Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Another Reason to Hold O'Connor Responsible (2004)
High Court Backs Vice President (washingtonpost.com)
Related to Cheney Energy Task Force Secrecy: "His [Kennedy]opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Scalia and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer. "
Related to Cheney Energy Task Force Secrecy: "His [Kennedy]opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Scalia and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer. "
NY 911 Truth - Action Alerts
NY 911 Truth - Action Alerts: "What can you do to raise awareness of the issues surrounding 9/11? First comes education. You can direct everyone you know to great web sites with independent investigative reports. Also, urge everyone to read 'The New Pearl Harbor' by David Ray Griffin. "
Emergency Truth Convergence! Expose the Seamless Lies of 9/11,
Emergency Truth Convergence!: "Expose the Seamless Lies of 9/11,"
We should have listened to Bin Laden - Robert Fisk: 02 July 2005
We should have listened to Bin Laden - Robert Fisk: 02 July 2005
BG: My guess is that Fisk is full of it. I don't think we have any reliable quote from bin Laden in Feb. '03.
BG: My guess is that Fisk is full of it. I don't think we have any reliable quote from bin Laden in Feb. '03.
Why Are Airline "Flight Attendants" So Awful--and So Ugly?
Independent Women's Forum
BG: And so gay, and so butch. Never knew Lynne Cheney was lookin out for me.
BG: And so gay, and so butch. Never knew Lynne Cheney was lookin out for me.
Because we're there
Because we're there: "
BG: What just a dog-gone second. Even though this post criticizes Bush, there is much to dispute about the "facts."
No, what bin Laden is, and what he has done is not beyond doubt. In fact, it is most likely that the "quote" below is not from bin Laden, whose broadcasts have been faked for propaganda reasons.
.... That bin Laden is a murdering theocrat is beyond doubt. Bush, despite the sneers of many, is not some callous adventurer. But Bush and bin Laden share the same Manichean vision of a world in which one side is indisputably good, the other unspeakably bad. Bin Laden dispatched his words from some cave to an Islamic world that has been raised on a hatred of the West. To understand the enemy, and why we are in this pickle, keep in mind that Bush is convinced we're fighting bin Laden in Iraq. Much of the Islamic world believes we're battling not with Hussein's remnants, but Islam itself.
To resell a war he sold us on the basis of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Bush needed to reduce the Iraqi insurgency to a moral abstraction.
'They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake,' he said.
Granted, they probably are fighting from a standpoint of ideology. From what standpoint do we fight? Our ideology, at least as we like to pretend it, is that of a democratic republic that accepts personal freedom and general tolerance.
So far, we haven't shown much of it in the war on terror, and we have the unsavory friends to prove it.
It no longer bears repeating that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia and products of its Jew-hating, West-vilifying educational system. It no longer bears repeating because George W. Bush, product of a class-fixated, oil-rich political dynasty either does not hear or refuses to comprehend this connection.
In the months after the Twin Towers fell, Bush invited a delegation from the nation that bred the killers of 3,000 Americans to the ranch in Crawford for barbecue. That's showing them.
Bush saved his most salient argument for the end of his speech, when he suggested that we are fighting terrorists from around "...
BG: What just a dog-gone second. Even though this post criticizes Bush, there is much to dispute about the "facts."
No, what bin Laden is, and what he has done is not beyond doubt. In fact, it is most likely that the "quote" below is not from bin Laden, whose broadcasts have been faked for propaganda reasons.
.... That bin Laden is a murdering theocrat is beyond doubt. Bush, despite the sneers of many, is not some callous adventurer. But Bush and bin Laden share the same Manichean vision of a world in which one side is indisputably good, the other unspeakably bad. Bin Laden dispatched his words from some cave to an Islamic world that has been raised on a hatred of the West. To understand the enemy, and why we are in this pickle, keep in mind that Bush is convinced we're fighting bin Laden in Iraq. Much of the Islamic world believes we're battling not with Hussein's remnants, but Islam itself.
