Custom Search

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Breaking US Law--- Clinton

As amusing as it was to watch the former President flip out on Wallace, what is less amusing is the content of what he actually said and admitted to. No other president has ever admitted to such a serious and clear violation of law. In his outrage Clinton did not stop and think clearly enough to realize what he was admitting to or common sense and basic logic would have surely prevailed.

"I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
—Former President Bill Clinton, Sept. 24, 2006

As Oliver North has listed, this statement directly acknowldges breaking US Law.

Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford.
Section 5 g and h states:
(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

(h) Implementation.

(1) This section of this Order shall be effective on March 1, 1976. Each department and agency affected by this section of this Order shall promptly issue internal directives to implement this section with respect to its foreign intelligence and counterintelligence operations.

(2) The Attorney General shall, within ninety days of the effective date of this section of this Order, issue guidelines relating to activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the areas of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence.

Executive Order 12036, signed Jan. 24, 1978, by President Jimmy Carter.
Section 2-305 states:
2-305. Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf
of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in,

Executive Order 12333, signed Dec. 04, 1981, by President Ronald Reagan
Section 2-11 and 2-12 states:
No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States
Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in,


No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or
request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

Wake up America: "Democrats: The terrorists new best friend"--Cut and Run


Wake up America: "Democrats: The terrorists new best friend"--Cut and Run

I republish this post today because Al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri sent out another video statement on friday and it seems to me, he is campaigning for the Democrats in it, his words are almost identical to some of the statements the left has been spouting.

Ayman al-Zawahri:
"Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq.

The question I now present is this: Are the Democrats getting their quotes from Zawahri or is Zawahri getting his quotes from the Democrats?

Don't they sound like best friends? I am simply waiting for Zawahri to start holding a sign up saying "VOTE DEMOCRAT" to clinch it. Then again I do understand that to al-Qaeda, the Democrats are their best chance of winning in Iraq and elsewhere.

More on Zawahri's statement can be found here.

Foley quits in Page Scandal

A 16-year-old male former congressional page concerned about the appropriateness of an e-mail exchange with a congressman alerted Capitol Hill staffers to the communication.

The story is in the Washington Post.

This is a serious issue and should be dealt with in the harshest measures possible, it should not become a "political issue", and yet I see it already is. Pity that political players cannot seem to separate any part of the real world from politics. Once again though, as they say, "The proof is in the pudding".

Now, until actual charges are pressed against Foley, nothing is written in stone. Copies of a couple of the messages can be found on America Blog.

ABC, claims to have excerpts from instant messages in which
Rep. Foley made "repeated references to sexual organs and acts."

[UPDATE] ABC's Blog has one of the instant message logs on PDF here.

If, and I do say IF MAF54 is Foley, then it is a good thing he has resigned and will no longer have any part of the
House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and I do believe a full investigation by the authorities needs to get under way, to make sure his contact with children was not taken to the next level with offline meetings.

Outside the Beltway has a decent piece on this.

[UPDATE] Power Line puts this story into perspective.

[UPDATE] Hot Air and Right Wing Nuthouse both have must read articles on this.

Since this story continues to develope and probably will until the full investigation is finished, I will add the news as it comes in as continuing updates.

House Republican Election Head: I told Hastert About Foley E-mails Months Ago.

Foley and the Blame Game --- The American Thinker

Bloggers Blog has a wide range of what the Blogosphere is buzzing with on this issue.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Don Surber: NYT lies won't save the Democrats

I am linking to Don Surber's Post because he makes some very good points. The NYT and the Democratic party are both in panic mode. They see the chances of taking the majority in either house rapidly fading. They have no answers to what they want to see done differently. They have no stand on any issue that has to do with National Security. Their best Platform has been, "we need change", but they have no clue on what they would change or how they would go about it.

They are weak and desperate and have been driven to the point where the only thing they can do is stomp their feet and have a temper tantrum.

Don Surber: NYT lies won't save the Democrats

After reading his article feel free to go back and see my full thoughts on what the nature of the Democrats has become. The terrorists new best friends.

[UPDATE] I just came across this and it struck me as philosophically sound.

"You have to consider sacrificing some effectiveness in counterterrorism for the sake of democratic values, and some democratic values for the sake of efficiency in counterterrorism," Ganor said. "Israeli governments and the Israeli Supreme Court have recognized that guarding people's lives is the most important liberal and democratic value of all."

