Raw Story: Dems going BIG on Oversight

Uh oh, I think Bushgov is in deep deep trouble...

Democrats are "thinking big" on Bush oversight, according to a Capitol Hill newspaper.

"Senate Democrats’ plans to significantly beef up the chamber’s oversight of the Bush administration will go well beyond intelligence-gathering activities and President Bush’s prosecution of the Iraq War to include investigations into the Medicare program, alleged censorship of scientists, climate change and potential manipulation of energy markets, according to aides and lobbyists," John Stanton reports for Roll Call.

So we're finally going to ask what the "F" is up with Dick Cheney's secret meeting with Energy Companies just before the California Rolling Blackouts? We're finally to get that lying weasal Abu Gonzales under oath?

Hallu-fraking-lujah!

But, I wonder and worry, if this just might be too much of a good thing?

As I've noted previously the Wing-Nuts and Neo-Con/Artists are salivating like an overheated dog at the prospects of "Libruls Run Amok" in the Congress.

They're already framing Speaker Pelosi as a "Shrew" and "Wicked Witch of the West".

In her New York Post column -- "Call Her 'Nancy Shrew'?" -- also addressing Pelosi's handling of the Hoyer/Murtha contest, Orin-Eilbeck wrote: "Forget 'The Devil Wears Prada['] the hot show in Washington is 'The Shrew Adores Armani.' In just a few short days, House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has turned into a caricature of the shrill, petty woman boss."

Then you've got O'Leilly on Nov 9th.

Now the unintended consequence of the power shift in D.C. is that some Democrats will try to impose a secular-progressive agenda on the country.

First, there will be an attempt to raise taxes — Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel will lead that.

Second, new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will encourage investigations of the Bush administration, seeking to create a scandal which would help the Democrat presidential nominee in 2008.

But that could backfire on the Democrats as most Americans do not want Mr. Bush attacked. They want to see if the Democrats can do better. They do not want to see their government ripped apart in a time of war.

I'll say again what I said before.

"Create a Scandal?" Democrats don't have to "make up a scandal" - they have a all you can eat buffet of scandals laid out right in front of them.

However -- I will with heavy heart and a lump in my throat admit one. true. fact. We shouldn't try to eat the entire buffet all in one sitting!

That's just plain gluttony.

All of these issues should be looked at, the Congress should absolutely perform oversight. The Senate still hasn't finished Phase II of the original WMD investigation. We have multiple sets of Downing Street Memos that still haven't been addressed. We got Torture. We got Illegal Surveillance. We got Katrina and it's aftermath. We're still missing that pesky Habeas Corpus thingy ("I knew I saw it on the countertop just last week...") The people who vowed to "Restore Honor and Integrity the the White House" have instead repeatedly had shoplifters, hookers, pedophiles and not-so-closeted gay drug-addict homophobe preachers in the White House, not to mention the Watergate Hotel and the Congress.

There's serious work here that needs a-doin.

But still - O'Reilly. Actually. Said. Something. True.

(Cue the Shock and Awe Musical montage - with the obligatory FEAR Font!)

IMO if we go hog-wild like a bunch of teenages girls on spring break with way too many video cameras around we'll most likely find we just lined up in a circular firing squad.

I believe strongly that this is why Speaker Pelosi has taken Impeachment "Off the Table". What Democrats do now that they've regained power in Congress can not be seen as payback or a witchhunt. We could spend the next decade investigating all the things that BushCo have totally fracked up, and in all likelyhood we probably will.

Congressional Dems have to do their jobs, they have to do it well - and they have to do them smart - or we'll be crying in our latte's about yet another Stealth Wing-Nut President (like McCain - shiver) in '08.

We have to be in this for the long-haul, not just the quick win.

Or is it just me that feels that way?

Vyan

The Republican War on Fact!

Even before Chris Wallace had his ass handed to him by President Clinton, and even before the airing of the ABC/Disney Smear-umentary "Path to 9-11", Ann Coulter got smacked down by guest Host Kirsten Powers on Hannity and Colmes as she tried to claim...

"As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.”

Further as I previously posted

In her August 23 column -- "What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support" -- Coulter repeated the false claims that Democrats "oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers" and "oppose the Patriot Act." Introducing Coulter on Your World, Buttner stated: "You do a great job in your editorial of ... listing it all out, and when you do, it's very interesting to see -- they're really good at saying what they're against, aren't they?" Buttner later appeared to concur with Coulter's false assertion that Democrats are "against every part of the war on terror," saying: "You've said it well. The problem is that the administration doesn't always go out there and sell this. It doesn't always go out there and say, 'What are the Democrats for in this war on terror?' " Buttner then asked Coulter: "Do you think the getting out there and selling themselves and fighting against the Democrats -- that finally we're going to get the Republicans out there to fight?"

President Clinton called it a "Disinformation Campaign" - and he was precisely correct. Republicans are desperate to hang their hat on the meme that Democrats are "Weak on Terror?", but during the critical time prior to 9-11 where were they?

As Washington Monthly and William Rivers Pitt pointed out in August - they were standing in the way on nearly every initiative that then-President Clinton attempted to implement against growing Global Terrorism.

