrallah shouted.
Terror
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Jesse Jackson gives an Interview to Al jazeera
'Prisoner swap will defuse tension'
By Christian Henderson in Beirut
Tuesday 05 September 2006, 9:05 Makka Time, 6:05 GMT
On August 28, Reverend Jesse Jackson, the US civil rights leader, met Lebanese government and Hezbollah officials as part of his bid to secure the release of three Israeli soldiers seized before the July 12 eruption of hostilities along the Lebanon-Israel border.
Jackson, who is meeting political and religious leaders in the Middle East as the head of a 10-member ecumenical delegation, also held talks with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, and Hamas leader Khaled al-Meshaal in Damascus.
Jackson is a veteran at mediating between warring parties. During a 1990 visit to Baghdad when Saddam Hussein was president, he managed to secure the release of 700 foreign women and children after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
He has also made successful mediation efforts during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and in Cuba, where he convinced Fidel Castro to release 48 political prisoners.
Aljazeera.net: What was the purpose of your trip?
Jesse Jackson: There are four areas of focus. Firstly is to expand the ceasefire, because there are some who want round two [of the war]. We want the ceasefire to hold.
Secondly to get the UN troops in and to support the [UN Security Council resolution] 1701, and there is the issue of the [Israeli] sea and air blockade. Fourthly, the issue of those who are held captive.
They are four dimensions of those captives. There are the three Israeli soldiers but there are also some Syrians which is of interest to Syrian President Assad, there are some Lebanese that Hezbollah has interest in, and there are some Palestinians that Hamas is interested in. So it's a four-legged stool.
Who have you been meeting on your tour? How much progress have you made in talks?
I met President Assad last Sunday for two hours and then we met in private for two hours more on Sunday night. I was appealing to Syria to play a role in these four concerns. President Assad expressed his commitment to support our mission.
That night we met with the head of Hamas [Khaled Meshaal] in Syria. It was a very significant meeting it lasted much of the night. He said the Israeli prisoner in Gaza [Gilad Shalit] was alive and he is concerned with a swap of a thousand people at least and about the Palestinian elected officials who have been arrested [by Israeli forces].
We met with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Lebanese Prime Minister Saniora; we met with [Minister of Energy Mohammed] Fneish, the member of the cabinet, to get their interest, their concerns.
We met with the Israelis we met with [former Israeli prime minister] Shimon Peres, we met with the families of the prisoners, we met with the religious leaders.
Are you optimistic that you can negotiate a prisoner swap?
I don't know, I am hopeful. I do know that the longer they are held here the more they become a magnet for round two, not just a bargaining chip.
I do know that the two prisoners have been a tremendous burden for Lebanon, which bears the burden of them being here. Lebanon will be the victim if tensions re-escalate. It stands to reason for me that Hezbollah with minimum action can get maximum results.
What I heard from Fneish and Meshaal is their support they have for this. What's clear on the Israeli side is that they want verification of some physical status, some life signs that the soldiers are alive.
We asked the Hezbollah leader for a sign of life through the Red Cross or maybe by video. They tend to want the whole of this status issue as a negotiating tool.
The reason I appeal to them to show a sign of life is because it will jumpstart discussions.
I am convinced that the longer they are held, they cease to be a bargaining chip and become a pretext for expanding the second round of violence, because there are those who feel that Israel stopped too quickly [its Lebanon offensive]; that the error was not in the assumption of the war but in the tactics.
I think that negotiating releasing the captives would defuse that second round and reduce tensions.
Do you think US foreign policy has played a sufficient role in stopping this conflict? Do you think the Bush administration should increase its diplomatic efforts?
One of the great tragedies is that American foreign policy is being exposed as weak, because by not talking it has eliminated its capacity to help determine the outcome.
There is no talk with Iran, no talk with Syria or Hezbollah or Hamas. These states who are getting involved are trying to gain the advantage of an alliance with Iran for example.
Syria is too big a force to be isolated, Syria shares borders with Iraq, Syria has Iraqi refugees, Palestinian refugees, Lebanese refugees, and it's too strategic to be isolated.
The US is locked into dead-end diplomacy. It is pre-conditions for talks that will not allow talks. You should talk unconditionally. But if you don't talk you cannot enforce the outcome, so the US has opted for the sideline.
On the basis of the meetings that you have had with leaders how optimistic are you for prospects of peace in the region?
I think most of people have been devastated. People lost lives and money and credibility and strength. Round two could be even worse and could move closer to Syria and Iran which would mean World War Three, so the stakes are so terribly high.
I think that if negotiations opened up if the two [prisoners] are released and if there was enough global pressure. Israel would win; Hezbollah would win so all of those are very crucial signs.
What about other US foreign policy issues? What are your views on the US-led occupation of Iraq?
The presence of US soldiers is a magnet for the continuation of the war. America's presence becomes a cause celebre. After all, America is there as an occupying force so we could have the whole region in flames over our presence.
We are not seen as saving Iraq from Saddam Hussein we are seen invading and occupying Iraq for our own agenda and this is being deeply and violently resented though out the entire region.
We went there on the pretext of protecting America from imminent threat ... weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida connection we didn't find that. Then we shifted the mission from saving ourselves from threat to saving Iraqis from Hussein and for democracy.
We shifted our mission and it's odd when you fight a war of this sort for democracy in Iraq and then not recognise the political parties of Hezbollah and Hamas. This is a real contradiction.
Are you concerned about the state of civil liberties in the US?
The war has been a pretext to reduce civil liberties and basic freedoms. You have warlike powers, which mean you suspend freedoms. Then they plan wars based upon an unsound assumption. We have lost money, like $250 million a day, lives, between 2000 and 3000 Americans and 50,000 plus Iraqis, we have lost honour.
America came out of World War II as the most revered nation, as the saviour of people from fascism and occupation. Then we became seen as the aggressor, we bombed Grenada, bombed Panama there was pre-emptive strike in Iraq and the Kyoto treaty.
Within the American public there is some tension. The greatness of America is that you have the right to fight. We have the right to protest, the right to vote and come [November's midterm] elections you might see some real protest at the polls.
This election in Connecticut [which saw the ousting of pro-Iraq war Democrat Joe Lieberman] - this represents a very fundamental change. This is very important. We are revisiting how we view the world community and how it views us.
Jesse Jackson
Aljazeera
By Christian Henderson in Beirut
Tuesday 05 September 2006, 9:05 Makka Time, 6:05 GMT
On August 28, Reverend Jesse Jackson, the US civil rights leader, met Lebanese government and Hezbollah officials as part of his bid to secure the release of three Israeli soldiers seized before the July 12 eruption of hostilities along the Lebanon-Israel border.
Jackson, who is meeting political and religious leaders in the Middle East as the head of a 10-member ecumenical delegation, also held talks with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, and Hamas leader Khaled al-Meshaal in Damascus.
Jackson is a veteran at mediating between warring parties. During a 1990 visit to Baghdad when Saddam Hussein was president, he managed to secure the release of 700 foreign women and children after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
He has also made successful mediation efforts during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and in Cuba, where he convinced Fidel Castro to release 48 political prisoners.
Aljazeera.net: What was the purpose of your trip?
Jesse Jackson: There are four areas of focus. Firstly is to expand the ceasefire, because there are some who want round two [of the war]. We want the ceasefire to hold.
Secondly to get the UN troops in and to support the [UN Security Council resolution] 1701, and there is the issue of the [Israeli] sea and air blockade. Fourthly, the issue of those who are held captive.
They are four dimensions of those captives. There are the three Israeli soldiers but there are also some Syrians which is of interest to Syrian President Assad, there are some Lebanese that Hezbollah has interest in, and there are some Palestinians that Hamas is interested in. So it's a four-legged stool.
Who have you been meeting on your tour? How much progress have you made in talks?
I met President Assad last Sunday for two hours and then we met in private for two hours more on Sunday night. I was appealing to Syria to play a role in these four concerns. President Assad expressed his commitment to support our mission.
That night we met with the head of Hamas [Khaled Meshaal] in Syria. It was a very significant meeting it lasted much of the night. He said the Israeli prisoner in Gaza [Gilad Shalit] was alive and he is concerned with a swap of a thousand people at least and about the Palestinian elected officials who have been arrested [by Israeli forces].
We met with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Lebanese Prime Minister Saniora; we met with [Minister of Energy Mohammed] Fneish, the member of the cabinet, to get their interest, their concerns.
We met with the Israelis we met with [former Israeli prime minister] Shimon Peres, we met with the families of the prisoners, we met with the religious leaders.
Are you optimistic that you can negotiate a prisoner swap?
I don't know, I am hopeful. I do know that the longer they are held here the more they become a magnet for round two, not just a bargaining chip.
I do know that the two prisoners have been a tremendous burden for Lebanon, which bears the burden of them being here. Lebanon will be the victim if tensions re-escalate. It stands to reason for me that Hezbollah with minimum action can get maximum results.
What I heard from Fneish and Meshaal is their support they have for this. What's clear on the Israeli side is that they want verification of some physical status, some life signs that the soldiers are alive.
We asked the Hezbollah leader for a sign of life through the Red Cross or maybe by video. They tend to want the whole of this status issue as a negotiating tool.
The reason I appeal to them to show a sign of life is because it will jumpstart discussions.
I am convinced that the longer they are held, they cease to be a bargaining chip and become a pretext for expanding the second round of violence, because there are those who feel that Israel stopped too quickly [its Lebanon offensive]; that the error was not in the assumption of the war but in the tactics.