Politics versus Safety

Military Commissions Act of 2006 , Bill S.3930 otherwise known as the Detainee Bill or, and this is my favorite, The Torture Bill, is a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

For the Democrats it is a tool to use politically to criticize the administration, to undermine the purpose of the bill as a tool to get information from suspected terrorists. It is a tool to use for upcoming elections, it creates a platform for Democrats, especially those that have no platform to start with, it is an excuse and a fabricated issue to "take a stand on".

As I predicted, the Democrats and the left wing blogs are pitching a fit, having a hysterical fit about the constitution, about the laws of the USA and about the use of "supposed" torture on upstanding citizens of the United States of America. They are neglecting the fact that this Bill has been created to protect our investigators and interrogators from criminal prosecution for nothing more than doing their job, which is interrogating and prosecuting Terror Suspects.

Now, what is the Republican party and the President using this tool for? Politically it isn't exactly popular, so what does he have to gain? I will tell you, he is trying to protect this country, he is trying to secure our country so there is not another terrorist attack of the proportions of 9/11. What else does he have to gain by this? I cannot see too much by way of gains on the Presidents agenda, nor for the Republicans. Yet they passed this Bill, because they know it is important, more important than an election in November. He was willing to risk political losses to keep this country as safe as he can.

Lets compare these two party's on this issue, one is using it for political gain and the other is using it to protect our country. Isn't that sad?

Who do these tools help? The CIA, in interrogating these terror suspects, the government in protecting our lives.

Let us take a look at their job, it is up to these people to obtain information from known and admitted terrorists like, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a man who is the self proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, a man who the 9/11 commission report says was the "main architect of the 9/11 attacks" a man who is a member of al-Qaeda,, a man who had a direct hand in killing 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.

That is simply one example.

We are worried about this mans "rights"? Are you freaking kidding me? We are pitching a fit about using whatever methods are necessary to obtain information that only this man has about future terror attacks? Finding other terrorists locations? Other cells, that perhaps could be here already planning their next major attack? This man had information that led to the capture of other terrorists, including men that had already attacked and killed OUR people at two US embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

How exactly is this a bad thing? Cry all you want that you don't "like" the methods used to get that information, no one asked you to participate in the interrogations. I firmly believe in some cases the ends DO justify the means. I see alot of people saying we are losing the "moral high ground"... that is a joke, when have we ever had it, except in our own eyes?

Put this into perspective here, the extremists, the terrorists, bin Laden, Hizbullah, Iran, the list goes on, all these people believe THEY are on the moral high ground. Moral high ground is in the eye of the beholder. Our belief is no different than theirs. We just happen to insist ours truly IS the moral high ground.

So, Democrats are using this Bill as a political tool, a platform to stand up on and claim moral high ground. The President is using the Bill to accomplish what he promised he would do after 9/11, protect us.

Who am I to be speaking on these issues? I am an American that thanks President George Bush for protecting us, even when that job makes him unpopular. I am an American that appreciates the lengths he is willing to go to keep his promise to me. I am an American and damn proud to be one.

A quick update on Iraq.
[UPDATE] IRAQ- Army Col. Sean B. MacFarland, commander of 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, says Iraq insurgents are losing ground. More here.

Bush defends approach to war on terror

In the
latest of the Presidents speeches he makes a few notable points that I fully agree with.

Some have selectively quoted from this document[NIE] to make the case that by fighting the terrorists, by fighting them in Iraq we are making our people less secure here at home. This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we're provoking them. I want to remind the American citizens that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.

That is a point I have been saying from the beginning of this debate about the war in Iraq, to say the war there is the reason we have terrorists is simply denying logic and asking anyone who hears that argument to deny common sense. Even before 9/11, we were attacked, I have pointed out where and when and I have linked to the facts of each incident.

So to say or to "imply" that Iraq is the problem or where it started is flawed logic.

And this argument was powerfully answered this week by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Here is what he said. He said, "I believe passionately [that] we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible." He went on to say, "This terrorism is not our fault. We didn't cause it. And It is not the consequence of foreign policy." He's right. You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism. If that ever becomes the mind set of the policymakers in Washington, it means we'll go back to the old days of waiting to be attacked and then respond. Our most important duty is to protect the American people from a future attack, and the way to do so is to stay on the offense against the terrorists.

You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism. What other option is left? Wait until they attack us again? Perhaps killing 10 thousand this time or even more? NO!! That option is unacceptable to me and it should be unacceptable to you too. The approach we are taking now might have flaws, might not be as easy as people would like it to be, but what war is easy? Instead of criticizing the things that ARE being done, how about coming up with better ideas and being constructive instead of obstructive?