-- Republicans blocked 1995 bill provisions to allow swifter deportations and court viewing of sensitive evidence
-- Republican controlled congress blocked roving wire taps and new powers to monitor money laundering; Phil Gramm and others lead the effort
-- John Ashcroft and others rejected initiatives to tighten controls on encryption software (encryption used by 1993 bombers and 2001 terrorists)
-- Clinton created the FBI Counter terrorism Center and increased the counterterrorism budget from $78 million to $609 million in four years
-- Clinton signed a National Security Directive in 1998 to destroy al-Quada and seize or assassinate Bin Laden. Multiple assassination attempts were made
-- Clinton's CIA al-Quada unit thwarted bombing attempts in Los Angeles, New York, the UN, and the Israeli embassy in Washington DC. They also neutralized dozens of al-Queda cells overseas -- all of this without any fanfare, then or post 9/11.
-- Clinton was labeled by the Right's Robert Oakely as having an "obsession with Osama". Yet now Republicans attempt to claim Clinton, not Bush Jr, was soft on terrorism and ultimately responsible for 9/11

They find it so easy to declare that America doesn't need to abide by the Geneva Conventions, even though it doesn't produce accurate information, makes it far more dangerous for our troops - and inspires the enemy to keep fighting rather than surrender, making the war more difficult to win. They find it so easy to ignore the courts when it comes to protecting the privacy of Americans -- "All Wiretaps require a court order" (except when they don't feel like asking for one).

Opposing these methods is NOT opposing victory in the War on Terror. This far more of a War of ideologies - than of military might - of competiting theories about the nature and direction of civilization. What Democrats need to do is highlight that difference rather than cower from it. We represent a higher vision of how to fight this war. Using Fact, Logic and doing so within the confines of the Law, the Constitution and our Conscience.

Just as he did prior to the Iraq War, President Bush continues to ignore and dismiss what his own Intelligence Agencies tell him. According to the New York Times, the latest National Intelligence Estimate (which collects the view of 16 different agencies) stated:

he American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

But According to Bush...

You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of “we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Even though the latest Senate Intelligence Report (PDF) clearly stated that Saddam had tried to Capture Zarqawi - and there was no connection between him and Al Qaeda - Bush Officials continue to claim the exact opposite.

And Bush himself tries to duck and cover by claim he never said there was an "operational relationship" between Saddam and Zarqawi - except that he did.

The Truth is: Saddam Hussein did not attack us. He was not armed with WMD's, didn't have programs in place to create either WMD's or Nuclear weapons - and certain was not about to hand any of these weapons over to terrorists.

But they simply refuse to believe the truth. They can not accept that torture doesn't work, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that our occupation of that nation is sending more young muslim men into the open arms of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas then ever before.

The Truth: WE. ARE. LOSING. THIS. WAR.

Iraq is falling apart. Afghanistan is going to hell and a hand granade.

Do Democrats have a strategy to win? Well, yeah - the first thing to do is for America to Stop LYING TO itself.

We fucked up. Big time. Bush shouldn't have been given the authority to invade Iraq in the first place. They should have let the UN Inspectors finish their job first. (Once it was made clear that Saddam was already disarmed, he might have become the one with the insurgency problem - not us) They should have used more troops to maintain the peace after the initial attack was over. They shouldn't have let Katie O'Biern's husband hire inexperienced political partisans to oversee (and consquently fuck up) the Iraq Reconstruction Effort, not to mention let $8.8 Billion disappear into the thin air between their ears.

They should have caught or killed Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora.

Coulda. Shoulda. Woulda. Ok, What do we do now?

Again as President Clinton has recently stated, Iraq is in a state much like that of Bosnia and Kosovo. Three distinct ethnic groups are commiting violence against each other, vying for control of the country and it's natural resources. The Loyaties of the Iraqi Army are questionable - but Clinton, with the support of both Russia and Europe was able to bring together a consensus that ended the violence in Bosnia, stopped the ethnic cleansing and brought Slobodon Milosevic to justice.

The same came be done in Iraq, if we reach out and seek help from our allies while insisting that the Iraq People take thier country back from those who would rip it apart. They can't expect us to take the bullet for them forever.

Unfortunately none of that is going to happen under this Administration. But with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President - it just might.

And that's what the Neo-Cons are truly afraid of. They have to maintain this Deliberate Disinformation Campaign, because that's the only way they'll be able to hold on to power. They don't mind losing to Al-Qaeda, or losing to the insurgents in Iraq. It doesn't matter because they can simply spin another set of lies to make it seem like it's someone elses (Clinton's) fault. The way to really get under their skin is to make sure they lose - big time - in November. And then again in '08. It's the only way to bring a little factiness back into our Government.

Win the War at the Ballot Box, then we can finally end the War on Common Sense and Fact.

Vyan

Fox Tries to Relight PT9-11 Smear

Saturday on Heartland with John Kasich, the issue of the Clinton Administrations attempts to "get Bin Laden" were once again brought out and flogged. Kasich asked former CIA Operative Gary Berntsen if Clinton had "tried hard enough" to capture or kill the terrorist leader.

In response Mr. Berntsen claimed that "they had approached this as a law enforcement problem" and that "there was one oppurtunity in 2000, where we were up in the mountains of Afghanistan - chasing bin Laden - where they refused to pull the trigger"

The claim is identitical to the one made by the ABC/Disney docudrama "Path to 9-11" which asserted that U.S. forces had bin Laden "in their sights", but Clinton Administration Officials simply refused to do what needed to be done to get him.