I think that negotiating releasing the captives would defuse that second round and reduce tensions.
Do you think US foreign policy has played a sufficient role in stopping this conflict? Do you think the Bush administration should increase its diplomatic efforts?
One of the great tragedies is that American foreign policy is being exposed as weak, because by not talking it has eliminated its capacity to help determine the outcome.
There is no talk with Iran, no talk with Syria or Hezbollah or Hamas. These states who are getting involved are trying to gain the advantage of an alliance with Iran for example.
Syria is too big a force to be isolated, Syria shares borders with Iraq, Syria has Iraqi refugees, Palestinian refugees, Lebanese refugees, and it's too strategic to be isolated.
The US is locked into dead-end diplomacy. It is pre-conditions for talks that will not allow talks. You should talk unconditionally. But if you don't talk you cannot enforce the outcome, so the US has opted for the sideline.
On the basis of the meetings that you have had with leaders how optimistic are you for prospects of peace in the region?
I think most of people have been devastated. People lost lives and money and credibility and strength. Round two could be even worse and could move closer to Syria and Iran which would mean World War Three, so the stakes are so terribly high.
I think that if negotiations opened up if the two [prisoners] are released and if there was enough global pressure. Israel would win; Hezbollah would win so all of those are very crucial signs.
What about other US foreign policy issues? What are your views on the US-led occupation of Iraq?
The presence of US soldiers is a magnet for the continuation of the war. America's presence becomes a cause celebre. After all, America is there as an occupying force so we could have the whole region in flames over our presence.
We are not seen as saving Iraq from Saddam Hussein we are seen invading and occupying Iraq for our own agenda and this is being deeply and violently resented though out the entire region.
We went there on the pretext of protecting America from imminent threat ... weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida connection we didn't find that. Then we shifted the mission from saving ourselves from threat to saving Iraqis from Hussein and for democracy.
We shifted our mission and it's odd when you fight a war of this sort for democracy in Iraq and then not recognise the political parties of Hezbollah and Hamas. This is a real contradiction.
Are you concerned about the state of civil liberties in the US?
The war has been a pretext to reduce civil liberties and basic freedoms. You have warlike powers, which mean you suspend freedoms. Then they plan wars based upon an unsound assumption. We have lost money, like $250 million a day, lives, between 2000 and 3000 Americans and 50,000 plus Iraqis, we have lost honour.
America came out of World War II as the most revered nation, as the saviour of people from fascism and occupation. Then we became seen as the aggressor, we bombed Grenada, bombed Panama there was pre-emptive strike in Iraq and the Kyoto treaty.
Within the American public there is some tension. The greatness of America is that you have the right to fight. We have the right to protest, the right to vote and come [November's midterm] elections you might see some real protest at the polls.
This election in Connecticut [which saw the ousting of pro-Iraq war Democrat Joe Lieberman] - this represents a very fundamental change. This is very important. We are revisiting how we view the world community and how it views us.
Jesse Jackson
Aljazeera
How not to treat a dissident!
From A Tangled Web
So you are female, a Somali citizen who after living in Ethiopia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia is on the way to Canada by air, to marry a man whom you have never met, because your father has spoken. Your plane lands in Germany for a routine re-fuelling stop, and as you don’t want to marry, you hop a train and end up in Holland; claiming political asylum. Fair enough! But then you decide that you want more; so you learn Dutch, get naturalized, study political science, GET ELECTED to Parliament, all while continuing to speak out against the oppression of women by Islamic Law and mullahs.
Your asylum status is put in jeopardy because you lied about not spending time in Kenya, but you are forgiven, and your status is confirmed!
Then you help a Dutch film-maker named Theo Van Gogh script an eleven minute film`named Submission. Unfortunately, a muslim fundamentalist decides this is not good, guns the film-maker down and then stabs him, which action makes you hide for fear of your life! But then you return to Holland after the Government promises a ‘safe house’ and resume your life. Unfortunately, the NEIGHBOURS dislike the idea that someone whom the mullahs detest is living next door, and eventually a Dutch judge says you have to get the hell out of your ‘safe house’, despite the police stating that there was nowhere safer!
You move to America!
Posted by Mike Cunningham on September 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM
dissident
Charlie Rangel Upset that Chavez agrees with him about Bush... LOL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 21, 2006 Contact: Emile Milne
(202) 225-4365
CONG. RANGEL CONDEMNS CHAVEZ'S ATTACK ON BUSH
WASHINGTON - I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.
It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.
George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us.
I feel that I must speak out now since the Venezuelan government has been instrumental in providing oil at discounted prices to people in low income communities who have suffered increases in rent as heating oil prices have risen sharply. By offering this benefit to people in need, Venezuela has won many friends in poor communities of New York and other states. I am surprised that American oil companies have not stepped up to provide that kind of assistance to the poor.
Venezuela's generosity to the poor, however, should not be interpreted as license to attack President Bush. Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no right to attack him personally. It was not helpful when President Bush referred to certain nations as an "axis of evil." Neither is it helpful for a head of state to use the sacred halls of the United Nations to insult President Bush.
###
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
2354 Rayburn House
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4365
NEW YORK OFFICE
163 W. 125th Street #737
New York, NY 10027
(212) 663-3900
Chavez
September 21, 2006 Contact: Emile Milne
(202) 225-4365
CONG. RANGEL CONDEMNS CHAVEZ'S ATTACK ON BUSH
WASHINGTON - I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.
It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.
George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us.
I feel that I must speak out now since the Venezuelan government has been instrumental in providing oil at discounted prices to people in low income communities who have suffered increases in rent as heating oil prices have risen sharply. By offering this benefit to people in need, Venezuela has won many friends in poor communities of New York and other states. I am surprised that American oil companies have not stepped up to provide that kind of assistance to the poor.
Venezuela's generosity to the poor, however, should not be interpreted as license to attack President Bush. Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no right to attack him personally. It was not helpful when President Bush referred to certain nations as an "axis of evil." Neither is it helpful for a head of state to use the sacred halls of the United Nations to insult President Bush.
###
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
2354 Rayburn House
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4365
NEW YORK OFFICE
163 W. 125th Street #737
New York, NY 10027
(212) 663-3900
Chavez
The Free Jack Idema Blogburst
One of the things worth stressing about the case of Jack Idema and Brent Bennett, the two US Special Forces soldiers held illegally in Afghanistan, is the reason they wound up in the country to begin with. Here's Jack speaking on this subject:
Understanding how these two plots -- 9/11 and the assassination of Massoud -- were linked in terrorists' minds should have given the US State Department a clear picture of how to proceed with the reconstruction of Afghanistan. See, the Northern Alliance have always been the most pro-Western of the country's factions, and more, have been consistent in delivering freedom for the Afghan people while refusing to tolerate Islamofascism. This was why, when they arrived in Afghanistan in 2001, US and British Special Forces troops, Jack Idema among them, hooked up with the NA. It's also why, throughout 2001-02, Jack Idema continued protecting those members of the NA who entered Afghan politics -- Men like Yunis Qanooni, whose stint as Minister of Interior saw a huge reduction in terror-related bombings, and whose move to the Ministry of Education saw more schools built in the country than at any time in Afghan history.
Qanooni is now Afghanistan's first democratically-elected Chief of Parliament, but it was during his stint as Chief of the National Security Council and Presidential candidate running against Karzai that Jack Idema's team foiled an attempt by terrorists to assassinate Qanooni and other leading NA figures.
It was as a result of this investigation, which had the potential to both embarrass Karzai and derail the State Department's efforts at appeasing 'former' members of the Taliban, that Jack and his men were first arrested. In a week in which we recall the high-watermark of Al Qaeda's brutality in both the US and Afghanistan, it's worth reflecting on the men like Jack, Brent and Yunis Qanooni who continue to risk their lives in the fight to make sure the events of five years ago are never repeated.
So what can we do? Well, anyone reading this with their own blog can sign up for the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst by emailing Cao or Rottweiler Puppy for details. I'd urge everyone to do this, as we're still terribly short on takers. If you want to know more about the story, Cao's Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There's also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots;, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack's story.