The President admits that things haven't gone as smoothly as he would have liked, then again, I am sure he isn't surprised that it hasn't been "smooth", because once again, what war is?

Military Commissions Act of 2006--S.3930

Otherwise known as the Detainee Bill.

I apologize that it has taken me so long to get this up, but when you check out the links I post here, you will understand that it has taken me this long to go through Bill S.3930 aka Detainee Bill.

I am going to offer you 2 ways to access this. I will link to the Library of Congress site itself where the bill is and I am going to link to the PDF file that is offered on the site of the Bill. It is 94 pages.

If you choose to use the Library of Congress site, know that after a few minutes, it deletes your specific search and you have to go back to the first page to get to where you were. The Library of Congress page is laid out in a more comprehensive way to go through one item to another.

There is a substantial amount of information to go over, so I am going to save my comments for tomorrow on certain line items.

I will say that after going through the whole bill, there has been much more fuss surrounding this, than what was needed. I am sure many would disagree, some with cause and some because they feel they have to disagree by virtue of being against the bill, even before they have seen it.

It is what it is.

The Senate approved the detainee legislation after Bush's allies narrowly fended off five amendments. The vote on final passage drew support from 53 Republicans and 12 Democrats, while 32 Democrats, one independent and one Republican vote nay. Full Roll Call here.

[UPDATE]There was also another Bill passed, although with all the fuss about the "Detainee Bill", not much has been mentioned on this. The
Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act aka The Warantless Wiretapping Law, story on this here.
Roll Call
PDF of Bill
H R 5825

On a side note, the Opinion Journal has an excellent article titled Infidel Documents. It is a good read.
Freedom's Zone also has a very simple yet elequent opinion.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Detainee Bill Passes--- ROLL CALL

Senate vote on Detainee is in: The Bill Passes 64-34. Roll call is listed below for those of you who are interested.

I am not going to bother listing the people that are already whining about it, because by tomorrow that list will be too long to bother with. Its done.

Now let us bring these people to justice. The people of 9/11, those that died, their families and everyone that was affected by it, deserve it.

[UPDATE] Hot Air has some good thoughts on this and addition links.

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---65
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---34
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Snowe (R-ME)

al-Qaeda in Iraq: 4,000 insurgents dead

Those DAMN insurgents and terrorists just won't cooperate with the "cut and run" party will they? They just HAD to announce how many were killed. That isn't going help, come November!!!!!!
Ok, so that was facetious.

Story is from a newly released, 20 minute, audio tape from the "New Leader" of al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying that that 4,000 insurgents have been killed so far in Iraq. He also said that they needed experts in "chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences,— especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts". His quote, and I have not heard the audio tape, or translation of it as of yet, claims they are in "dire need" if these people. Also, he makes an appeal to:
"I appeal to every holy warrior in the land of Iraq to exert all efforts in this holy month so that God may enable us to capture some of the Western dogs to swap them with our sheik and get him out of his dark prison," said al-Masri, who is also Egyptian.
Full developing story here. I will link to the translated audio tape as soon as I find it.

[UPDATE] A Hoax? From Rantings of a SandMonkey (NOT my name for him, he named himself!)
I found this link through Freedom's Zone

I guess we are doing more damage than we thought huh? Although, not everyone will be willing to admit it. Oh well.

"Democrats: The terrorists new best friend"--Cut and Run

Tampa Pirate writes on this issue.

Reading my blog, one would think I am a die hard right wing Republican. Please bear in mind that I have voted as a Democrat until I was 36 years old. (I even stayed loyal with the Clinton disaster). I woke up on September 11, 2001 to a phone call, a friend telling me to turn my television on and "something" had happened to the Towers.

I turned on my television just in time to see the second plane hit the Towers. The rest, as they say, is history.
Even then, I was proud of my party's willingness to join to together in a bipartisan fashion, backing the President (who I did not vote for) in his vow to go on the offensive.

I was glad Bush didn't just mouth the words, but followed up on his promise to go after the terrorists, and to persue any country that sponsored terror. I started to see that he was the right man to have in office at a time like that.

Then came Iraq, not a part of 9/11, but definitely a part of the war on terror, in my eyes, and I show my reasons in a previous post "Iraq Chemical Weapon Program", back by the facts, not opinion.