Former NSA Counter-terrorism Chief Richard Clarke in response to the allegations made by the film has already stated:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Ladin camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

Thinkprogress also noted:

According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

So just what the heck is Berntsen, who is a decorated CIA veteran office with over 20 years experience - and was there in person at Tora Bora when Bin Laden escaped - talking about?

Apparently according to Frontline it's this:

Can you talk about the [2000] attempted capture of an Al Qaeda aide?

Well, I'm, of course, at home in the morning, 7:00, ... and I receive a phone call. It's the deputy in the bin Laden shop, and he's panicked, and said, "Gary, how's your Persian?" I said: "Well, actually, my Persian's pretty good at the moment. I'm in language review." ...He says: "Can you come in? We're having a crisis." So of course I drive in, go to the office, and he said: "Look, we have a team. We've been training these guys for the last two months to ... undertake some highly dangerous missions in Afghanistan. Would you be willing to go, because we only have one Persian speaker on the team?" I said, "Well, when are you leaving?," and he said, "Well, in a couple of hours." I said, "Well, how long is this mission going to be?" They said, "Several months." So I said: "OK, I'm in, let me pass the bad news to my spouse." Then, of course, I went on the mission. Went home, grabbed a couple of thousand dollars, went and bought several thousand dollars' worth of camping gear, good equipment -- told the young sales boy that I was moving to Alaska -- and then, of course, showed up several hours later.

We are flown into the Panjshir Valley [in Afghanistan] ... on a North[ern] Alliance helicopter, which looks like it's held together with bubblegum and bailing wire. I had been a crash firefighter in the Air Force; I knew an aviation accident when I saw one getting ready to happen. It was unbelievable. The aircraft tires had big bubbles the size of 50-cent pieces. There were holes from ground fire throughout the bird. There was an internal fuel tank which shouldn't have been in the middle of the body of the aircraft; it was leaking. We had to open the windows because we would have been asphyxiated. Then we flew in on that. It was quite an exciting flight. ...

That was your first time in Afghanistan?

That was my first time in Afghanistan, and it was fabulous. I was thrilled to be there. ... Unfortunately, there were some reports that came out of left field ... that said, "Bin Laden is aware that there are Americans in the country." He had put a bounty on the life of any CIA officer that could be captured in Afghanistan and brought to him for $3 million. Our headquarters panicked, and they said, "You have to come out." ...

Tell me what the mission was.

Well, we were in there to collect intelligence and, working with the Northern Alliance, to identify one of those key lieutenants near bin Laden ... and to snatch him, to kidnap him.

Did you know who you were after?

We had two or three choices. ... We knew several of the ones that we were looking at.

... Now we come back after being withdrawn. First they tell us, "You have to leave." ... We said, "We can't, because it's cloudy." Well, we were lying. It wasn't cloudy; it was blue sky, but we were trying to do anything possible to extend our mission on the ground. Finally, [there was an] intervention on the seventh floor [of CIA headquarters]: "No, you have to come out, or we'll discipline you, because we know you're not telling us the truth. We're looking at weather maps." This is what we were told. So we had to fly, and the Afghans were horrified. They were horrified that we would tell them that we wanted to come ... and then [at] the slightest threat we would abandon them. It was disgraceful.

Who was it?

It was the CIA's leadership. I would put that on [Director George] Tenet and [Deputy Director of Operations Jim] Pavitt, put that right on them. It was heartbreaking. When I came back, of those six men, two of those men would resign -- ... good men -- because they were just disgusted. They said, "We'll go do something else with our lives."

So first of all, they weren't there to capture or kill Bin Laden himself, there were after a few of his deputies -- second the recall order didn't come from Bill Clinton, it didn't come from anyone in the White House, it came from George Tenet.

Mr-Slam-Dunk-Mobile-Labs-Medal-o-Freedom himself.

As he will be shown saying to Chris Wallace today on Fox News Sunday, Bill Clinton, following the bombing of the U.S. Cole had invasion plans for Afghanistan drawn up and ready to go, but the CIA -- Tenet -- refused to certify that bin Laden had been responsible, so those plans remained on hold.

Berntsen was definately a "hard charger" one who was involved in the hunt for bin Laden fairly early, long before he became a topic of common dicussion among government officials.

Do you remember the first time you heard the words "Al Qaeda"?

I think that it was in the early '90s, and it was because Mike Scheuer had formed that group within CIA, the bin Laden Group [UbL] and was talking about the Sunni terrorism and this individual, [Osama] bin Laden, this financier. It was Scheuer who first brought that up, ... and he convinced me early on that this was a growing problem. Later, when the bombs in East Africa go off [in the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998], I'm sent to lead the team because we think this is possibly Hezbollah. Hezbollah had done the attacks on the embassy in Beirut, had done the Marine barracks [there]; they had done the Israeli Embassy in ... Argentina in '92 and '94. They had been involved in [the bombing of] Khobar Towers [in Saudi Arabia] in '96. So it looked like yet another attack done by Hezbollah. Of course, I get out there on the ground, and it's not; bin Laden has gone big.

... Where are you when you hear about [the bombings in] Dar es Salaam, [Tanzania]?