You can also contact the following people and make your feelings known:
Secret US EMBASSY Fax: – 301-560-5729 (Local US Fax: Goes RIGHT TO Ambassador)
c/o US Ambassador Ronald Neuman
6180 Kabul Place
Dulles, VA 20189-6180
US Consul Russell Brown – 011-93-70201908 (Fired)
US Consul Addie Harchik- 011-93-70201908 (denied them water and mail at Thanksgiving)
US Embassy Translator Wahid – new – 011-93-70201902
US Embassy Translator Bashir Momman– 011-93-70201923
US Consul (friend of Jack's Now fired) Dawn Schrepel– 011-93-70201908
Embassy of Afghanistan (Good guys, Northern Alliance)
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Ph: 202-483-6410, Fax: no. 202-483-6488
Ambassador Massoud Khalili (wounded with Massoud)
Islamic State of Afghanistan
Embassy of Afghanistan
New Delhi, India
H.E. Said Tayeb JAWAD (Afghan Ambassador- powerful in US)
Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington
2341 Wyoming Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (+1-202) 483 6414
Fax: (+1-202) 483 9523
Mr. Jahed Hamrah, Consul General (pro-Taliban)
CONSULATE GENERAL OF
AFGHANISTAN IN NEW YORK
360 Lexington Avenue,
11th Floor New York,
New, York, NY 10017
Tel.: (+1-212) 972 2276 or 972 2277
Fax: (+1-212) 972 9046
Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E880
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Ph: (703) 692-7100
Fax: (703) 697-9080
Lt General William Boykin
Deputy Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E836
Washington, DC 20301
Ph: (703) 697-0170
Private Fax: (703) 697-9080
Stephen Cambone
Principle Deputy Secretary for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E
Washington, DC 20310-0100
General Peter J. Shoomaker
Chief of Staff, Department of the Army
200 Army Pentagon – Room # 3E528
Washington, DC 20310-0200
Ph: (703) 695-2077 / Fax: (703) 614-5268
The Honorable John D. Negroponte
Director National Intelligence
New Executive Office Building
725 17th Street, N.W., Room 4203
Washington, DC 20503
The Committee
On Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Peter Hoekstra
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6415;
Office: (202) 225-4121 / Fax: (202) 225-1991
Toll Free: (877) 858-9040
M. Cherif BASSIOUNI
Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights
On the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR;
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Ph: +41(0)22 917 97 27 Fax: +41(0)22 917 90 18
Email
Senator Steven Saland (Jack's Rep and Neighbor)
9 Jonathan Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack's Rep)
United States Senate
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ph: 919.856.4630
Fax: 919.856.4053
Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack's Rep)
United States Senate
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: 202.224.6342
Fax: 202.224.1100
Senator Richard Burr (of Interest)
United States Senate
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154 / Fax: (202) 228-2981
Senator Bill Nelson (in the fight on Jack's Side)
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 716
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274 / Fax: 202-228-2183
FL Fax 407-872-7165
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Bennett's Representative)
United States Senate
Hart Office Building, Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3841
Representative Mike McIntyre (Jack's Representative)
United States Congress
2437 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2731 / Fax (202) 225-5773
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (reference Captain Bennett- CA citizen)
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 / Fax: 916-445-4633
Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots; and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US;
jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema
The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:
;
9/11 happens, I’m in Los Angeles. They called at 5:00 in the morning said turn the tv on. I thought it was a prank call. I hung up on the guy. He calls me back a minute later–he says, Jack I’m telling you please turn on the t.v. I turn on the tv, I see the second plane hit. That was it for me. I was like, ok, I can’t believe this is happening. I’m from New York. What do you expect a New Yorker to do? I got pretty pissed off.It really is worth quoting Jack at length here. What he has to say gives us an insight not only into his own desire to avenge the 3000 people murdered on 9/11, but also the way in which Al Qaeda and the Taliban viewed the Northern Alliance as their greatest enemies within Afghanistan.
I went back to the army, said, look. I had a long relationship in Afghanistan, with Massoud, with the United Front Military Forces, which journalists call the northern alliance, but it’s not really. It’s an alliance of anti-communist, anti-Taliban, anti-terrorist forces that have been around for 15-20 years. Lead by Commander Ahmed Shah Massoud. Who was assassinated on September 9th -two days before- because Bin Laden said "there can be no victory while this man is alive". So he was killed on September 9. Now anybody that does not think these two things were interrelated–that Massoud was killed on the 9th, to break apart the United Front which held only the north 10%-they’d been driven back into the northern 10% of the country- anybody that does not think that’s related to 9/11 is insane. Massoud had prior to that, the December prior to that, given a speech to the US and said, if you don’t stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban now, if you don’t give me the resources and the money, I can guarantee you they will attack your cities, and New York will be first. Massoud was right. This is documented on film.
Understanding how these two plots -- 9/11 and the assassination of Massoud -- were linked in terrorists' minds should have given the US State Department a clear picture of how to proceed with the reconstruction of Afghanistan. See, the Northern Alliance have always been the most pro-Western of the country's factions, and more, have been consistent in delivering freedom for the Afghan people while refusing to tolerate Islamofascism. This was why, when they arrived in Afghanistan in 2001, US and British Special Forces troops, Jack Idema among them, hooked up with the NA. It's also why, throughout 2001-02, Jack Idema continued protecting those members of the NA who entered Afghan politics -- Men like Yunis Qanooni, whose stint as Minister of Interior saw a huge reduction in terror-related bombings, and whose move to the Ministry of Education saw more schools built in the country than at any time in Afghan history.
Qanooni is now Afghanistan's first democratically-elected Chief of Parliament, but it was during his stint as Chief of the National Security Council and Presidential candidate running against Karzai that Jack Idema's team foiled an attempt by terrorists to assassinate Qanooni and other leading NA figures.
It was as a result of this investigation, which had the potential to both embarrass Karzai and derail the State Department's efforts at appeasing 'former' members of the Taliban, that Jack and his men were first arrested. In a week in which we recall the high-watermark of Al Qaeda's brutality in both the US and Afghanistan, it's worth reflecting on the men like Jack, Brent and Yunis Qanooni who continue to risk their lives in the fight to make sure the events of five years ago are never repeated.
So what can we do? Well, anyone reading this with their own blog can sign up for the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst by emailing Cao or Rottweiler Puppy for details. I'd urge everyone to do this, as we're still terribly short on takers. If you want to know more about the story, Cao's Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There's also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots;, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack's story.
You can also contact the following people and make your feelings known:
Secret US EMBASSY Fax: – 301-560-5729 (Local US Fax: Goes RIGHT TO Ambassador)
c/o US Ambassador Ronald Neuman
6180 Kabul Place
Dulles, VA 20189-6180
US Consul Russell Brown – 011-93-70201908 (Fired)
US Consul Addie Harchik- 011-93-70201908 (denied them water and mail at Thanksgiving)
US Embassy Translator Wahid – new – 011-93-70201902
US Embassy Translator Bashir Momman– 011-93-70201923
US Consul (friend of Jack's Now fired) Dawn Schrepel– 011-93-70201908
Embassy of Afghanistan (Good guys, Northern Alliance)
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Ph: 202-483-6410, Fax: no. 202-483-6488
Ambassador Massoud Khalili (wounded with Massoud)
Islamic State of Afghanistan
Embassy of Afghanistan
New Delhi, India
H.E. Said Tayeb JAWAD (Afghan Ambassador- powerful in US)
Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington
2341 Wyoming Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (+1-202) 483 6414
Fax: (+1-202) 483 9523
Mr. Jahed Hamrah, Consul General (pro-Taliban)
CONSULATE GENERAL OF
AFGHANISTAN IN NEW YORK
360 Lexington Avenue,
11th Floor New York,
New, York, NY 10017
Tel.: (+1-212) 972 2276 or 972 2277
Fax: (+1-212) 972 9046
Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E880
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Ph: (703) 692-7100
Fax: (703) 697-9080
Lt General William Boykin
Deputy Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E836
Washington, DC 20301
Ph: (703) 697-0170
Private Fax: (703) 697-9080
Stephen Cambone
Principle Deputy Secretary for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E
Washington, DC 20310-0100
General Peter J. Shoomaker
Chief of Staff, Department of the Army
200 Army Pentagon – Room # 3E528
Washington, DC 20310-0200
Ph: (703) 695-2077 / Fax: (703) 614-5268
The Honorable John D. Negroponte
Director National Intelligence
New Executive Office Building
725 17th Street, N.W., Room 4203
Washington, DC 20503
The Committee
On Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Peter Hoekstra
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6415;
Office: (202) 225-4121 / Fax: (202) 225-1991
Toll Free: (877) 858-9040
M. Cherif BASSIOUNI
Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights
On the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR;
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Ph: +41(0)22 917 97 27 Fax: +41(0)22 917 90 18
Senator Steven Saland (Jack's Rep and Neighbor)
9 Jonathan Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack's Rep)
United States Senate
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ph: 919.856.4630
Fax: 919.856.4053
Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack's Rep)
United States Senate
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: 202.224.6342
Fax: 202.224.1100
Senator Richard Burr (of Interest)
United States Senate
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154 / Fax: (202) 228-2981
Senator Bill Nelson (in the fight on Jack's Side)
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 716
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274 / Fax: 202-228-2183
FL Fax 407-872-7165
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Bennett's Representative)
United States Senate
Hart Office Building, Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3841
Representative Mike McIntyre (Jack's Representative)
United States Congress
2437 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2731 / Fax (202) 225-5773
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (reference Captain Bennett- CA citizen)
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 / Fax: 916-445-4633
Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots; and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US;
jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema
The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:
;
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Something Different
Once a week I am going to put up something that I find very important. The Constitution Of The United States. Just one piece at a time. I'll try to post one every Friday.
We the People of thev United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States of America.
We the People of thev United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States of America.
Monday, September 18, 2006
"The Traitorous Scum"
To use John McCain the Traitorous Scums words "We've been in wars more Dangerous than this and have not changed the Geneva Conventions" He said that on This Week with Stephanopolis. Really Senator what war was more dangerous than the one we are in now? WWI, WWII, or Korea? Oh I know Vietnam right Senator. This shows McCains total lack of even being able to wrap what little mind he has around the dangers we now face.3000 Americans died in the continental US from an enemy attack. That has NOT happened since the revolutionary war. There are over 1000 KNOWN terrorist cells inside the US right now. We have NO idea how many sleeper cells. A single dispersment of a biological weapon by one man could kill 100s of thousands, a dirty bomb or a nuke could kill millions, or lets be more benign how long before Iran activates any of these cells to just strap suicide belts on and go take a ride on the subway. So tell me Senator enlighten the masses what war was more dangerous than the one we are currently fighting?
Not to even mention that we are NOT changing the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court did that when for the first time in history they said that they apply to TERRORISTS!