Thats where my party first started disappointing me, they were willing to "say" that they were against terror, but they started whining about the realities of actually doing something about it. For them, going after Bin Laden was enough.

Now, back to the present, I am an EX-Democrat that will be voting this year, for Republicans, because I believe that they are our best chance for winning the war on terror. I firmly believe that the terrorists best chance of winning this war, is the Democrats.

Look at what they have done. They have tried to block every move the President has made to secure the safety of our country, they have tried to block every measure he has needed to get the information from the catured terrorists, they have shown publically to all that can see (especially the terrorists) that they are willing to divide the country for political gains at election time, etc..... this post would never end if I list all of it, but I think you get my point.

The Democrats run around screaming "we need a change", but they do not give the methods they would use if they were in charge. The individual ways that they would handle this war differently, other than saying they want a timeline to leave Iraq. This is a war the likes of which we have never fought and we have never seen. We are not fighting a country or a leader, we are fighting "terrorists". We need people with the will to WIN.

So quit whining to me about terrorists and their "rights", they have none. Quit whining about geneva conventions, these are NOT soldiers fighting for their country, so geneva conventions do not apply. Just quit whining.

Iraqi President Shares Views on Terrorism Threat, Security

JALAL TALABANI: Personally, I do not want to interfere in the debate among Americans. I don't want to interfere with the internal affairs of the United States of America.

But I think leaving Iraq without final success will be catastrophe for American prestige, and influence in Middle East, and for Iraqi people, and for democracy and peace in Middle East, will help terrorism to grow and even to control some places in the area.

Full interview here.

Bottomline: Democrats-- Stop whining and help for a change. Maybe your voters will start voting for you again. I doubt I will, because I see the nature of what you have become. "Democrats: The terrorists new best friend".

"Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing," Bush said. He said the Democratic Party — the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman — has become the "party of cut-and-run." (President Bush)

Ahmadinejad says enrichment won't stop

Headline July 31, 2006

Security Council Demands Iran Suspend Uranium Enrichment by 31 August or Face Possible Economic, Diplomatic Sanctions.

Adopting resolution 1696 (2006), under Chapter VII, by a vote of 14 in favour to 1 against (Qatar), the Council expressed its conviction that such suspension, as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the IAEA Board of Governor’s requirements, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guaranteed Iran’s nuclear programme was for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Sounded good, didn't it? That was on July 31, 2006 and by August 1, 2006 the headlines read that Iran president dimisses UN Security Counsil resolution on nuclear program.

BIG Surprise. It is now September 28, 2008 and we cannot get the sanctions to be agreed upon or enforced on Iran. This is a president who has stated publically that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and now we are dragging our feet on his nuclear aspirations. Does anyone else see a big problem with this picture? Does anyone else think that Iran would start a nuclear war without a second thought? I do. I sincerely hope people start caring more about things like this, instead of all the political game playing.

I see that the bloggers are still buzzing away on the story "Part of the Iraq Intelligence Report Released", the NIE declassified portions of the intelligence report.
Been there. Done that. Feel free to read my comments on it.

I also see in the news that Nato is adding more troops to the Afghan Mission. Good, give them what they need to get the job done.

I see that the left wingers are still throwing a temper tantrum, see Rushing off a Cliff for an example of this, (rarely will I link to a story in the Times, it is a rag, but it does show a great example of children and their temper tantrums) it is about the detainee bill, my comments on that here.
I wish they would quit whining and realize once and for all that WE ARE AT WAR. They would rather make as much noise as they can and try to openly show a divided country to our enemies. Good going guys, keep up the outstanding work. Because that is all you are truly accomplishing.

Now, this Colorado school attack, this is truly bothering me. More and more of our kids are not even safe at school, the one place a parent always had the security of knowing their kids were safe. Worse yet, they are saying this man sexually assaulted some of them. Looks like we are going to need some comprehensive security in our schools, NOW.

More later folks.

The House voted Thursday to impose mandatory sanctions on entities that provide goods or services for Iran's Weapons Program. Full Story here.

If the UN cannot get up off their asses to enforce resolution 1696, at least we will do what we can with unilateral action.

al-Qaeda Leader writes: We are in the stage of weakness.