Well, of course, I'm sleeping; it's 4:20 in the morning in my townhouse in Virginia. The phone rings. I have a telephone that is encrypted in my house. I got up, turned the key and go secure, and now I'm told by the watch center that bombs have just gone off in East Africa, and that Jeff O'Connell, chief of CTC, would like me to come in immediately. I throw my clothes on, fly out the door, and go in. Then I'm with this small group -- O'Connell, [former CIA analyst] Paul Pillar, myself and a couple of others. ... O'Connell was a very decisive guy, and said, "Gary, you're going to Dar es Salaam," and he gave out the air assignments. Then we proceeded. ...

And the meaning of it being an Al Qaeda attack?

Something else big now we have to worry about. Bin Laden's gone big. Scheuer's [bin Laden] unit was about to be closed; there was discussion about folding it into something else, and there was a
lot of politics around that. Of course Scheuer got new legs after that bomb went off.

But why would Berntsen give the impression on Heartland that someone in the White House was the one pulling the plug? Maybe because, well, he's kinda of a dick. Aka - a Neo-con.

So when does it cross your field of vision that there's a real interest in the agency and in the American government ... to go kill Osama bin Laden or capture him if we can?

That's years later before we feel that they're serious. Those embassies are blown up, and the response is cruise missiles. It was a pathetic response. Bin Laden was on the ground there. We had realized it was him. We should have just sent troops in and taken him at that point. It [was] an act of war doing what he did, but the administration wanted none of it. ...

... Why, do you think?

They didn't want to have to pay the price of conflict. Now, individually, in my unit, I'm aggressive; I'm always going after these guys. I continue as aggressively as I can in every operation, every day that I'm there, ... and frequently force people's hands so they have to do the operations in the way I design them.

Why?

It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. When pursuing terrorists, I would do as much as I could, and at the last moment, you'd execute the capture and say, "Here we are; we have these guys."

You mean you were actually capturing them?

We would use some of our sources and influence other governments to do that, yes. ... I'm sort of the guy in CIA -- I was like the sixth or seventh man on the basketball team: Any time they needed a tough foul delivered or something done, I get sent in, and I always got the best playing time.

I was very, very lucky, because I'm the guy who gets to go to East Africa for the bombings. I get sent in to Afghanistan 15 months before, at the last minute. I get to go [back] on the 11th of September and replace Gary Schroen [of the CIA's Directorate of Operations] on the battlefield there. ... Whenever they needed something, I was always ready to put my hand up and go. ...

Berntsen is a field guy, hanging his ass way out there in the wilds of Afghanistan -- what does he know about conversations at the White House? Did he know that Clinton had authorized bin Laden to be killed. Did he know that he had requested Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to implement exact the plan that Gary suggested - bring in Special Forces and blow bin Laden away - but that it was the Pentagon Boys, the big bad macho military guys, who refused because of logistical issues?

Clarke speaking with Mike Sheehan, the top State Dept Counter-terrorism official in about the lack of response to the Cole bombing in 2000:

"What's it gonna take, Dick?" Sheehan demanded, "Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin' Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell, they won't even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qeada have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?"

When it comes to Tora Bora, when the finally did let Delta and the Air Force lose - yet Bin Laden still got away, Berntsen feels that the reins were pull back not by Tenet, but by CENTCOM (Central Command) --- that's Rumsfeld and the Pentagon Brass.

[But couldn't the president (Bush) have ordered the troops in?]

... Of course. During the 2004 campaign, when you had the Kerry/Bush discussion on this, and John Kerry says, "The president contracted this all out to the Afghans to do this," well, that's not exactly true. ... It was mostly us. We had our teams out there calling in air strikes. We did use Afghans as blocking forces, and Delta Force would go in. ... The Afghans didn't want to fight. ... We had to pay them, had to yell at them, had to threaten them, had to do all sorts of things to get them to get into combat.

There was truly a fog over what occurred, and it doesn't surprise me, because there is often lots of bureaucracy between that man in the field, whether he's a CIA officer or a military commander, and the commander in chief back there. ... And the president, of course, relied on the people around him. I don't think the president was served well. ... I know the president would have done anything possible to kill bin Laden at that point, but I'm certain my requests never got to him.

You blaming Tenet?

... It was CENTCOM's decision. ... I think Tenet stepped up on that.

So with [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld?

There's a book written by [CENTCOM deputy commander] Mike DeLong [with Noah Lukeman] called [Inside] CENTCOM: [The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq]. In that book, DeLong talks about a conversation that he has with Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld calls CENTCOM and says, "Send in troops," and CENTCOM's response is: "The altitude's too high. It's too cold." It's this, it's that -- makes up a lot of reasons. And Rumsfeld says, ... "I ski at 14,000 feet, and I'm 70," and the response is, "You don't have to carry a pack." And he says, "OK, do what you think is right."So the secretary of defense wanted them in there, but he left the final decision to the commanders on the ground, and they didn't want to do it, based on the reading of Mike DeLong's book.

Nice to see that he reads books, maybe he should try reading Clarke's.

And by the way, Fred Barnes says the President told him this month that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.

Fancy that?

Vyan

Bill Clinton Smacks Fox News - Hard!