I call Senator McCain "the traitorous scum" every time I hear his name. I do this for an honest reason. Amendment I... Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Senator betrayed the Constitution by creating a law that violates both the highlited aspects above of the first amendment. He has also said "I would gladly do away with the First Amendment if I thought it would help end corruption in Government" those two things alone make him a traitor to the very document that he has sworn to uphold and protect.
People always qualify any criticism of the Senator with "He is hero for his service in Vietnam, he was a POW". Well lets look at that. Being a failure as a fighter pilot and getting yourself shot down does NOT make you a hero. It makes you a failure and a POW. Then breaking under the torture administered to you by a signature of "The Geneva Conventions" and signing war crimes confessions, also does not make you a hero. It makes you a traitor and a failure as a Soldier in the US Military.
I believe the Senators actions as a prisoner and as a Senator prove that he was not only broken by the Vietnamese but turned. The damage that he has done and is doing to this country is obvious. Whether consciously or subconsciously, he hates the freedoms that he once fought for. The only thing that John McCain cares about is John McCain.
Now he is on a crusade to do two things. 1) Give TERRORISTS constitutional rights, 2) Get elected to the office of President. He will NOT achieve either goal.
McCain
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Did the Commies win or Lose or are they the Democrats You decide
This is a copy of the Congressional Record for January 10, 1963, where the (then) current communist goals were entered. Get ready, it's long-- but truly frightening. Remember this is the beginning of 1963. Kennedy is still alive, long before LBJ's horror "The Great Society", long before many of today's tribulations. This is absolutely for real. Read it and weep.
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Democrats
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Democrats
Losing Our Will to Win
By Ed Koch
I believe this war of civilizations, which was brought to our shores in 2001, is one of the most important wars we have ever fought. In the Revolutionary War back in 1775-1783, we had extraordinary leaders, including George Washington, chosen as General and Commander-in-Chief and later elected President of the United States. We forget that he lost almost every battle at the time, but he ultimately won the war. But there were moments -- the harsh winter at Valley Forge -- when it all looked hopeless and Washington was sharply criticized by fellow Americans. He had the strength to ultimately prevail and overcome the military defeats and personal attacks on his abilities.
Before we entered World War II in December 1941, most of Europe with the exception of Great Britain had been conquered by Nazi armies, and Russia, then the U.S.S.R., was retreating under attack. In World War II, American casualties totaled 291,577 dead and 671,846 injured. Under the extraordinary leadership of F.D.R., the Allies ultimately won the war, despite losing a number of battles. We would not have prevailed had the British not kept hope alive by continuing the battle when all of the other European nations had either surrendered or been overrun and accepted the Nazi regime. The Russians also were key to the Allies' success, having sacrificed 10 million Soviet soldiers in liberating their own occupied lands, as well as central Europe on their way to capturing Berlin. The Soviet losses in taking Berlin alone are estimated at 300,000.
Why do I recite these historical facts? Because I believe that the U.S. is faltering in the current war against international terrorism, and we are losing our will to prevail. We are losing our fighting spirit as a result of the fighting between Republicans and Democrats on just how to prosecute the war.
The President calls the war on terror "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation." The President's speech was attacked, as usual, by a number of Democratic party leaders with Senator Ted Kennedy in the lead.
One of the worst attacks on the President came from Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, himself a presidential candidate in 2008. He demanded that the President stop referring to those engaged in terrorist attacks against us and others as Islamic fascists. He said, "Fascist ideology...doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam." But what about the tens of millions who are terrorists and want to kill us? Does he have a description for them? The media rarely call those engaged in acts of terrorism "terrorists," preferring to refer to them simply as "militants."
Read the Rest
I believe this war of civilizations, which was brought to our shores in 2001, is one of the most important wars we have ever fought. In the Revolutionary War back in 1775-1783, we had extraordinary leaders, including George Washington, chosen as General and Commander-in-Chief and later elected President of the United States. We forget that he lost almost every battle at the time, but he ultimately won the war. But there were moments -- the harsh winter at Valley Forge -- when it all looked hopeless and Washington was sharply criticized by fellow Americans. He had the strength to ultimately prevail and overcome the military defeats and personal attacks on his abilities.
Before we entered World War II in December 1941, most of Europe with the exception of Great Britain had been conquered by Nazi armies, and Russia, then the U.S.S.R., was retreating under attack. In World War II, American casualties totaled 291,577 dead and 671,846 injured. Under the extraordinary leadership of F.D.R., the Allies ultimately won the war, despite losing a number of battles. We would not have prevailed had the British not kept hope alive by continuing the battle when all of the other European nations had either surrendered or been overrun and accepted the Nazi regime. The Russians also were key to the Allies' success, having sacrificed 10 million Soviet soldiers in liberating their own occupied lands, as well as central Europe on their way to capturing Berlin. The Soviet losses in taking Berlin alone are estimated at 300,000.
Why do I recite these historical facts? Because I believe that the U.S. is faltering in the current war against international terrorism, and we are losing our will to prevail. We are losing our fighting spirit as a result of the fighting between Republicans and Democrats on just how to prosecute the war.
The President calls the war on terror "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation." The President's speech was attacked, as usual, by a number of Democratic party leaders with Senator Ted Kennedy in the lead.
One of the worst attacks on the President came from Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, himself a presidential candidate in 2008. He demanded that the President stop referring to those engaged in terrorist attacks against us and others as Islamic fascists. He said, "Fascist ideology...doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam." But what about the tens of millions who are terrorists and want to kill us? Does he have a description for them? The media rarely call those engaged in acts of terrorism "terrorists," preferring to refer to them simply as "militants."
Read the Rest
Friday, September 15, 2006
Something Just For FUN, Ever Play D&D ? What kind of Character Are You
I Am A: Chaotic Neutral Human Fighter Thief
Alignment:
Chaotic Neutral characters are unstable, and frequently insane. They believe in disorder first and foremost, and will thus strive for that disorder in everything they do. This means that they will do whatever seems 'fun' or 'novel' at any given time.
Race:
Humans are the 'average' race. They have the shortest life spans, and because of this, they tend to avoid the racial prejudices that other races are known for. They are also very curious and tend to live 'for the moment'.
Primary Class:
Fighters are the warriors. They use weapons to accomplish their goals. This isn't to say that they aren't intelligent, but that they do, in fact, believe that violence is frequently the answer.
Secondary Class:
Thieves are the most roguish of the classes. They are sneaky and nimble-fingered, and have skills with traps and locks. While not all use these skills for burglary, that is a common occupation of this class.
Deity:
Tempus is the Chaotic Neutral god of war. He is also known as the Lord of Battle and the Foehammer. His followers believe in the glory and joy of battle, and are never far from it. They typically wear battered armor, and carry a variety of weapons, but do not use missile weapons. Tempus's symbol is a flaming sword.
Find out What D&D Character Are You?,
courtesy of
NeppyMan (e-mail)
Alignment:
Chaotic Neutral characters are unstable, and frequently insane. They believe in disorder first and foremost, and will thus strive for that disorder in everything they do. This means that they will do whatever seems 'fun' or 'novel' at any given time.
Race:
Humans are the 'average' race. They have the shortest life spans, and because of this, they tend to avoid the racial prejudices that other races are known for. They are also very curious and tend to live 'for the moment'.
Primary Class:
Fighters are the warriors. They use weapons to accomplish their goals. This isn't to say that they aren't intelligent, but that they do, in fact, believe that violence is frequently the answer.
Secondary Class:
Thieves are the most roguish of the classes. They are sneaky and nimble-fingered, and have skills with traps and locks. While not all use these skills for burglary, that is a common occupation of this class.
Deity:
Tempus is the Chaotic Neutral god of war. He is also known as the Lord of Battle and the Foehammer. His followers believe in the glory and joy of battle, and are never far from it. They typically wear battered armor, and carry a variety of weapons, but do not use missile weapons. Tempus's symbol is a flaming sword.
Find out What D&D Character Are You?,
courtesy of
NeppyMan (e-mail)
Babblings of the Idiot Left
Sean Penn: Bush Caused 'Enormous Damage to Mankind,' May Bring Fascism to U.S.
Posted by Brent Baker on September 15, 2006 - 03:41.
Actor Sean Penn, in a taped Larry King Live interview aired Thursday night on CNN to promote his new movie, All the King's Men, in which he plays a Huey Long-like character, suggested President Bush may bring fascism to America, charged that Bush has “devastated our democracy,” insisted Donald Rumsfeld and Bush have done “enormous damage” to “this country and mankind” and claimed the war on terrorism is meant to distract from reality.
Clearly referring to President Bush, a smirking Penn recalled: “Well, in 1932 Huey Long said something very interesting. It was, 'Fascism will come to America, but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism.'” Later, Penn fulminated about how “party clowns like Don Rumsfeld could be described as, as far as I'm concerned, except for the enormous damage he's done this country and mankind -- and our President -- and saw that they're getting out there and they're beating this drum, to drown out, as they did in 2002, to drown out other -- in that case it was Enron. Now we have another situation, so it's this war on terror, boom, boom, boom. Drown out the reality of what's really happening.” Penn also argued: “No Democrat that doesn't have a plan to get our troops out of Iraq should be voted for.”
Video clip (2:37): Real (4.5 MB) or Windows Media (5.2 MB), plus MP3 audio (925 KB).
King: “All right. Some other things. Iraq. Getting any better? The military now controls itself.”
Penn: “No. It's -- I think -- to me the situation is pretty simple. I mean, the devastation of the situation is pretty simple. Right now, you know, what these party clowns like Don Rumsfeld could be described as, as far as I'm concerned, except for the enormous damage he's done this country and mankind -- and our President -- and saw that they're getting out there and they're beating this drum, to drown out, as they did in 2002, to drown out other -- in that case it was Enron. Now we have another situation, so it's this war on terror, boom, boom, boom. Drown out the reality of what's really happening.