On 7 June 2006, American military forces executed an air strike on an al-Qa`ida safe-house near Baqouba, Iraq, killing Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda commander in Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi forces subsequently acquired numerous documents from that safe-house. On 18 September 2006, the Iraqi National Security Advisor, Muwaffaq al-Rabi`i, released one of those documents to Iraqi media. As part of an ongoing collaboration with the Department of Defense to declassify, collect, and disseminate documents that provide new insights into the internal functioning of salafi-jihadist organizations, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has made this letter available at

The captured letter sheds new light on the friction between al-Qaeda’s senior leadership and al-Qa`ida’s commanders in Iraq over the appropriate use of violence. The identity of the letter’s author, “`Atiyah,” is unknown, but based on the contents of the letter he seems to be a highly placed al-Qa`ida leader who fought in Algeria in the early 1990s.

Below are excerpts from the released letter from
Atiyah to Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi:

I am now on a visit to them and I am writing you this letter as I am with them, and they have some comments about some of your circumstances, may God guide you, with due confidence, affection, respect, and esteem. They wish that they had a way to talk to you and advise you, and to guide and instruct you; however, they too are occupied with vicious enemies here. They are also weak, and we ask God that He strengthen them and mend their fractures.

Brother Abu-Musa’b, may God protect and guide you. Bless you, my brother. Know that we, like all the mujahidin, are still weak. We are in the stage of weakness and a state of paucity. We have not yet reached a level of stability. We have no alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of strength, or any helper or supporter. We are unceasing in our efforts to unite our nation’s strength and resources.

The NIE report is fine and dandy, but here in the words OF the terrorists themselves, they are weakened, they are "fractured" and they are not stable. The war on terror is accomplishing exactly what it is supposed to accomplish.
No one said it was going to be a wham, Bam, thank you Ma'am, type situation. It is a war after all.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

US House passes controversial bill on detainee treatment

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US House of Representatives passed a controversial bill concerning the treatment of detainees held in the US "war on terror," which has been denounced by human rights and constitutional law experts.

The bill, was passed in a 253-168 vote.

The sweeping legislation sets guidelines to interrogate war-on-terror suspects and would send several hundred inmates held at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to trial after years of detention.

More here.

Well here I go. I have mixed feelings on this issue and pre 9/11 I would probably be ranting and raving and throwing a fit over this, but times change and so have I.

See, on 9/11 I woke up and I got angry, in fact, downright infuriated. Not at our government, because they didn't hijack the planes and kill all those innocent people, but at the audacity of the action itself.

I was as guilty as the previous administration of basically ignoring and discounting all the warnings and attacks that had happened in the earlier years. 9/11 changed all that. I got upset, then I got mad, very very mad. I was ready to level any country that dared protect al-qaeda, I was ready to go fight myself. Had I been young enough, I would have joined the military right then and there.

Eventually I calmed down enough to realize that leveling whole countries wasn't the answer, but neither was turning the other cheek, ignoring the obvious truths, going back to sleep. We had to act, and we had to be strong, firmly committed to doing what needed to be done, no matter how unpleasant or unpopular it was.
That is when I became a Bush supporter. I hadn't voted for him, but after 9/11 I was damned glad he was our president. The man went on the offensive, he went after them and he hasn't quit.

I do not think every single decision Bush made was correct, but I back them because he IS our president and he is doing what he thinks is right to protect this country.

Now we have the detainee bill, again, it is one that won't be popular and people are out there criticizing it.
I won't criticize it, because if ONE life is saved by information the CIA attains from a terrorist, then it is the right thing to do. If one major attack is avoided, it is the right thing to do.

I also do not believe it is "torture" that is being used. Harsh tactics, yes, I will give you that. Not torture.
We are in a war, it is a harsh war and these are not "soldiers" we are fighting, these are not men and women that are defending their country..... These are cold blooded killers that, in some cases, have information that will save innocent lives. These are people that will cut off our heads, drill into our bodies, JUST to torture and mutilate, before killing us. These are people that will strap bomb to their bodies and blow themselves up, JUST to kill as many of our soldiers and civilians as they can. These are not people, these are monsters and if we have to be "harsh" with them.... So be it.

Wake up, this is war.

What Clinton Didn't Do . . .and when he didn't do it.

Excellent fact checking on what Clinton didn't do in his years as President.

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

(I have to add this here, if for no other reason than to point out how dangerous Hizbullah was and still is and for the sake of accuracy.)

June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

For those that thought that the melt down from Bill Clinton, in the Wallace interview, was done intentionally by Clinton, I disagree. I believe his red faced temper tantrum was the result of being asked a legitimate question about his years in the Whitehouse, a question that if answered honestly would show the amount of incompetence in facing the threat to America.