In an interview for Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace takes on Bill Clinton over the issue of 9-11, al-Qaeda using talking points taken from "Path to 9-11" -- and gets his head handed to him. (I've quoted so much of the interview because it's that good- and the likelyhood of Fox actually broadcasting all of this, where their correspondent is delivered a full on facial from Bill Clinton is somewhere between slim and nil... Enjoy)

Promo clip of segment from Youtube.



Full Inteview Transcript from Thinkprogress.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on fox news Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President. There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

CLINTON: OK..

WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20 20.

CLINTON: No let’s talk about…

WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 911 commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in black hawk down and I refused to do it and stayed 6 months and had an orderly transfer to the UN.

Some background: This is point both Clarke and Clinton make in thier book. It wasn't Bill Clinton's choice to enter Somalia in the first place - the operation was started under George H. W. Bush and was supposed to already be over before Clinton took office. Unfortunately there was a six-month delay before UN Peacekeepers could be brought in to take over the task of trying to feed the starving people. Somali Warlords like Adid had been stealing the food and using it as a bargining chip to consolidate his power and influence.

Clinton ordered him arrested.

The military conducted operations to capture Adid, but failed to locate him. Those operations were intended to be carried out at night, but instead were done during the day - and the Adid's men were watching. They laid a trap and took out two of our helicopters with shoulder-fired missles. Several of our troops were killed, one was captured. During the successful rescue operation of Durant, the captured helicopter pilot, thousands of Somalis were killed - but Clinton didn't order our troops to leave. They didn't "cut and run" the way that Reagan ran like a scared rabbit out of Beirut. They completed the mission and turned over control to the UN after six months, so when Clinton gets pissed when he's accused of being a coward in Somalia - he has good reason.

Clinton: Ok, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin laden had anything to do with black hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

WALLACE: …I understand…

CLINTON: No wait…no wait…Don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up so you get an answer.

WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…

CLINTON: And secondly…

WALLACE: Bin Laden says…

CLINTON: Bin laden may have said that…

WALLACE: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the US…

CLINTON: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim war lord murdering..thousands of Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission — none — to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

WALLACE: But Mr. President…

CLINTON: There was no Al Qaeda…

WALLACE: …with respect if I may. Instead of going through 93.

CLINTON: You asked you. It you brought it up.

WALLACE: May I ask a general question that you can answer. The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about, and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said…

CLINTON: Wait, Wait…

WALLACE: …they said about you and 43 and I quote, “The US government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank”

CLINTON: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…

WALLACE: …the 9/11 commission says…

CLINTON: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?

WALLACE: Yes I do

CLINTON: You do?

WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties but yes.

CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Regan. He was loyal to him. He worked for George Herbert Walker Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions, assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got Bin Laden.

WALLACE: …

CLINTON: Now wait a minute…

WALLACE: ..cruise missiles..

CLINTON: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job.. The country never had a comprehensive anti terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this, after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden.

This would be the Delenda Plan (pdf) that were drawn up by Richard Clarke, a comprehensive Political and Military strategy for combating Al Qaeda. A plan which was presented to Condoleeza Rice as the incoming National Security Advisor, and she subsequently ignored - until after 9-11.

But we needed baseing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document too. All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

From Clarkes Book: In 1998, after the cruise missle attack on Bin Laden Clinton told Gen Hugh Shelton, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs...

"Hugh, what i think would scare the shit out of these al Qaeda guys more than any cruise missle... would be the sight of U.S. commandos, Ninja guys in black suits, jumping out of helicopters into their camps, spraying machine guns. Even if we don't get the big guys, it will have a good effect." Shelton looked pained. He explained that the camps were a long way away from anywhere we could launch a helicopter raid. Nonetheless, America's top military oficer agreed to "look into it".

But the fact is the Pentagon wasn't having any more of Clinton's "wild adventures" in Africa and the Middle-east - not after Somalia.

In October of 2000, Richard Clarke discussed the problem following the bombing of the Cole with Mike Sheehan, then the State Depts top Counter-terrorism official.

"What's it gonna take, Dick?" Sheehan demanded, "Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin' Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell, they won't even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qeada have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?"

Yes, that exactly what they needed to do. No, Clinton didn't get Bin Laden - but it wasn't for lack of effort on his part.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him

WALLACE: Right…

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tired. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke. I want to know…

WALLACE: We asked..

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: tell the truth.

WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

Gotcha!!! As it turns out- niether Chris Wallace or his predecessor Tony Snow has ever asked a member of the Bush Administration about the Cole bombing.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

WALLACE: [laughs]

CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

WALLACE: But President Clinton…

CLINTON:

WALLACE: We were going to ask half the question about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear .

CLINTON: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

WALLACE: Sir that is not true…

CLINTON: …and Richard Clarke…

WALLACE: That is not true…

CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No I want to finish this.

WALLACE: Alright

CLINTON: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…

WALLACE: Did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the US? Did no one know in 1998…

CLINTON: Absolutely they did

WALLACE: When they bombed the two embassies…

CLINTON:…

WALLACE: Or in 2000 when they hit the Cole.

CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and 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.

Oooh, SNAP!

And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

WALLACE: [Laughs]

CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise… We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: You can.

WALLACE: I always intended to sir.

CLINTON: No you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked o the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one sided questions… It always comes from one source. And so…

WALLACE:…

CLINTON: And so…

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative but what’s the source? You seem upset?

CLINTON: I am upset because..