To resell a war he sold us on the basis of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Bush needed to reduce the Iraqi insurgency to a moral abstraction.
'They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake,' he said.
Granted, they probably are fighting from a standpoint of ideology. From what standpoint do we fight? Our ideology, at least as we like to pretend it, is that of a democratic republic that accepts personal freedom and general tolerance.
So far, we haven't shown much of it in the war on terror, and we have the unsavory friends to prove it.
It no longer bears repeating that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia and products of its Jew-hating, West-vilifying educational system. It no longer bears repeating because George W. Bush, product of a class-fixated, oil-rich political dynasty either does not hear or refuses to comprehend this connection.
In the months after the Twin Towers fell, Bush invited a delegation from the nation that bred the killers of 3,000 Americans to the ranch in Crawford for barbecue. That's showing them.
Bush saved his most salient argument for the end of his speech, when he suggested that we are fighting terrorists from around "...
Audio: Thisishell.net This Is Hell - July 2, 2005
Featuring Prince Serna, Julia Bonds, Sheila Watt-Cloutier and David Miller
Monday, July 04, 2005
Audio: CURRY.COM: Adam Curry's Weblog (7/4/2005 Podcast)
CURRY.COM: Adam Curry's Weblog
BG: Adam Curry scratches the surface of what's wrong with Live 8. Thanks! Adam.
BG: Adam Curry scratches the surface of what's wrong with Live 8. Thanks! Adam.
Poll: U.S. patriotism continues to soar - U.S. News - MSNBC.com
Poll: U.S. patriotism continues to soar - U.S. News - MSNBC.com
BG: P(roblem) R(eaction) S(olution) is strong brew!
"Years after 9/11, fervor stays high across racial, religious, political lines"
BG: P(roblem) R(eaction) S(olution) is strong brew!
"Years after 9/11, fervor stays high across racial, religious, political lines"
Bin Laden�s half brother: I'll pay for defense - Terrorism & Security - MSNBC.com
Bin Laden�s half brother: I'll pay for defense - Terrorism & Security - MSNBC.com
BG: What would 4th of July be like without fanning the flames of War and Groupthink with a reference to Osama?
BG: What would 4th of July be like without fanning the flames of War and Groupthink with a reference to Osama?
Resolve on this July 4th, (not celebration)
Any honest assessment of this Nation's condition provides no basis for celebration.
One-On-One Interview With Ray McGovern, Former CIA Senior Analyst :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch
One-On-One Interview With Ray McGovern, Former CIA Senior Analyst :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch
"Why is it he [Bush] remained for 25 minutes after being alerted about the attack," questioned McGovern, adding when in the background at first Secret Service agents could be heard saying ‘let’s get out of here.’ "Obviously, they were overruled by somebody, somebody who knew something.
"Why is it he [Bush] remained for 25 minutes after being alerted about the attack," questioned McGovern, adding when in the background at first Secret Service agents could be heard saying ‘let’s get out of here.’ "Obviously, they were overruled by somebody, somebody who knew something.
greatscat! an inter-active, on-line magazine: Relax
greatscat! an inter-active, on-line magazine: Relax: "It's just your credibility collapsing."
A Different New York - New York Times
A Different New York - New York Times
A Different New York
By BOB HERBERT
Yes, it was a hateful crime. And, yes, it happened in the Howard Beach section of Queens. But, no, this is not déjà vu.
Early last Wednesday a neighborhood nitwit named Nicholas (Fat Nick) Minucci pummeled a fellow named Glenn Moore with a metal baseball bat, police said. Mr. Moore was walking around Howard Beach with a couple of friends. What they were up to is not real clear and not particularly relevant. Maybe they were doing some 3 a.m. sightseeing. At least one is reported to have said he was looking for a car to steal.
In any event, Mr. Moore and his friends, who are black, ended up being chased by Fat Nick and a couple of his friends, who are white. When Mr. Moore tripped and fell, Fat Nick, according to the police, whaled on him with the bat, leaving him with a fractured skull.