[Update] Iowa Voice has the link to a memo, apparently this was the "comprehensive strategy" that Clinton was referring to.

Bush Makes Public Parts of Report on Terrorism

Yesterday, Sept. 26, 2006, I posted the key judgements from the NIE as soon as they were released.

I would like to comment on Ted Kennedy, Democratic lawmakers and the political games they are playing with our lives. To suggest that the "entire report" be declassified, in an political attempt to cast shadows on the parts that have been released, bring up a couple issues.

One: The report would not have been classified to begin with if everything in the report could be released.

Second: Most important in my mind is that, suggesting that the entire report be released, knowing that doing so would put our sources, our ability to collect sensitive intelligence, and our country at risk, shows a distinctive distain of the worth of American lives in relation to the importance of political gain.

It also shows that Ted Kennedy and the democratic lawmakers, are proving once again that they cannot be trusted with the security of our country. It is said that they are weak on terror, because they are!

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit. Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

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

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

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

al-Zarqawi, is gone. So, one down, two to go.)

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

(We REALLY need to deal with the Iran situation.)

Now, I will admit, this report makes points on both sides of the issue, but the underlying conclusions make it very clear that we are substantially safer if we win in Iraq than if we didn't. If we triumph and help Iraq establish themselves as a Democracy, the middle east will be one step closer to stabilization, and we will have a lesser risk of a major attack in America.

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

In regards to the leak in the NYT, amazing that this little tidbit of information didn't make the front page.

Irish Pennants had a well thought out and written article, well worth the read.

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

This concerns me more than words can say, because it is true. 100% true. We have politicians that are in the end run to the November elections, and in this desperate attempt for political gain, they are willing to endanger American lives. Are they helping themselves with this desperation? The latest polls are showing the Republicans gaining. What seemed to be a slam dunk for the Democrats a month ago, is now starting to look like a horse race. I am continuously astounded at how often they shoot themselves in the foot and then wonder why they keep losing.

Maybe they need to take some lessons from the terrorists on how to "adapt". If the terrorists could vote, they would surely vote Democrat to assure a "win" for terrorism.

I would like to add one final thought here..... emboldening terroists: An argument could be made that, the war on terror aside, our compliance with the jihadists and extremists agenda to stifle freedom of speech isn't exactly helping here.
Example: The Pope apologizing for his quote about Muhammed.
Example: The rioting and deaths caused by a cartoon of Muhammed.

God forbid we offend an extremist

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Declassified Key Judgments of the National

Intelligence Estimate .Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States. dated April 2006

Key Judgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States

The Rest of the Story: The NIE Reflects Previous Statements About the War on Terror

The office of intelligence director John Negroponte released a 3-1/2 page section of the April report "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" compiled by the 16 U.S. spy agencies hours after Bush ordered it declassified.

Impact Of Iraq

Declassified Key Judgments Of The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): "We Assess That The Iraq Jihad Is Shaping A New Generation Of Terrorist Leaders And Operatives; Perceived Jihadist Success There Would Inspire More Fighters To Continue The Struggle Elsewhere." (Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence, "Declassified Key Judgments Of The National Intelligence Estimate 'Trends In Global Terrorism: Implications For The United States' Dated April 2006," Released 9/26/06)

  • White House National Strategy For Combating Terrorism (NSCT): "The Ongoing Fight For Freedom In Iraq Has Been Twisted By Terrorist Propaganda As A Rallying Cry." (The White House, "National Strategy For Combating Terrorism," September 2006, Available At:

Adaptation Of The Global Jihadist Movement

NIE: "We Also Assess That The Global Jihadist Movement … Is Spreading And Adapting To Counterterrorism Efforts."

  • NSCT: "The Enemy We Face Today In The War On Terror Is Not The Same Enemy We Faced On September 11." NSCT: "Our effective counterterrorist efforts, in part, have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business. Our understanding of the enemy has evolved as well."

Threat From Self-Radicalized Cells

NIE: "We Assess That The Operational Threat From Self-Radicalized Cells Will Grow In Importance To US Counterterrorism Efforts, Particularly Abroad But Also In The Homeland."

Decentralization Of The Global Jihadist Movement

NIE: "We Assess That The Global Jihadist Movement Is Decentralized, Lacks A Coherent Global Strategy, And Is Becoming More Diffuse." "New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."