WALLACE: …and all I can say is I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds sir. And I wasn’t…

CLINTON: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked…against terror…under Regan…only one, Richard Clarke. And all I’d say anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right. Anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden. And that was wag the dog when he tried to kill him. My Republican sec of defense — and I think I’m the only person since World War II to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposite party — Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

WALLACE: alright…

CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd..

WALLACE: one of the…

CLINTON: …So if you’re going to do this for gods sake follow the same standards for everybody.

WALLACE: I think we do sir

CLINTON: …be fair.

WALLACE: I think we do. One of the main parts of the global initiative this year is religious reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of the century and his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?

CLINTON: Sure. To advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is what’s the best way to do it. I think also the question is how do you educate people about democracy. Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy but do I think on balance that in the end after several bouts of instability do I think it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure I do. …The president has a right to do it? Sure I do. But I don’t think that’s all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us try to get a just and righteous peace in the Middle East. They have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

Amen.

And there are other questions that need to be asked of the Bush Administration - such as what happened at Tora Bora? And while Bush is taking photo ops with Pakistani President Musharraf, is he asking him about the treaty with the Taliban he just signed? I thought if you were with us, you were against us?

Maybe, not so much - eh?

Vyan

Clarke debunks ABC Mockudrama

The upcoming 2-Part ABC Docudrama "The Path to 9/11" features a key scene during it's first night "where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden -- even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded".

But Thinkprogress now has a response from former Counter-Terrorism Chief [and on-air ABC Consultant] Richard Clarke which indicates that this scene never happened.

In the film the situation is depicted as:

The CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they're on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they're afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed...Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. "Are you kidding?" He asked Berger over and over, "Is this really what you guys want?"

Berger then doesn't answer after giving his first admonition, "You guys go in on your own. If you go in we're not sanctioning this, we're not approving this," and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

This is an old canard, one that first arose just days after the 9/11 attack.

Clarke's response:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Ladin camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

Thinkprogress notes:

According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

The facts stand in stark contrast to the film, which was apparently written by a "friend" of Rush Limbaugh's.

Yet there's even more data which makes the claims made by this movie against the Clinton Administration even more outlandish. As early as 1996 concerted efforts by Clinton to increase our anti-terrorism funding and the capabilities were blocked by the Republican Congress.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

It may be possible that "Path to 9/11" author Cyrus Nowrasteh didn't completely make up the scene of Bin Laden's escape from U.S. Forces - he simply transplanted it to before 9/11, when in fact this harrowing escape by Bin laden took place in 2001 at Tora Bora.

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

During his term President Clinton considered Osama Bin Laden to be a grave threat and top priority. He vastly increased counter-terrorism funding, refocused priorities including creation of the "Bin Laden Desk" at CIA which was headed by Michael Scheuer - but the fact is that Clinton not only had enemies in the Republican Congress, he had enemies within the goverment and military who sloughed off his requests and even dragged their feet when given direct orders to Kill Bin Laden.

From Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies pg 225-226.

Because of the intesity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in "Wag the Dog" tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director [Republican Louis Freeh] who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover errrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personaly and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing.

Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct.

In the absense of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more. Nonetheless, he put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away political barriers to action.

Despites his efforts and his hammering on counter-terrorism as a priority - Clinton was often ignored and derided by his political opponents. He could "do no more" because Congress and the Military wouldn't let him do more.

"..Enemies" page 204.

On the issue of the White House authorizing CIA to kill bin Laden, much has been written. Several reporters, including Barton Gellman in the Washington Post of December 19, 2001, have written that President Cliton approved multiple intelligence documents authorizing CIA to use lethal force against Osama bin Laden and his deputies. Sandy Berger elaborated before the Join House-Senate Inquiry Committee, saying. "We received rulings in the Department of Justice not to prohibit our efforts to try to kill bin Laden, because [the assasination ban] did not apply to situation in which you're acting in self-defense or you're acting against command-and-control targets"

Yet bin Laden was not killed. President Clinton as reported in USA Today [November 13.3001] reflectetd his frustration by noting "I tried to take bin Laden out... the last four years I was in office."

The Assasination Ban was no small legal issue, but was simply used as an excuse to not accomplish the mission. Time after time, the Military and CIA balked when oppurtunities arose to kill bin Laden. When the issue of arming the Predator drone with missles was considered, then CIA director George Tenet didn't want responsibility for giving kill order, he was quoted by reporters as saying "It would be a terrible mistake" to have the CIA conduct an assasination as it would endanger the lives of CIA operatives around the world.

The bottom line is that they didn't take bin Laden seriously and thought Clinton and his deputies including Berger and Clarke had "Osama on the Brain". Clarke continued...

When Clinton left office many people, including the incoming Bush administration leadership, thought that he and his administration were overly obsessed with al Qaeda. After all, al Qaeda had killed only a few Americans, nothing like the hundreds of Marines who died at the hands of Beirut terrorists during the Reagan administration or the hundreds of Americans who were killed by Libya on Pan Am 103during the first Bush's administration. Those two acts had not provoked U.S. military retaliation. Why was Clinton so worked up about al Qaeda and why did he talk to President-elect Bush about it and have Sandy Berger raise it with his successor as National Security Advisor Condi Rice?

Why indeed?

Better question, why did BushGov completely ignore these urgent warnings about OBL - and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole - until August of 2001?