The beating allegedly was accompanied by racial slurs. And some of Mr. Moore's belongings were stolen.
As bad as this incident was, it would never have risen to the status of a major news story in a city of eight million people except for the fact that it happened in Howard Beach, a nearly all-white residential area near Kennedy Airport. Howard Beach has never lived down the notoriety that resulted from the hideous death in 1986 of Michael Griffith, one of three black men who were stranded in the neighborhood after their car broke down. They were attacked by a gang of white youths who were enraged by their mere presence.
Mr. Griffith was struck by a car and killed as he ran onto a highway in an effort to flee the gang.
That incident ignited a prolonged period of turmoil that severely aggravated the already raw nerves of race relations in the city. Public officials, including the Queens district attorney, John Santucci, clashed openly with lawyers for the surviving victims. Eventually a special state prosecutor, Charles Hynes, who is now the Brooklyn district attorney, was named to handle the case.
That was New York then, when subway fares were a dollar, crime was out of control, and Gimbels was bidding the world adieu.
The city is a different and a better place these days. Mayor Michael Bloomberg could not have responded faster to last week's attack if he had been wearing Rollerblades. "I cannot stress it enough," he said. "We are going to live together, and nobody, nobody, should ever feel that they will be attacked because of their ethnicity, their orientation, their religion, where they live, their documented status, or anything else. Period. End of story."
The police moved just as fast. They quickly arrested Mr. Minucci, who is 19 and addicted to a gangster wannabe lifestyle. (He drives a $60,000 Cadillac S.U.V. and likes to cruise around flashing gold necklaces, Rolexes and other expensive bling.) The attack was deemed a hate crime, and Mr. Minucci was charged with first-degree assault. An alleged accomplice, Anthony Ench, 21, was also arrested, and a third man is being questioned.
The current Queens district attorney, Richard Brown, made it clear that anyone charged in the case would be vigorously prosecuted. And the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was the point person for the protests in the first Howard Beach case, praised the way the mayor, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and other officials have taken control of this one.
A singular development in New York over the past several years, accelerated by the terrible experience of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a willingness to move beyond the chronic ethnic conflict and divisiveness of previous eras. People in and out of government have worked hard to address problems in constructive ways.
We may not be approaching nirvana, and Howard Beach can hardly be characterized as a haven of racial tolerance. But there are very few New Yorkers interested in revisiting the searing ethnic face-offs of the past.
Mr. Sharpton, who had lunch with several public officials in Howard Beach on Friday, said that "the tone of the city has changed - as I have changed" in 19 years and that this incident should not be allowed to spiral out of control or overshadow the substantial progress the city has made.
He said he was concerned about the attack, which is why he went to Howard Beach. But he pointedly noted, "We're not fighting for the right to steal cars."
A crime was committed in Howard Beach. The wisest response would be to investigate, prosecute and move on.
A Different New York
By BOB HERBERT
Yes, it was a hateful crime. And, yes, it happened in the Howard Beach section of Queens. But, no, this is not déjà vu.
Early last Wednesday a neighborhood nitwit named Nicholas (Fat Nick) Minucci pummeled a fellow named Glenn Moore with a metal baseball bat, police said. Mr. Moore was walking around Howard Beach with a couple of friends. What they were up to is not real clear and not particularly relevant. Maybe they were doing some 3 a.m. sightseeing. At least one is reported to have said he was looking for a car to steal.
In any event, Mr. Moore and his friends, who are black, ended up being chased by Fat Nick and a couple of his friends, who are white. When Mr. Moore tripped and fell, Fat Nick, according to the police, whaled on him with the bat, leaving him with a fractured skull.
The beating allegedly was accompanied by racial slurs. And some of Mr. Moore's belongings were stolen.
As bad as this incident was, it would never have risen to the status of a major news story in a city of eight million people except for the fact that it happened in Howard Beach, a nearly all-white residential area near Kennedy Airport. Howard Beach has never lived down the notoriety that resulted from the hideous death in 1986 of Michael Griffith, one of three black men who were stranded in the neighborhood after their car broke down. They were attacked by a gang of white youths who were enraged by their mere presence.