“I think the American people have a choice. In my idea, it's about an eight to ten-year proposition of Iraqis and Americans and others dying in Iraq. The same amount will be dead of Iraqis, innocent, in ten years without the Americans as they will with the Americans there. We'll just have more Americans dead. So shamefully, we have to -- you know, it's what Nixon called 'peace with honor,' to get out of Vietnam.
“I think that, you know, 'cut and run' is something that's meant to make people feel like cowards if they do it. Well, we did make a mistake. It is time to pull our troops out. It's time to rebuild our military because we've got a bad world and they've inflamed terrorism around the world. I think that's very clear to most people. So what's happened there is a civil war that's going to get worse with us or without us. It's time for us to strengthen ourselves and to try to help them through diplomacy and with money.”
King: “But when the President says we should support emerging democracies, because democracy's better for the world, is that -- isn't he right?”
Penn: “I think he's devastated our democracy. I think you have to start with our democracy. He's made us divided. I have a lot of very good friends who are Republicans, who are right-wing Republicans. And when you are with people and you talk to people as people, and not as Republicans and Democrats, you find that's why his numbers are down. Because people have common sense. They're going to vote, you know, in a few months, and they're going to say, well, are we going to be suckers again? Are we going to be suckers to partisan policy and politics and all of that stuff?
“By the way, no Democrat that doesn't have a plan to get our troops out of Iraq should be voted for. Not one of them. You know, there's got to be some courage expressed, and that's what I'm worried about is that we're not going to have good choices.”
Thursday, September 14, 2006
What the Democrats REFUSE to acknowledge
Experts: Iraq Key Battleground in Terror War
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- "Iraq and Afghanistan still remain the central fronts in the war on terror. A premature withdrawal from either would only embolden Islamic radicals and terrorist extremists in their efforts, leading to more death and destruction for Americans and others."
That's what Peter Brookes, senior fellow for national security affairs at the Heritage Foundation, told lawmakers Sept. 7 during a program titled, "9/11: Five Years Later -- Gauging Islamist Terrorism."
Brooke's testimony before the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation complemented that of Dr. Walid Phares, Middle East expert and senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who also emphasized the importance of Iraq in the war on terror: "The enemy who flew airliners against the twin towers and the Pentagon, the one the U.S. defeated in Tora Bora and is still engaging in the Sunni triangle in Iraq, is the enemy which is still striking against democracies and allies around the world," said Phares.
The highlighting of Iraq before the House committee came just before Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee disclosed a newly declassified October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
Aside from the ongoing debate about links between Saddam and al-Qaida before 9/11, the message delivered to the House committee was clear: "If the U.S. stops, wavers, or confuses its vision of its enemies and their plans, the entire progress can be reversed to the advantage of the jihadi terrorists," pronounced Phares.
Another emphasis of both Phares and Brookes was on the vital importance of staying focused and getting more engaged in an underlying war of ideologies.
Phares noted that inside the United States and its allies in Europe, the jihadist movement is absorbing the counterterrorism pressures, analyzing the measures, and mutating to bypass them.
The expert defined two stages in the enemy's warfare: the development stage, which covers the spread of the ideology and the recruitment from the indoctrinated pools of militants, and the penetration of the national systems. The second stage, he said, occurs when the strikes are prepared and launched.
"U.S systems are countering them only at the final stage; that is, in their preparation for terror activities," Phares concluded.
Brookes basically agreed, saying, "[W]e have to be more imaginative and innovative in our defense of our interests than the terrorists are on offense. We shouldn't only be looking for terrorists under the proverbial lamppost because that is where the light is brightest. We have to continue to be imaginative and innovative in fighting terrorism."
Brooks characterized the evolving enemy as now often "homegrown," being radicalized both at home and abroad by terrorist recruiters, clerics and over the Internet -– with terrorist groups now including women, pregnant mothers, and converts to Islam.
"Al-Qaida -- which was a terrorist group on 9/11 -- is now a global terrorist movement. Much to his frustration, Osama bin Laden is now more of a worldwide inspiration to his terrorist ‘disciples' than an active commander, directing day-to-day terrorist operations," Brookes said.
Enemy Identification
Phares noted that the final report of the 9/11 Commission missed two major historic failures:
The U.S and its allies didn't identify the ideology of jihadism as the producer of terrorists and terrorism;
1) The jihadi strategic penetration of the U.S. was in fact a threat to national security. A 9/11 was possible because the enemy counted on the poor perception by the government, little mobilization by the public, and more importantly, the possibility that "the jihadi factory within America will be able to produce future terrorism."
2) "The U.S and its allies must deliver and win the battle of identifying, defining and naming the enemy," added Phares. "Legislative branches in America and within democracies worldwide must have the political courage, the right knowledge and the wisdom to address this challenge.
"The current state of national and international laws is not able to provide a historic basis for governments, media and public to mobilize fully against an enemy living and thriving within these societies," Phares concluded.
Deadly ‘Complacency'
Brookes emphasized that while the U.S. has made significant progress in securing the homeland and fighting terrorism overseas, complacency about the challenge of Islamist terrorism "will prove to be deadly, potentially making the horrors of 9/11 seem minor in comparison." The Heritage fellow pointed to a continuing need for new security procedures, education, technologies and intelligence sources that can detect and prevent terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens -- especially overseas -- where counterterrorism or security may not be as vigilant or effective as it is in the homeland.
Lawmakers at the House committee hearing praised Phares' presentation as a "teacher lecture on the mind of the jihadists."
Indeed, the expert went into detail about the enemy jihadists, explaining that they are of two ideological types: Salafist, who are radicals who developed within Sunni societies, and Khomenists, who are radicals who developed within Shiia communities.
The Salafists, he added, have various ideological and political branches: Wahabis, Muslim Brotherhood, Tablighi and others.
"From this ‘tree' came al-Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya, Salafi Combat Group, and dozens of smaller groups around the world," Phares explained.
"The Khomeinists are the radical clerics in control of Iran," Phares added. "They have created Hezbollah in Lebanon, and along with the latter expanded cells around the world. The head of Salafi Jihadists today is al-Qaida; the head of Khomeinist jihadism is the Iranian regime."
Whatever progress the U.S. has made in the war on terror, both internationally and domestically, hangs on the ability of the U.S. and its allies to move forward, faster and with a strategic mutation in the next stage of the war with al-Qaida, while also preparing for the possibility of the engagement by the Khomeinist threat abruptly, concluded Phares.
For his part, Brookes concluded with a warning about the well-intentioned hopes and wishes that Islamic terrorism is something that now only happens overseas, such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the U.K. or Spain, or as limited to the horrors of 9/11:
Such hopes "are not based in reality -- in my view," he cautioned.
Terror
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- "Iraq and Afghanistan still remain the central fronts in the war on terror. A premature withdrawal from either would only embolden Islamic radicals and terrorist extremists in their efforts, leading to more death and destruction for Americans and others."
That's what Peter Brookes, senior fellow for national security affairs at the Heritage Foundation, told lawmakers Sept. 7 during a program titled, "9/11: Five Years Later -- Gauging Islamist Terrorism."
Brooke's testimony before the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation complemented that of Dr. Walid Phares, Middle East expert and senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who also emphasized the importance of Iraq in the war on terror: "The enemy who flew airliners against the twin towers and the Pentagon, the one the U.S. defeated in Tora Bora and is still engaging in the Sunni triangle in Iraq, is the enemy which is still striking against democracies and allies around the world," said Phares.
The highlighting of Iraq before the House committee came just before Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee disclosed a newly declassified October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
Aside from the ongoing debate about links between Saddam and al-Qaida before 9/11, the message delivered to the House committee was clear: "If the U.S. stops, wavers, or confuses its vision of its enemies and their plans, the entire progress can be reversed to the advantage of the jihadi terrorists," pronounced Phares.
Another emphasis of both Phares and Brookes was on the vital importance of staying focused and getting more engaged in an underlying war of ideologies.
Phares noted that inside the United States and its allies in Europe, the jihadist movement is absorbing the counterterrorism pressures, analyzing the measures, and mutating to bypass them.
The expert defined two stages in the enemy's warfare: the development stage, which covers the spread of the ideology and the recruitment from the indoctrinated pools of militants, and the penetration of the national systems. The second stage, he said, occurs when the strikes are prepared and launched.
"U.S systems are countering them only at the final stage; that is, in their preparation for terror activities," Phares concluded.
Brookes basically agreed, saying, "[W]e have to be more imaginative and innovative in our defense of our interests than the terrorists are on offense. We shouldn't only be looking for terrorists under the proverbial lamppost because that is where the light is brightest. We have to continue to be imaginative and innovative in fighting terrorism."
Brooks characterized the evolving enemy as now often "homegrown," being radicalized both at home and abroad by terrorist recruiters, clerics and over the Internet -– with terrorist groups now including women, pregnant mothers, and converts to Islam.
"Al-Qaida -- which was a terrorist group on 9/11 -- is now a global terrorist movement. Much to his frustration, Osama bin Laden is now more of a worldwide inspiration to his terrorist ‘disciples' than an active commander, directing day-to-day terrorist operations," Brookes said.