Vyan

If Democrats were in Control...

Today on Face the Nation, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell presented the Republican Position Version 2.0 on why they should retain control of Congress.

Because, he said if Democrats were in Control...

Saddam Hussein would still be in Power and murdering his own people.

Since we've been in Iraq Iraqbodycount.net has a minimum estimate that 41,000 civilians have been killed since the War began. Does anyone in their right mind think that Saddam would have caused this many deaths, or created this much destruction if he were still in power? He had No Weapons of Mass Destruction, no impending Nuclear Enrichment Program and no active ties to Al Qaeda. And yet, we have people like Bully O'Leily saying we should be running Iraq just like Saddam. So his remaining in power - and remaining disarmed - would have been a bad thing compared to the state of Iraq now?

He also stated.

It would be more difficult to engage in terrorist surveillance.

Yes, you would have to have that pesky probable cause thingy - showing that the people involved were actually terrorists and get a FISA Warrant. But clearly the Republicans think tracking tens of millions of innocent phone calls, spying on teachers and pacifists who have nothing to do with terrorism is a much better use of our time and resources.

If Democrats were in control...

They would have us treat the Prisoners in Guantanemo better than our own soldiers in the justice system.

Well, actually the Democrats would simply have us pay attention to the 8th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution - which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and require "all persons within the jurisdiction of the state... the equal protection of the laws", respectively. Republicans thought the 14th was a real handy Amendment when they wanted to block the recount in Florida, but suddenly when it and the Supreme Court (not Democrats) start requiring that the President actually live up to the 14th - they can't handle it.

Just before McConnell spoke on the program Howard Dean had answered questions -

Just look at the angry face that Dean showed you. That's what Democrats do.

1) Dean wasn't particularly angry 2) If funny faces is what the Republicans are really worried about - they're in much bigger trouble than even they realize. One thing that Dean did point out however is that Democrats do have a plan to handle National Security - it's right here - while the Republicans have blocked various Democratic proposals to improve funding and supplies for first responders, and to better protect our ports. He pointed out that Osama Bin Laden- the terrorist who really did attack us on 9-11, unlike Saddam - is Still At Large.

Let me just add that Republicans let Osama Escape from Tora Bora, they've cut back on police. They've mismanaged Iraq and lost $8.8 Billion down a rathole.

If we cut and run, they'll (the Terrorists will) follow us here (to America)

Yeah, I remember how when we cut and ran out of Saigon, the Vietcong followed us right to Santa Ana and starting setting up Nail Polish stores.

That's what Democrats will do (if they gain power), they'll cut and run out of Iraq, they'll raise taxes and they'll Impeach the President.

1) Supposedly Iraqis have finished building their government. With that in place the Democrats want the Iraq Forces to finally Stand on their Own Feet. The Bush Administration has done a piss-poor job of training and equiping them, that needs to change. If it does - and they finally begin to stand up - we can stand down. If we need to set a deadline for them in order to put some fire under their ass - so be it. But no Democrat has proposed we leave without getting that job done.

2) "Raising taxes" by putting them back to where they were when we were running at a Surplus that would have protected Social Security for the next 70 years, and created over 12 Million Jobs - isn't a a bad thing. Giving tax breaks to corporations for shipping jobs overseas is a very bad thing and it needs to stop. My feeling has always been that we shouldn't simply repeal the Bush Cuts, Democrats should follow John Kerry's proposal to provide tax breaks and benefits to individuals and companies who invest in America. If people invest in Alternative Energy and Fuels, if they provide Health Care and protect the Pensions of their workers, if they help them pay for college and hire people off of welfare - they should get tax breaks. But if they want to go off and party like Paris Hilton - they should pay the full fare.

3) Oh God, I hope so...

Vyan

Time to Start Playing Offense

By the time of, or at least soon after the State of the Union, Democrats -- not just the party, but we the rank and file - need to realize it's time to stop playing Defense and start playing Offense.

Simply complaining endlessly about the failings and foibles of the Bush Administration isn't enough (Although it's fun and theraputic). We also, vitally, need to point out how and why our path and philosophy is better. Some of this is obvious - Curruption and Lies:Bad, Honesty:Good - but on some issues we still need some work (Taxation, Governments Role in our lives, Being comfortable in our own faith, Support nearly for unlimited Abortion).

Well past the point where we made everyone understand who we really and where we stand rather than let Bully O'Reilly's repeatedly define us as the Far-Left Secular-Progressives who with to put porn in your homss 24/7, take God out of your lives, and homosexualize your teenagers.

We'll never get Bush's true poll numbers down to just those who actually believe in the policies he implements - as opposed to the policies he exposes - to finally show up as the 12-15% of hard-core bat-crazed wing-nuts that they are.

We have to realize that what we have staring us in the face - is a completely golden oppurtunity to completely repudiate the policies and practicies of the neo-conservative movement and set them back for decades, if not completely run them out of politics.

I know that seems like a tall order, but bear with me. The truth is the neo-cons who currently control the Republican party are hell-bent on self-destruction. They're like deeply addicted power-junkies who don't know when or how to restrain themselves. Just look at Jack Abramoff's behavior - openly scorning his own clients with epithets and insults in email, after email. Everyday we hear about another scandal, another hotbed of curruption and incompetence.