Mr. Griffith was struck by a car and killed as he ran onto a highway in an effort to flee the gang.
That incident ignited a prolonged period of turmoil that severely aggravated the already raw nerves of race relations in the city. Public officials, including the Queens district attorney, John Santucci, clashed openly with lawyers for the surviving victims. Eventually a special state prosecutor, Charles Hynes, who is now the Brooklyn district attorney, was named to handle the case.
That was New York then, when subway fares were a dollar, crime was out of control, and Gimbels was bidding the world adieu.
The city is a different and a better place these days. Mayor Michael Bloomberg could not have responded faster to last week's attack if he had been wearing Rollerblades. "I cannot stress it enough," he said. "We are going to live together, and nobody, nobody, should ever feel that they will be attacked because of their ethnicity, their orientation, their religion, where they live, their documented status, or anything else. Period. End of story."
The police moved just as fast. They quickly arrested Mr. Minucci, who is 19 and addicted to a gangster wannabe lifestyle. (He drives a $60,000 Cadillac S.U.V. and likes to cruise around flashing gold necklaces, Rolexes and other expensive bling.) The attack was deemed a hate crime, and Mr. Minucci was charged with first-degree assault. An alleged accomplice, Anthony Ench, 21, was also arrested, and a third man is being questioned.
The current Queens district attorney, Richard Brown, made it clear that anyone charged in the case would be vigorously prosecuted. And the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was the point person for the protests in the first Howard Beach case, praised the way the mayor, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and other officials have taken control of this one.
A singular development in New York over the past several years, accelerated by the terrible experience of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a willingness to move beyond the chronic ethnic conflict and divisiveness of previous eras. People in and out of government have worked hard to address problems in constructive ways.
We may not be approaching nirvana, and Howard Beach can hardly be characterized as a haven of racial tolerance. But there are very few New Yorkers interested in revisiting the searing ethnic face-offs of the past.
Mr. Sharpton, who had lunch with several public officials in Howard Beach on Friday, said that "the tone of the city has changed - as I have changed" in 19 years and that this incident should not be allowed to spiral out of control or overshadow the substantial progress the city has made.
He said he was concerned about the attack, which is why he went to Howard Beach. But he pointedly noted, "We're not fighting for the right to steal cars."
A crime was committed in Howard Beach. The wisest response would be to investigate, prosecute and move on.
Girth of a Nation - New York Times
Girth of a Nation - New York Times
Girth of a Nation
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group financed by Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, among others, has a Fourth of July message for you: worrying about the rapid rise in American obesity is unpatriotic.
"Far too few Americans," declares the center's Web site, "remember that the Founding Fathers, authors of modern liberty, greatly enjoyed their food and drink. ... Now it seems that food liberty - just one of the many important areas of personal choice fought for by the original American patriots - is constantly under attack."
It sounds like a parody, but don't laugh. These people are blocking efforts to help America's children.
I've been looking into the issues surrounding obesity because it plays an important role in health care costs. According to a study recently published in the journal Health Affairs, the extra costs associated with caring for the obese rose from 2 percent of total private insurance spending in 1987 to 11.6 percent in 2002. The study didn't cover Medicare and Medicaid, but it's a good bet that obesity-related expenses are an important factor in the rising costs of taxpayer-financed programs, too. Fat is a fiscal issue.
But it's also, alas, a partisan issue.
First, let's talk about what isn't in dispute: around 1980, Americans started getting rapidly fatter.
Some pundits still dismiss American pudge as a benign "affliction of affluence," a sign that people can afford to eat tasty foods, drive cars and avoid hard physical labor. But all of that was already true by 1980, which is roughly when Americans really started losing the battle of the bulge.
The great majority of us (yes, me too) are now overweight, and the percentage of adults considered obese has doubled, to more than 30 percent. Most alarmingly, obesity, once rare among the young, has become common among adolescents, and even among children.