Enemy Identification
Phares noted that the final report of the 9/11 Commission missed two major historic failures:
The U.S and its allies didn't identify the ideology of jihadism as the producer of terrorists and terrorism;
1) The jihadi strategic penetration of the U.S. was in fact a threat to national security. A 9/11 was possible because the enemy counted on the poor perception by the government, little mobilization by the public, and more importantly, the possibility that "the jihadi factory within America will be able to produce future terrorism."
2) "The U.S and its allies must deliver and win the battle of identifying, defining and naming the enemy," added Phares. "Legislative branches in America and within democracies worldwide must have the political courage, the right knowledge and the wisdom to address this challenge.
"The current state of national and international laws is not able to provide a historic basis for governments, media and public to mobilize fully against an enemy living and thriving within these societies," Phares concluded.
Deadly ‘Complacency'
Brookes emphasized that while the U.S. has made significant progress in securing the homeland and fighting terrorism overseas, complacency about the challenge of Islamist terrorism "will prove to be deadly, potentially making the horrors of 9/11 seem minor in comparison." The Heritage fellow pointed to a continuing need for new security procedures, education, technologies and intelligence sources that can detect and prevent terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens -- especially overseas -- where counterterrorism or security may not be as vigilant or effective as it is in the homeland.
Lawmakers at the House committee hearing praised Phares' presentation as a "teacher lecture on the mind of the jihadists."
Indeed, the expert went into detail about the enemy jihadists, explaining that they are of two ideological types: Salafist, who are radicals who developed within Sunni societies, and Khomenists, who are radicals who developed within Shiia communities.
The Salafists, he added, have various ideological and political branches: Wahabis, Muslim Brotherhood, Tablighi and others.
"From this ‘tree' came al-Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya, Salafi Combat Group, and dozens of smaller groups around the world," Phares explained.
"The Khomeinists are the radical clerics in control of Iran," Phares added. "They have created Hezbollah in Lebanon, and along with the latter expanded cells around the world. The head of Salafi Jihadists today is al-Qaida; the head of Khomeinist jihadism is the Iranian regime."
Whatever progress the U.S. has made in the war on terror, both internationally and domestically, hangs on the ability of the U.S. and its allies to move forward, faster and with a strategic mutation in the next stage of the war with al-Qaida, while also preparing for the possibility of the engagement by the Khomeinist threat abruptly, concluded Phares.
For his part, Brookes concluded with a warning about the well-intentioned hopes and wishes that Islamic terrorism is something that now only happens overseas, such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the U.K. or Spain, or as limited to the horrors of 9/11:
Such hopes "are not based in reality -- in my view," he cautioned.
Terror
Novak calls Armitage a LIAR...
The Real Story Behind Armitage's Role
By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON -- When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.
First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of him being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I long had opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me improbably into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the Left.
A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historical path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first two and one-half years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me -- summarily and with disdain, I thought.
Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage's office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson surfaced himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.
I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by "Hubris," a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him.
Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage. I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson -- lacking intelligence experience, nuclear policy or recent contact with Niger -- on the African mission. He told the Washington Post last week that his answer was: "I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there."
Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. As for his current implications that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information.
Mrs. Wilson's name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I heard about it from Armitage. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's close friend and political adviser, called me to say the deputy secretary feared he had "inadvertently" (the word Armitage used in last week's interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson's identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein's phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)
Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage's current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was "no partisan gunslinger."
Armitage's silence the next two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.
Novak
By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON -- When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.
First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of him being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I long had opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me improbably into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the Left.
A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historical path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first two and one-half years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me -- summarily and with disdain, I thought.
Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage's office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson surfaced himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.
I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by "Hubris," a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him.
Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage. I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson -- lacking intelligence experience, nuclear policy or recent contact with Niger -- on the African mission. He told the Washington Post last week that his answer was: "I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there."
Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. As for his current implications that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information.
Mrs. Wilson's name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I heard about it from Armitage. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's close friend and political adviser, called me to say the deputy secretary feared he had "inadvertently" (the word Armitage used in last week's interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson's identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein's phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)
Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage's current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was "no partisan gunslinger."
Armitage's silence the next two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.
Novak
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Terrorist Ali Hamadi Rejoins Hezbollah Following Release From Prison
By James Rosen
WASHINGTON — One of the most infamous terrorists of the 1980s has rejoined Hezbollah following his release from a German prison and deportation to his native Lebanon in December 2005, a senior Bush administration official told FOX News.
Mohammed Ali Hamadi was released despite strong U.S. objections, FOX News learned. Those objections were raised in phone calls to German authorities by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller, as well as by top-level State Department and administration counter-terrorism officials.
"[The Germans] ignored us and didn't give us enough time to pursue it through legal action," an official told FOX News on the condition of anonymity. "They gave us very short notice."
U.S. officials said they "can't rule out" the possibility that Germany deported Hamadi, after he had served 19 years of a life sentence, in exchange for the release of Susanne Osthoff, a German archeologist taken hostage in Iraq and freed four days after Hamadi's deportation. German authorities have denied any such deal was made.
In June 1985, Hamadi was one of four Islamic militants who commandeered TWA Flight 847 — en route from Athens to Rome — and hijacked it to Beirut. The ensuing hostage ordeal lasted 17 days, with the plane shuttling among various Mediterranean airports.
On the second day of the hijacking, Hamadi and his accomplices learned that U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem was on board. Hamadi and his co-conspirators beat Stethem unconscious, then shot him to death and dumped his body on the tarmac of the Beirut airport. The hijackers later escaped.
In 1987, Hamadi was arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, for carrying explosives in his bag at the airport. He was convicted both on that charge and of Stethem's murder and sentenced to life in prison. Late last year he was paroled by the German authorities and deported to Lebanon.
On Dec. 21, 2005, shortly after Hamadi's return to Lebanon, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters: "I think what I can assure anybody who's listening, including Mr. Hamadi, is that we will track him down, we will find him and we will bring him to justice in the United States for what he's done.
"We will make every effort, working with the Lebanese authorities or whomever else, to see that he faces trial for the murder of Mr. Stethem."
At a press briefing Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Tom Casey confirmed that contact had been made with the Lebanese government regarding Hamadi, and that the case remains active.
"The United States still believes that he and anyone else who is responsible for such heinous acts should face justice," Casey said. "And we do continue to wish to see him be brought to the United States to face trial here."
Hamadi's alleged accomplices — Hassan Izz-Al-Din, Ali Atwa and Imad Mughniyeh — were never captured.
Mughniyeh is also believed to be responsible for the 1983 barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon and for the 1984 torture and murder of William Buckley, the CIA Station Chief in Beirut.
Mughniyeh, who is believed to have undergone extensive plastic surgery to make himself unrecognizable, has been described in the media as "probably the world's most wanted outlaw."
Upon hearing news of Hamadi's release in 2005, Stethem's family members said they would keep pressuring the U.S. government to seek extradition from Lebanon.
"We'll be after him," Stethem's mother, Patricia, said of Hamadi. "We won't let it rest."
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Truth that Bill Clinton is hiding
Here is the TRUTH that Bill Clinton is hiding and why The Path to 9/11 must be altered. Me. Ijaz worked for Clinton during his administration and witnessed these things first hand.
"CLINTON LET BIN LADEN SLIP AWAY AND METASTASIZE" BY MANSOOR IJAZ
by Mansoor Ijaz
LOS ANGELES TIMES
December 5, 2001
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
*
Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based
Democrats
Clinton
ABC
9/11
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM @Americablog
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.
Democrats
Clinton
ABC
9/11
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM @Americablog
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.
Democrats
Clinton
ABC
9/11
ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure
By Scott Collins, Times Staff Writer
ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.
The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.
"The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.
After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute.
After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.
"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."
In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.
ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."
The statement adds: "The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."
None of ABC's moves is likely to quell the debate, however.
The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, said on Wednesday it had collected 25,000 letters asking ABC to either correct or cancel the miniseries. "The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration," the center said in a news release.
Lets add some additional information to this story. As ABC alters it's presentation of The Path to 9/11 Al-Jazeera releases a video that shows Osama Bin Laden meeting with the 9/11 hijackers before the attack. Now put that in context with the fact that one of the scenes altered by ABC is the scene where Sandy Burgler hangs up on the team about to kill Bin Laden, because Clinton refused to give the order....
Al-Jazeera broadcasts Al-Qaeda video preparing 9/11 attacks
Sep 07 3:20 PM US/Eastern Breitbart
The Arab television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a video which it said showed Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of Al-Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.
Al-Jazeera had said earlier it would broadcast "a video that included scenes showing for the first time Al-Qaeda leaders preparing the September 11 attacks and practicing for their execution."
The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.
They spoke of the situation faced by Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.
Fifteen of the 19 attackers on September 11 were Saudis, and Al-Jazeera said it had only aired a few minutes of a document which it said lasted about an hour and a half.
The footage also showed hand-to-hand combat practice between people who wore masks over their heads.
The television station also broadcast a recording attributed to the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, in which he said he was sure of victory against US-led forces in the country.
The recording was posted on an Islamist Internet site as well, but its authenticity could not be immediately established.
In the Internet statement, Muhajer also urged Sunni Muslims to kill at least one US citizen within the next two weeks.
"Oh followers of (Taliban leader) Mullah Mohammed Omar, oh sons of (Al-Qaeda leader) Osama bin Laden, oh disciples of (slain Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader) Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi ... I urge each of you to kill at least one American within a period not exceeding 15 days," Muhajer said.
The two broadcasts came four days before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Muhajer added: "I do not doubt for an instant victory" against US-led forces in Iraq, calling President George W. Bush a "liar" and a "dog."
"Do not be proud of the number and the equipment" (of your army), Muhajer said.