  • NSCT: "Terrorist Networks Today Are More Dispersed And Less Centralized." "They are more reliant on smaller cells inspired by a common ideology and less directed by a central command structure."
  • NSCT: "Today, The Principal Terrorist Enemy Confronting The United States Is A Transnational Movement Of Extremist Organizations, Networks, And Individuals – And Their State And Non-State Supporters – Which Have In Common That They Exploit Islam And Use Terrorism For Ideological Ends."

Underlying Factors Of The Global Jihadist Movement

NIE: "We Assess That The Underlying Factors Fueling The Spread Of The Movement Outweigh Its Vulnerabilities And Are Likely To Do So For The Duration Of The Timeframe Of This Estimate."

Threat From Al-Qaeda

NIE: "United States-Led Counterterrorism Efforts Have Seriously Damaged The Leadership Of Al-Qaeda And Disrupted Its Operations; However, We Judge That Al-Qaeda Will Continue To Pose The Greatest Threat To The Homeland And US Interests Abroad By A Single Terrorist Organization."

  • NSCT: "… Al Qaida Functions As The Movement's Vanguard And Remains Along With Its Affiliate Groups And Those Inspired By Them, The Most Dangerous Present Manifestation Of The Enemy …"

Dangers Posed By Al-Qaeda Affiliates

NIE: "We Assess That [Other Affiliated Sunni Extremist Organizations] Pose Less Of A Danger To The Homeland Than Does Al-Qaeda But Will Pose Varying Degrees Of Threat To Our Allies And To US Interests Abroad."

Tactics Of Jihadist Groups

NIE: "We Judge That Most Jihadist Groups – Both Well-Known And Newly Formed – Will Use Improvised Explosive Devices And Suicide Attacks Focused Primarily On Soft Targets To Implement Their Asymmetric Warfare Strategy, And That They Will Attempt To Conduct Sustained Terrorist Attacks In Urban Environments." "Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics."

  • NSCT: "They Use Suicide Bombings, Beheadings, And Other Atrocities Against Innocent People As A Means To Promote Their Creed."

Use Of The Internet

NIE: "We Judge That Groups Of All Stripes Will Increasingly Use The Internet To Communicate, Propagandize, Recruit, Train, And Obtain Logistical And Financial Support."

  • NSCT: "Increasingly Sophisticated Use Of The Internet And Media Has Enabled Our Terrorist Enemies To Communicate, Recruit, Train, Rally Support, Proselytize, And Spread Their Propaganda Without Risking Personal Contact."

Link to Declassified Portions of Report

"Dog" The Bounty Hunter

A quick look at something that isn't quite as political as most of what I have been writing about, but it did catch my attention.

LATEST: TV bounty hunter DUANE 'DOG' CHAPMAN is hoping to avoid extradition to Mexico by working out a deal with authorities, his lawyer says. Chapman and his DOG THE BOUNTY HUNTER co-stars, who were arrested and jailed in Hawaii, face charges of illegal detention and conspiracy following their capture of cosmetics company heir ANDREW LUSTER - a convicted rapist - three years ago.
Chapman's attorney BROOK HART claims his client is willing to offer an apology and pay a fine to forfeit the bail he posted in Mexico, where bounty hunting is illegal. Hart says, "What he's prepared to do is take responsibility for not having to stay around to face the charge." The US Attorney's office must file their extradition report by 16 October (06). Chapman and his partners caught the Max Factor heir, on 18 June 2003, in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, but were also arrested by Mexican authorities.

Now, lets look at this for a minute, Andrew Luster, a man who gave three women GHB, a known date rape drug, and raped them while they were unconscious. Luster was brought to trial in 2002. Soon afterward, police officers found videotapes of Luster raping the women in question, including one tape labeled "Shauna GHBing." On January 3, 2003, after one of the victims had testified, but before the jury viewed the "Shauna" tape, Luster vanished from his house, along with his dog and his truck. Luster was later convicted and sentenced in absentia to 124 years in prison by a California court. The California Court of Appeal refused the appeal his attorneys filed on his behalf, ruling that as a fugitive from justice, Luster had forfeited his right to appeal. The California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court later refused to disturb this ruling.

Luster found his way to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico where he lived under an assumed name (David Carrera), surfing and partying. He was taken into custody by then-unknown bounty hunter Duane "Dog" Chapman, his son Leland Chapman, a local associate, and two TV crewmen, in a noisy scuffle on June 18, 2003. Originally captured by the bounty hunter, Luster was taken into custody by Mexican authorities who then charged the bounty hunter with kidnapping. A search of Luster's room revealed more GHB as well as plans to rebuild his fortune and unspecified plans for "payback" against many of the participants in his trial. The next day, Luster was returned to the U.S., and was imprisoned.