Is that a bad thing? Well, obesity clearly increases the risks of heart disease, diabetes, back problems and more. And the cost of treating these weight-related diseases is an important factor in rising health care spending.
So there is, understandably, a movement to do something about rising obesity, especially among the young. Bills that would require schools to serve healthier lunches, remove vending machines selling sweets and soda, and so on have been introduced in a number of state legislatures. By the way, Britain - with the second-highest obesity among advanced countries - has introduced stringent new guidelines on school meals.
But even these mild steps have run into fierce opposition from conservatives. Why?
In part, this is yet another red-blue cultural conflict. On average, people living outside metropolitan areas are heavier than urban or suburban residents, and people in the South and Midwest are heavier than those on the coasts. So it's all too easy for worries about America's weight to come off as cultural elitism.
More important, however, is the role of the food industry. The debate over obesity, it turns out, is a lot like the debate over global warming. In both cases, major companies protect their profits not only by lobbying against policies they don't like, but also by financing advocacy groups devoted to debunking research whose conclusions they don't like.
The pro-obesity forces - or, if you prefer, the anti-anti-obesity forces - make their case in part by claiming that America's weight gain does no harm. There was much glee on the right when a new study, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared to reject the conventional view that obesity has a large negative effect on life expectancy.
But as officials from the C.D.C. have pointed out, mortality isn't the only measure of health. There's no question that obesity plays an important role in many diseases that diminish the quality of life and, crucially, require expensive treatment.
The growing availability of such treatment probably explains why the strong relationship between obesity and mortality visible in data from the 1970's has weakened. But the cost of treating the obese is helping to break the back of our health care system.
So what can we do?
The first step is to recognize the industry-financed campaign against doing anything for the cynical exercise it is. Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them.
Girth of a Nation
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group financed by Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, among others, has a Fourth of July message for you: worrying about the rapid rise in American obesity is unpatriotic.
"Far too few Americans," declares the center's Web site, "remember that the Founding Fathers, authors of modern liberty, greatly enjoyed their food and drink. ... Now it seems that food liberty - just one of the many important areas of personal choice fought for by the original American patriots - is constantly under attack."
It sounds like a parody, but don't laugh. These people are blocking efforts to help America's children.
I've been looking into the issues surrounding obesity because it plays an important role in health care costs. According to a study recently published in the journal Health Affairs, the extra costs associated with caring for the obese rose from 2 percent of total private insurance spending in 1987 to 11.6 percent in 2002. The study didn't cover Medicare and Medicaid, but it's a good bet that obesity-related expenses are an important factor in the rising costs of taxpayer-financed programs, too. Fat is a fiscal issue.
But it's also, alas, a partisan issue.
First, let's talk about what isn't in dispute: around 1980, Americans started getting rapidly fatter.
Some pundits still dismiss American pudge as a benign "affliction of affluence," a sign that people can afford to eat tasty foods, drive cars and avoid hard physical labor. But all of that was already true by 1980, which is roughly when Americans really started losing the battle of the bulge.
The great majority of us (yes, me too) are now overweight, and the percentage of adults considered obese has doubled, to more than 30 percent. Most alarmingly, obesity, once rare among the young, has become common among adolescents, and even among children.
Is that a bad thing? Well, obesity clearly increases the risks of heart disease, diabetes, back problems and more. And the cost of treating these weight-related diseases is an important factor in rising health care spending.
So there is, understandably, a movement to do something about rising obesity, especially among the young. Bills that would require schools to serve healthier lunches, remove vending machines selling sweets and soda, and so on have been introduced in a number of state legislatures. By the way, Britain - with the second-highest obesity among advanced countries - has introduced stringent new guidelines on school meals.
But even these mild steps have run into fierce opposition from conservatives. Why?
In part, this is yet another red-blue cultural conflict. On average, people living outside metropolitan areas are heavier than urban or suburban residents, and people in the South and Midwest are heavier than those on the coasts. So it's all too easy for worries about America's weight to come off as cultural elitism.