"The war has just begun."
Muhajer had already issued a public statement in June, a few days after his predecessor Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi was killed in a US air strike in Iraq.
Clinton
ABC
9/11
ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.
The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.
"The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.
After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute.
After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.
"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."
In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.
ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."
The statement adds: "The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."
None of ABC's moves is likely to quell the debate, however.
The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, said on Wednesday it had collected 25,000 letters asking ABC to either correct or cancel the miniseries. "The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration," the center said in a news release.
Lets add some additional information to this story. As ABC alters it's presentation of The Path to 9/11 Al-Jazeera releases a video that shows Osama Bin Laden meeting with the 9/11 hijackers before the attack. Now put that in context with the fact that one of the scenes altered by ABC is the scene where Sandy Burgler hangs up on the team about to kill Bin Laden, because Clinton refused to give the order....
Al-Jazeera broadcasts Al-Qaeda video preparing 9/11 attacks
Sep 07 3:20 PM US/Eastern Breitbart
The Arab television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a video which it said showed Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of Al-Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.
Al-Jazeera had said earlier it would broadcast "a video that included scenes showing for the first time Al-Qaeda leaders preparing the September 11 attacks and practicing for their execution."
The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.
They spoke of the situation faced by Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.
Fifteen of the 19 attackers on September 11 were Saudis, and Al-Jazeera said it had only aired a few minutes of a document which it said lasted about an hour and a half.
The footage also showed hand-to-hand combat practice between people who wore masks over their heads.
The television station also broadcast a recording attributed to the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, in which he said he was sure of victory against US-led forces in the country.
The recording was posted on an Islamist Internet site as well, but its authenticity could not be immediately established.
In the Internet statement, Muhajer also urged Sunni Muslims to kill at least one US citizen within the next two weeks.
"Oh followers of (Taliban leader) Mullah Mohammed Omar, oh sons of (Al-Qaeda leader) Osama bin Laden, oh disciples of (slain Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader) Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi ... I urge each of you to kill at least one American within a period not exceeding 15 days," Muhajer said.
The two broadcasts came four days before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Muhajer added: "I do not doubt for an instant victory" against US-led forces in Iraq, calling President George W. Bush a "liar" and a "dog."
"Do not be proud of the number and the equipment" (of your army), Muhajer said.
"The war has just begun."
Muhajer had already issued a public statement in June, a few days after his predecessor Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi was killed in a US air strike in Iraq.
Clinton
ABC
9/11
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Coffee Annan is an idiot...
Iran to help in implementation of UNSC Resolution 1701: Annan
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday that Iran has agreed to help in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which ended the war in Lebanon.
In an interview with `Al-Hayat' newspaper, Annan said Iranian officials believe the resolution provides a valuable opportunity to find a final solution to the border issue with Israel and hopefully lead to a permanent ceasefire in Lebanon.
He said his talks with Iranian officials also included the issue of a prisoner exchange, that is, a possible release of the two captured Israeli soldiers in exchange for freedom for Lebanese prisoners, adding that Iranians, however, had made clear their position that any such prisoner exchange was an internal affair of Lebanon but that they were willing to provide help.
With respect to the Israeli demand for disarmament of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Annan said that the decision should come from Lebanese officials within the framework of an agreement with Hezbollah, adding that his view was shared by Iranians who also believe the parties should arrive at a consensus.
Iran
UN
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday that Iran has agreed to help in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which ended the war in Lebanon.
In an interview with `Al-Hayat' newspaper, Annan said Iranian officials believe the resolution provides a valuable opportunity to find a final solution to the border issue with Israel and hopefully lead to a permanent ceasefire in Lebanon.
He said his talks with Iranian officials also included the issue of a prisoner exchange, that is, a possible release of the two captured Israeli soldiers in exchange for freedom for Lebanese prisoners, adding that Iranians, however, had made clear their position that any such prisoner exchange was an internal affair of Lebanon but that they were willing to provide help.
With respect to the Israeli demand for disarmament of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Annan said that the decision should come from Lebanese officials within the framework of an agreement with Hezbollah, adding that his view was shared by Iranians who also believe the parties should arrive at a consensus.
Iran
UN
Iran tests first-ever 2,000-pound guided bomb: minister
Sept 6, IRNA
Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said here Wednesday that Iran has, for the first time, designed and produced a 2,000-pound guided bomb named `Qassed'.
Referring to the bomb, he said "Iran will test one of the best achievements of the defense ministry in the (ongoing) `Blow of Zolfaqar wargames." "This remarkable achievement, one of the most important of the defense industry in this Iranian calendar year, will add to Iran's defensive potential and concretize its deterrent principle," he said.
He said Iran now joins the few countries that possess guided missile technology.
The minister further expressed felicitations to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, the armed forces and Iranian nation, and lauded experts of the Iranian Defense Ministry for this great achievement.
2327/2321/1414
---> Iran-Minister-Wargame
Iran
Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said here Wednesday that Iran has, for the first time, designed and produced a 2,000-pound guided bomb named `Qassed'.
Referring to the bomb, he said "Iran will test one of the best achievements of the defense ministry in the (ongoing) `Blow of Zolfaqar wargames." "This remarkable achievement, one of the most important of the defense industry in this Iranian calendar year, will add to Iran's defensive potential and concretize its deterrent principle," he said.
He said Iran now joins the few countries that possess guided missile technology.
The minister further expressed felicitations to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, the armed forces and Iranian nation, and lauded experts of the Iranian Defense Ministry for this great achievement.
2327/2321/1414
---> Iran-Minister-Wargame
Iran
Great Post by Podhoretz
GLOVES OFF ON IRAN
BUSH'S LOGIC SUGGESTS STRIKE
September 6, 2006 -- GEORGE W. Bush just delivered what may be the most important speech of his presidency since he went before the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, and declared his intention to seek regime change in Iraq.
The time has come, the president all but said yesterday, to take the gloves off with Iran.
"The world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he said flatly. He prefaced those words by saying that efforts were being made to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. Nonetheless, Bush has now said in the strongest sentence he has yet spoken on the matter that Iran will not go nuclear. He is unconditional about it.
In a carefully crafted speech, Bush laid out the parallels between the extremists of al Qaeda - Sunni Muslims - and the Shia extremists led by Iran. While they both use fiery rhetoric that may be easy to dismiss in certain quarters as an Islamic cultural affect, they are also uncommonly specific about their strategies and goals to achieve their aims.
Using captured documents, he showed how Osama bin Laden and the head of al Qaeda in Iraq have laid out with great precision their strategy to weaken and exhaust the United States and the free nations of the world - a strategy that is having some effect after three-plus hard years fighting in Iraq.
When discussing bin Laden's writings, Bush compared them to those of Lenin and Hitler a decade before they took power. The president pointed out: "History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake." Then, almost immediately, he jumped from bin Laden to Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"Iran's leaders," he said, "have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran's president declared in a speech that some people ask - in his words - 'whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable.' Less than three months ago, Iran's president declared to America and other Western powers: 'Open your eyes and see the fate of Pharaoh. If you do not abandon the path of falsehood, your doomed destiny will be annihilation.' "
Bush continued: "Less than two months ago, [Ahmadinejad] warned: 'The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes, America and the West should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region.' He also delivered this message to the American people: 'If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down.'"
Bush wants the world to understand that he sees the nation of Iran as different only in degree from bin Laden and the terrorists in Iraq, not different in kind. We are to take Ahmadinejad's rhetoric seriously. We are not to dismiss his threats as flowery rabble-rousing but as honest statements of intent.
And if you do that, then the conclusion is inescapable that the world must do everything it can to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club. "Armed with nuclear weapons," Bush said, Islamic extremists "would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act. I'm not going to allow this to happen - and no future American president can allow it either."
So there it is. A week after Iran declared its intention to continue uranium enrichment, the president of the United States has said in no uncertain terms that it will be stopped - that the failure to stop it would lead history to judge him, us and the world in the harshest possible terms.
Like most people, I've presumed for the past few years that our commitment in Iraq and the extreme difficulty of targeting the proper sites had basically foreclosed a serious military option in Iran. Certainly the hesitant and cautious behavior of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the past few months suggested as much.
Now it seems to me that, barring a miraculous change of heart on the part of the Iranian regime, a military strike is all but inevitable. Bush himself will view his own presidency as a failure if he doesn't act.
So act he will.
jpodhoretz@gmail.com
Iran
BUSH'S LOGIC SUGGESTS STRIKE
September 6, 2006 -- GEORGE W. Bush just delivered what may be the most important speech of his presidency since he went before the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, and declared his intention to seek regime change in Iraq.
The time has come, the president all but said yesterday, to take the gloves off with Iran.
"The world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he said flatly. He prefaced those words by saying that efforts were being made to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. Nonetheless, Bush has now said in the strongest sentence he has yet spoken on the matter that Iran will not go nuclear. He is unconditional about it.
In a carefully crafted speech, Bush laid out the parallels between the extremists of al Qaeda - Sunni Muslims - and the Shia extremists led by Iran. While they both use fiery rhetoric that may be easy to dismiss in certain quarters as an Islamic cultural affect, they are also uncommonly specific about their strategies and goals to achieve their aims.
Using captured documents, he showed how Osama bin Laden and the head of al Qaeda in Iraq have laid out with great precision their strategy to weaken and exhaust the United States and the free nations of the world - a strategy that is having some effect after three-plus hard years fighting in Iraq.