He has been sentenced to 124 years in prison.

Now, I am not commenting on the television show, nor the family, and whether one likes or dislikes the "Dog" or anything personal, but is it exactly a bad thing that Andrew Luster was caught and put behind bars? Should Duane "Dog" Chapman, his son Leland and their associate Tim Chapman (no relation) be punished for this?

I know some bleeding hearts will say, "well he broke Mexico's Law" and that is true, but is everything black and white, or are there times when rules should be bent or broken for the greater good?

Personally,I say, good riddance to bad rubbish (Luster) and Thank You Dog!!!!!

If you are interested in this story and helping Dog and Family click here.

Remarks by Afghanistan's PRESIDENT KARZAI

PRESIDENT KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th. The President mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like.

Full Press Conference Here

Amazing that the president of another country remembers the anger, the pain, the suffering and terror, over 9/11, more than we do. Then again, his country has had to deal with terror far longer than we have, so it is not that surprising.

I remember how I felt the morning of 9/11....... do you? I woke up that morning, did you? Or are you one of the people that turned back over and went back to sleep?

Wake up America

Rice Rips "Flatly False" Claim on Bush's Bid To Get Bin Laden

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

Full Report Shown Here

U.S. Eases Carry-On Liquid Ban

Some Drinks, Small Toiletries Allowed

Passengers on commercial airplanes will be allowed to travel with small amounts of liquids and gels in their carry-on luggage starting this morning -- the first major revision of a ban enacted last month in reaction to an alleged transatlantic bomb plot.

Drinks purchased inside secure areas also will be permitted on board.

Full Story at Washington Post

I point this story out because it brings a serious question up.... Is bringing drinks and liquids on our planes more important than security?

Airline and passenger groups had been privately pushing authorities to alter the bans, which were implemented after British authorities said they discovered a plot to bring down transatlantic flights with liquid explosives.

Why does it seem that the airline passengers and airlines care more about bringing a bottle of water on the plane, than making sure that plane doesn't get blown out of the air? What is wrong with this picture?
As a seasoned traveler, I could care less about what I am allowed to bring onto a plane. I would rather know that I am safe.

Have we become so shallow that we care more about a little inconvenience than we do about our lives?

Have we also forgotten that there are other worries in the world? There are stories and issues that far surpass this?

For example we have the Detainee Measure Bill ,We also have the Iraq/Terrorism report that will be declassified. We also have the Director of National Intelliegence statement, clarifying the misrepresentations of the New York Times article that of course the Democrats jumped on, not realizing how much egg is going to be on their face when the actual report is declassified.
We also have the fact that consumer confidence is higher than anyone expected right now.

There is so much going on right now, so much news coming out by the minute and yet we are stuck on the liquid restrictions on airplanes.

We need to get our priorities straight. We need to wake up.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Statement by the Director of National Intelligence

SEPTEMBER 24, 2006

Statement by the Director of National Intelligence, John D. Negroponte, in response to news reports about the National Intelligence Estimate on Trends in Global Terrorism

"A National Intelligence Estimate is a comprehensive assessment comprised of a series of judgments which are based on the best intelligence our government develops. Characterizing only a small handful of those judgments distorts the broad strategic framework the NIE is assessing . in this case, trends in global terrorism.

"Although the NIE on Global Terrorism is still a classified document, I and other senior intelligence officials have spoken publicly, and in a way consistent with the NIE’s comprehensive assessment, about the challenges and successes we have had in the Global War on Terror. What we have said, time and again, is that while there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat.

"We have eliminated much of the leadership that presided over al Qaeda -- our top global terror concern . in 2001, and U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts continued to disrupt its operations, remove its leaders and deplete its cadre. The Estimate highlights the importance of the outcome in Iraq on the future of global jihadism, judging that should the Iraqi people prevail in establishing a stable political
and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere.

"Those statements do nothing to undermine the assessment that we have an enormous and constantly mutating struggle before us in the long war on terror. They simply demonstrate that the conclusions of the Intelligence Community are designed to be comprehensive and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."

# # #
PHONE: (202) 201-1111 FAX: (202) 201 -1124

Statement can be found here.

Seems to me that the Times recieved leaked information, then twisted it a bit, then added a few lies, then shared it with everyone and they might actaully believe their own lies.
I dont.