More important, however, is the role of the food industry. The debate over obesity, it turns out, is a lot like the debate over global warming. In both cases, major companies protect their profits not only by lobbying against policies they don't like, but also by financing advocacy groups devoted to debunking research whose conclusions they don't like.
The pro-obesity forces - or, if you prefer, the anti-anti-obesity forces - make their case in part by claiming that America's weight gain does no harm. There was much glee on the right when a new study, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared to reject the conventional view that obesity has a large negative effect on life expectancy.
But as officials from the C.D.C. have pointed out, mortality isn't the only measure of health. There's no question that obesity plays an important role in many diseases that diminish the quality of life and, crucially, require expensive treatment.
The growing availability of such treatment probably explains why the strong relationship between obesity and mortality visible in data from the 1970's has weakened. But the cost of treating the obese is helping to break the back of our health care system.
So what can we do?
The first step is to recognize the industry-financed campaign against doing anything for the cynical exercise it is. Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them.
Video: Penn (of Penn and Teller): The lawmakers didn't even read the law before they passed it!
Crooks and Liars
BG: The truth of 911 is not to be found here, but the examples of the War, War, War propagandists are shown.
BG: The truth of 911 is not to be found here, but the examples of the War, War, War propagandists are shown.
Senators Clash on Questioning a Court Nominee - New York Times
Senators Clash on Questioning a Court Nominee - New York Times
The arrogance is just unbelievable: "Republicans declared that such specific inquiries were out of line."
The arrogance is just unbelievable: "Republicans declared that such specific inquiries were out of line."
Blogs for Bush: Gee, Wonder Why the MSM Didn't Cover This?
Blogs for Bush: Gee, Wonder Why the MSM Didn't Cover This?
BG: Ok, idiot Mark Noonan, whether the MSM covered this or not, here's the scoop. Most of the non-Bush lovers aren't interested in hearing any more of his lies, and therefore; don't tune in to propagandistic, dishonest speeches. Thus, it might not be surprising the the sampled audience for this instant-reaction poll was horribly skewed.
BG: Ok, idiot Mark Noonan, whether the MSM covered this or not, here's the scoop. Most of the non-Bush lovers aren't interested in hearing any more of his lies, and therefore; don't tune in to propagandistic, dishonest speeches. Thus, it might not be surprising the the sampled audience for this instant-reaction poll was horribly skewed.
Judges: It's the leftwing's fault for getting in the way....
Blogs for Bush
BG: These people have no shame:
"We need an end to the relentless political war over judges - and the ball is squarely in the leftwing court; it is the left which has to decide that it will abide by the Constitution of the United States and accept the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box."
BG: These people have no shame:
"We need an end to the relentless political war over judges - and the ball is squarely in the leftwing court; it is the left which has to decide that it will abide by the Constitution of the United States and accept the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box."
Blogs for Bush: Our Strength is Our Unity
Blogs for Bush: Our Strength is Our Unity
BG: The big jerk (Mark Noonan) left out the first sentence that proceeds his quote:
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
http://www.achievebalance.com/think/gw.htm
BG: The big jerk (Mark Noonan) left out the first sentence that proceeds his quote:
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
http://www.achievebalance.com/think/gw.htm
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Transcript for July 3 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com
Transcript for July 3 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com
"MS. MITCHELL: Aren't you undermining your own president on the war effort?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, Duncan Hunter and I served in Vietnam. I watched, as Duncan Hunter watched-- and he can speak for himself; he will. I watched 58,000 Americans get chewed up over a process of 1961 to 1975--that's the casualty rate during that time--during a time when, in fact, we had a policy that was losing. And the members of Congress were interestingly silent and absent in asking tough questions. As long as I'm a United States senator, I will do everything I can to ensure that we have a policy worthy of these brave young men and women who are sacrificing their lives and doing the things that they do for this country. I don't think that policy is there today.