When discussing bin Laden's writings, Bush compared them to those of Lenin and Hitler a decade before they took power. The president pointed out: "History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake." Then, almost immediately, he jumped from bin Laden to Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"Iran's leaders," he said, "have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran's president declared in a speech that some people ask - in his words - 'whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable.' Less than three months ago, Iran's president declared to America and other Western powers: 'Open your eyes and see the fate of Pharaoh. If you do not abandon the path of falsehood, your doomed destiny will be annihilation.' "
Bush continued: "Less than two months ago, [Ahmadinejad] warned: 'The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes, America and the West should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region.' He also delivered this message to the American people: 'If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down.'"
Bush wants the world to understand that he sees the nation of Iran as different only in degree from bin Laden and the terrorists in Iraq, not different in kind. We are to take Ahmadinejad's rhetoric seriously. We are not to dismiss his threats as flowery rabble-rousing but as honest statements of intent.
And if you do that, then the conclusion is inescapable that the world must do everything it can to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club. "Armed with nuclear weapons," Bush said, Islamic extremists "would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act. I'm not going to allow this to happen - and no future American president can allow it either."
So there it is. A week after Iran declared its intention to continue uranium enrichment, the president of the United States has said in no uncertain terms that it will be stopped - that the failure to stop it would lead history to judge him, us and the world in the harshest possible terms.
Like most people, I've presumed for the past few years that our commitment in Iraq and the extreme difficulty of targeting the proper sites had basically foreclosed a serious military option in Iran. Certainly the hesitant and cautious behavior of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the past few months suggested as much.
Now it seems to me that, barring a miraculous change of heart on the part of the Iranian regime, a military strike is all but inevitable. Bush himself will view his own presidency as a failure if he doesn't act.
So act he will.
jpodhoretz@gmail.com
Iran
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Crime boss brokered nuclear-delivery missile sale to Iran
The Sunday Times
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
THE British government was warned more than two years ago that Iran had illegally acquired a missile system capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
It has emerged that a foreign government delivered the warning to Britain in early 2004.
Separately, it has been disclosed that the system was sold to Iran by a former senior member of the Ukrainian security service. The deal was brokered by an organised crime boss and, it is feared, contributed to the Iranian nuclear programme that is now the subject of an international confrontation.
Iran had also been using large cash payments to lure technical and scientific staff from Ukraine to work on its nuclear programme. Other targets of the bribes included one former head of Ukrainian intelligence, who was offered $5m (£2.6m) to help the rogue state, but he rejected it.
It has also emerged that in 2004 the Ukrainian government was investigating the transport of weapons from Iraq to Syria and Iran before the war to topple Saddam Hussein. Now that the row over Saddam’s weapons has died down, however, it is Iran’s nuclear programme that is the more controversial issue.
Britain’s policy of trying to use quiet diplomacy to curb the Iranian plans has been in stark contrast to the more bellicose rhetoric coming from America.
British ministers have never disclosed, however, that they were given warnings as long ago as 2004 that Iran had gone to the extent of covertly acquiring missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
The latest escalation of the nuclear crisis came last week, when Iran missed a United Nations deadline to stop enrichment of uranium, after which President George Bush said, “There must be consequences”, adding that the world faced “a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran”.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, responded by calling the claim that his country aimed to develop nuclear weapons “a sheer lie”. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for electricity generation.
Britain is playing a central role in the standoff between the UN and Iran over its nuclear programme, both as a permanent member of the security council and as one of the three European Union negotiators.
The prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons has alarmed the international community partly because of extreme statements by Ahmadinejad — such as his call for the destruction of the state of Israel — and partly because of the country’s funding of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon. Iranian-made bombs and weapons have also been used against British troops in Iraq.
The International Atomic Energy Authority has been repeatedly thwarted in its attempts to establish the scope and purpose of the Iranian nuclear programme. An authority source said the extent of its investigations into Iranian attempts to acquire hardware for nuclear weapons was a “moot point”. He did confirm the agency was aware that Ukraine had been a “key player in the process”.
Last year, Ukrainian prosecutors announced they were investigating the illegal sale of at least 18 cruise missiles to Iran and China in 2001.
The Ukrainians were supposed to have destroyed or transferred to Russia their share of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. The Americans funded a massive disarmament project, but considerable amounts of weaponry are thought to have disappeared in the interim period.
Ukraine also inherited hundreds of thousands of tons of conventional weapons from the Soviet Union, some of which have been decommissioned and some sold abroad, either legally or illegally.
Iran
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
THE British government was warned more than two years ago that Iran had illegally acquired a missile system capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
It has emerged that a foreign government delivered the warning to Britain in early 2004.
Separately, it has been disclosed that the system was sold to Iran by a former senior member of the Ukrainian security service. The deal was brokered by an organised crime boss and, it is feared, contributed to the Iranian nuclear programme that is now the subject of an international confrontation.
Iran had also been using large cash payments to lure technical and scientific staff from Ukraine to work on its nuclear programme. Other targets of the bribes included one former head of Ukrainian intelligence, who was offered $5m (£2.6m) to help the rogue state, but he rejected it.
It has also emerged that in 2004 the Ukrainian government was investigating the transport of weapons from Iraq to Syria and Iran before the war to topple Saddam Hussein. Now that the row over Saddam’s weapons has died down, however, it is Iran’s nuclear programme that is the more controversial issue.
Britain’s policy of trying to use quiet diplomacy to curb the Iranian plans has been in stark contrast to the more bellicose rhetoric coming from America.
British ministers have never disclosed, however, that they were given warnings as long ago as 2004 that Iran had gone to the extent of covertly acquiring missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
The latest escalation of the nuclear crisis came last week, when Iran missed a United Nations deadline to stop enrichment of uranium, after which President George Bush said, “There must be consequences”, adding that the world faced “a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran”.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, responded by calling the claim that his country aimed to develop nuclear weapons “a sheer lie”. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for electricity generation.
Britain is playing a central role in the standoff between the UN and Iran over its nuclear programme, both as a permanent member of the security council and as one of the three European Union negotiators.
The prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons has alarmed the international community partly because of extreme statements by Ahmadinejad — such as his call for the destruction of the state of Israel — and partly because of the country’s funding of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon. Iranian-made bombs and weapons have also been used against British troops in Iraq.
The International Atomic Energy Authority has been repeatedly thwarted in its attempts to establish the scope and purpose of the Iranian nuclear programme. An authority source said the extent of its investigations into Iranian attempts to acquire hardware for nuclear weapons was a “moot point”. He did confirm the agency was aware that Ukraine had been a “key player in the process”.
Last year, Ukrainian prosecutors announced they were investigating the illegal sale of at least 18 cruise missiles to Iran and China in 2001.
The Ukrainians were supposed to have destroyed or transferred to Russia their share of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. The Americans funded a massive disarmament project, but considerable amounts of weaponry are thought to have disappeared in the interim period.
Ukraine also inherited hundreds of thousands of tons of conventional weapons from the Soviet Union, some of which have been decommissioned and some sold abroad, either legally or illegally.
Iran
UK SCHOOL FOR SUICIDE BOMBERS...
The Sunday Telegraph reports that UK Anti-terrorist police were last night searching a Muslim "faith" school at the centre of an investigation into terrorist training camps being run in Britain.
Officers were scouring the Jameah Islamiyah faith school, set in 54 acres of woodland near Tunbridge Wells, East Sussex, after arresting 14 men in London who are suspected of organising "suicide bomber" training camps. Security sources say that the investigation was linked to concerns that young, radicalised Muslim men were being trained to launch suicide attacks in "crowded areas" of the capital and possibly Manchester. Shopping centres and main-line railway stations are believed to have been possible targets.
THIS is what we are up against! Muslim "Faith" Schools, so beloved of NuLabour and the CONservatives, appear to be superbreeders for intolerance and Jihad and as such should be closed down. Instead, our gutless brainless politicians are queueing up to invest taxpayers money in increasing their number. How can we win the war against militant Islam when we actually fund it?
Posted by DV on September 03, 2006 at 10:09 AM from A Tangled Web
Terror
Saturday, September 02, 2006
A usefull Idiot from California
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A new videotape has surfaced featuring Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and an American member of al Qaeda wanted by the FBI, according to a counterterrorism expert.
The tape, called "Invitation to Islam," runs 48 minutes, expert Laura Mansfield said. Al-Zawahiri speaks for about 4 minutes on the tape, and the American narrates the rest.
Californian Adam Gadahn, wearing a white robe and turban, introduces the message by calling on Westerners to convert. (Watch Gadahn accuse President Bush of not caring about U.S. troops -- 5:42)
Gadahn says that even Americans working with President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are invited to embrace Islam, but they should hurry.
"We invite all Americans and believers to Islam, whatever their role and status in Bush and Blair's world order," Gadahn says. "Decide today, because today could be your last day."
CNN Story
Qaeda urges non-Muslims to convert to Islam: video
Sat Sep 2, 2006 1:49pm ET
DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda called on non-Muslims especially in the United States to convert to Islam and abandon their 'misguided' ways or else suffer, according to a video tape posted on a Web site on Saturday.
The speaker was identified as Azzam the American, also known as Adam Yahiye Gadahn -- an Islamic convert from California wanted for questioning by the FBI and who U.S. authorities believe to be involved in an information campaign for al Qaeda.
"To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next," Gadahn said in English.
He appeared in the video dressed in a white turban and seated in front of a computer and books.
Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawhari made a brief statement at the beginning of the tape -- dated September 2006 -- urging viewers to listen carefully to the message, entitled: "An Invitation to Islam".
Reuters
Al-Qaeda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)