And as I am sitting here today and still in the United States Senate, however long it takes, I will ask the tough questions. I will provide alternatives and solutions. I owe it to the people. I owe it to the country. And when I don't say anything, I fail those I served with, I fail those 58,000 Vietnamese families--or Vietnam victims, and I fail the families of those who already lost their lives in Iraq and been maimed. So I don't apologize for questioning. That's part of my job. And I will stand on my record against anyone having the right to ask those tough questions."
"MS. MITCHELL: Aren't you undermining your own president on the war effort?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, Duncan Hunter and I served in Vietnam. I watched, as Duncan Hunter watched-- and he can speak for himself; he will. I watched 58,000 Americans get chewed up over a process of 1961 to 1975--that's the casualty rate during that time--during a time when, in fact, we had a policy that was losing. And the members of Congress were interestingly silent and absent in asking tough questions. As long as I'm a United States senator, I will do everything I can to ensure that we have a policy worthy of these brave young men and women who are sacrificing their lives and doing the things that they do for this country. I don't think that policy is there today.
And as I am sitting here today and still in the United States Senate, however long it takes, I will ask the tough questions. I will provide alternatives and solutions. I owe it to the people. I owe it to the country. And when I don't say anything, I fail those I served with, I fail those 58,000 Vietnamese families--or Vietnam victims, and I fail the families of those who already lost their lives in Iraq and been maimed. So I don't apologize for questioning. That's part of my job. And I will stand on my record against anyone having the right to ask those tough questions."
Ghost Wars - Steve Coll - Penguin Group (USA)
Ghost Wars - Steve Coll - Penguin Group (USA)
BG: These paragraphs lie:
"In history’s long inventory of surprise attacks, September 11 is distinguished in part by the role played by intelligence agencies and informal secret networks in the preceding events. As bin Laden and his aides endorsed the September 11 attacks from their Afghan sanctuary, they were pursued secretly by salaried officers from the CIA. At the same time, bin Laden and his closest allies received protection, via the Taliban, from salaried officers in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.
This was a pattern for two decades. Strand after strand of official covert action, unofficial covert action, clandestine terrorism, and clandestine counterterrorism wove one upon the other to create the matrix of undeclared war that burst into plain sight in 2001.
America’s primary actor in this subterranean narrative was the CIA, which shaped the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan during the 1980s and then waged a secret campaign to disrupt, capture, or kill Osama bin Laden after he re turned to Afghanistan during the late 1990s. During the two years prior to September 11, among other programs the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center worked closely with Ahmed Shah Massoud against bin Laden. But the agency’s officers were unable to persuade most of the rest of the U.S. government to go as far as Massoud and some CIA officers wanted.
In these struggles over how best to confront bin Laden—as in previous turning points in the CIA’s involvement with Afghanistan—the agency struggled to control its mutually mistrustful and at times poisonous alliances with the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The self-perpetuating secret routines of these official liaisons, and their unexamined assumptions, helped create the Afghanistan that became Osama bin Laden’s sanctuary. They also stoked the rise of a radical Islam in Afghanistan that exuded violent global ambitions.
The CIA’s central place in the story is unusual, compared to other cataclysmic episodes in American history. The stories of the agency’s officers and leaders, their conflicts, their successes, and their failures, help describe and explain the secret wars preceding September 11 the way stories of generals and dog-faced GIs have described conventional wars in the past. Of course other Americans shaped this struggle as well: presidents, diplomats, military officers, national security advisers, and, later, dispersed specialists in the new art termed “counterterrorism.”
Pakistani and Saudi spies, and the sheikhs and politicians who gave them their orders or tried futilely to control them, joined Afghan commanders such as Ahmed Shah Massoud in a regional war that shifted so often, it existed in a permanent shroud. Some of these local powers and spies were partners of the CIA. Some pursued competing agendas. Many did both at once. The story of September 11’s antecedents is their story as well. Among them swirled the fluid networks of stateless Islamic radicals whose global revival after 1979 eventually birthed bin Laden’s al Qaeda, among many other groups. As the years passed, these radical Islamic networks adopted some of the secret deception-laden tradecraft of the formal intelligence services, methods they sometimes acquired through direct training.
During the 1980s, Soviet soldiers besieged by CIA-supplied Afghan rebels called them dukhi, or ghosts. The Soviets could never quite grasp and hold their enemy. It remained that way in Afghanistan long after they had gone. From its first days before the Soviet invasion until its last hours in the late summer of 2001, this was a struggle among ghosts."
BG: These paragraphs lie:
"In history’s long inventory of surprise attacks, September 11 is distinguished in part by the role played by intelligence agencies and informal secret networks in the preceding events. As bin Laden and his aides endorsed the September 11 attacks from their Afghan sanctuary, they were pursued secretly by salaried officers from the CIA. At the same time, bin Laden and his closest allies received protection, via the Taliban, from salaried officers in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.
This was a pattern for two decades. Strand after strand of official covert action, unofficial covert action, clandestine terrorism, and clandestine counterterrorism wove one upon the other to create the matrix of undeclared war that burst into plain sight in 2001.
America’s primary actor in this subterranean narrative was the CIA, which shaped the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan during the 1980s and then waged a secret campaign to disrupt, capture, or kill Osama bin Laden after he re turned to Afghanistan during the late 1990s. During the two years prior to September 11, among other programs the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center worked closely with Ahmed Shah Massoud against bin Laden. But the agency’s officers were unable to persuade most of the rest of the U.S. government to go as far as Massoud and some CIA officers wanted.
In these struggles over how best to confront bin Laden—as in previous turning points in the CIA’s involvement with Afghanistan—the agency struggled to control its mutually mistrustful and at times poisonous alliances with the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The self-perpetuating secret routines of these official liaisons, and their unexamined assumptions, helped create the Afghanistan that became Osama bin Laden’s sanctuary. They also stoked the rise of a radical Islam in Afghanistan that exuded violent global ambitions.
The CIA’s central place in the story is unusual, compared to other cataclysmic episodes in American history. The stories of the agency’s officers and leaders, their conflicts, their successes, and their failures, help describe and explain the secret wars preceding September 11 the way stories of generals and dog-faced GIs have described conventional wars in the past. Of course other Americans shaped this struggle as well: presidents, diplomats, military officers, national security advisers, and, later, dispersed specialists in the new art termed “counterterrorism.”
Pakistani and Saudi spies, and the sheikhs and politicians who gave them their orders or tried futilely to control them, joined Afghan commanders such as Ahmed Shah Massoud in a regional war that shifted so often, it existed in a permanent shroud. Some of these local powers and spies were partners of the CIA. Some pursued competing agendas. Many did both at once. The story of September 11’s antecedents is their story as well. Among them swirled the fluid networks of stateless Islamic radicals whose global revival after 1979 eventually birthed bin Laden’s al Qaeda, among many other groups. As the years passed, these radical Islamic networks adopted some of the secret deception-laden tradecraft of the formal intelligence services, methods they sometimes acquired through direct training.
During the 1980s, Soviet soldiers besieged by CIA-supplied Afghan rebels called them dukhi, or ghosts. The Soviets could never quite grasp and hold their enemy. It remained that way in Afghanistan long after they had gone. From its first days before the Soviet invasion until its last hours in the late summer of 2001, this was a struggle among ghosts."
Plame fireworks: Rove under suspicion... and why is Judith Miller *really* going to jail? | Needlenose
Plame fireworks: Rove under suspicion... and why is Judith Miller *really* going to jail? | Needlenose: "Plame fireworks: Rove under suspicion... and why is Judith Miller *really* going to jail?"
Plane violates Washington-area air space - U.S. News - MSNBC.com
Plane violates Washington-area air space - U.S. News - MSNBC.com
BG: What are they setting us up for?
BG: What are they setting us up for?
Who Told Giuliani the WTC was Going to Collapse on 9/11?
Who Told Giuliani the WTC was Going to Collapse on 9/11?: "we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)