• The Bush Administration failed to head the numerous warnings, and crunch the intelligence to prevent 9-11.
• Osama Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora.
• Koran Desecration, Humiliation, Stress positions and Waterboarding at Guantanemo Bay. One prisoner, al-Libi, claims under duress that Iraq still has Nuclear aims - he's Wrong.
• We go to War with Iraq, but all the WMD and Nuclear intelligence, our justification for going to war, is all Wrong.
• We didn't have enough troops to secure the nation allowing a deadly Iraqi insurgency to grow and spread, we still don't properly equip them with proper armor or helmets - if they try to equip themselves they get threatened, and we've cut their benefits while locking them into perpetual service with "Stop-loss" policies. All the Pentagon's expectations and plans are just plain Wrong.
• Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby Indicted, Rove implicated in Plame Affair.
• Abu Graib gets Gitmo-ized, and photos of prisons in humiliating poses and stress positions begin to appear. Repubs claim it was just "frat styled hazing" on the night shift - they're Wrong.
• Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay Indicted for Money Laundering.
• $8.8 Billion just plain disappears in Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority.
• 2000 U.S. Soldiers dead since "Mission Accomplished", 50,000 wounded. Another estimated 100,000 Iraqi casualties, President Bush only admits to 30,000.
  
• Secret Detention Centers and the Extraordinary Rendition program.
• Terry Schiavo gets her own personal Congressional Legislation and a Grandstanding Red-Eye flight by the President to sign it. Republican Heart surgeon and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist gives her a video diagnosis, "She seems responsive to light". She dies anyway as per her wishes, and the autopsy shows that she was blind.
• The levees break in New Orleans - Bush remains on vacation and in avoidance of Cindy Sheehan.
• Republican Congressman "Duke" Cunningham pleads guilty to bribery.
• Republican Lobbyists Mike Scanlon and Jack Abramoff plead guilty to bribery of Congressmen. Tom Delay and Bob Ney implicated. Repubs and Corporate Media try to implicate Dems also, but they're Wrong.
• The NSA has been spying on American's without a warrant for over four years and causing the FBI to be flooded with makeshift busy-work instead of focusing on legitimate threats. Bush Admin claims they could've stopped 9-11 if they'd already been doing this, except that they were and they are still Wrong.
  

And just in the last couple days you also have.

• Halliburton allowed our troops to drink contaminated water in Iraq, meanwhile $Millions of rebuilding funds were lost and squandered,
• The White House was specifically informed that the levees could fail before Katrina hit, and did nothing.

Just look around, these guys are crashing and burning all on their own steam. Democrats have had almost nothing to do with any of it. Yes, a few voted for the Iraq War - but that was based on intelligence that the Bush Administation gave them, and it was Wrong. The blame belongs where on the people who provided the information, not those who were duped by it.

Yet, there are those who simply refuse to believe all the above. They live in a world of pseudo-reality, swamped by denial and self-deception. They know and suspect the truth, but can't bring themselves to admit it -like a junkie who can't put down the Fundie/Wingnut crack-pipe. They get bogged down in semantics - "How can you say Bush lied", and we get bogged down with them - arguing irrelevancies.

Truth is, it doesn't matter whether Bush lied or not - he was Wrong, and that's the point. We can't afford a President who makes this many bone-head mistakes and is wrong this often, deliberate or not. If he lied, well then he simply knew he was wrong, so he's a bastard - but if he didn't, he was just plain ignorant now wasn't he? Just which is really worse? I vote being a bastard is better than being a deluded dumb-ass, but maybe that's just me.

Bush personally shouldn't be the target anyway IMO, he's a lame duck President. The target needs to be the Bush Administration as a non-functioning organization, Cheney, Rove and all of Bush's political appointees like Brownie need to be the target - and of course their lackeys in Congress.

What people need to know, is just what Dems will do about all this?

Can we Dems seriously give them - particularly those who continue to support the President and Republican Party against their own best interests - a sense that we won't make the kinds of gross (deliberate?) mistakes that the Bush administration has made? Sadly, probably not.

But that doesn't mean we can't get there. People, we have some work to do. It's not enough just to let the Repubs implode if people fail to recognize that all the above is a direct result of the Republican Philosophy of Government - which is a Government that Doesn't Work. Their main campaign arguement since Ronald Reagan has been that "Government can't solve your problems, Government is the problem", and they've worked long and hard to make sure that axiom is true. Right now, with Repubs in charge - They are the problem.

We need to hang that sound bite around their neck like a scarlet letter. Their government doesn't work - but Dems in power have and will make Government limited, but effective.

We have to stop running away from Monica, and learn to crow about the great things we've already accomplished. A Democratic President Balanced the U.S. Budget, reduced the size of government by 15% while preventing drastic unneccesary cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. A Democratic President and Administration, brought peace to Northern Ireland, ended the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo saving the lives of Millions from Ethnic Cleansing, and at the same time prevented al-Qaeda Jihadist from starting an anti-American insurgency in the region. (Now that, was a noble cause^tm). A Democratic Administration prevented the Millenium Bomb Plot, the attempted bombing of LAX, the Lincoln Tunnel and the Holland Tunnel. A Democratic Administration caught Aldridge Ames, caught Eric Robert Rudolph and executed Timothy McVeigh.

We have to make it clear that the Democratic vision is one that isn't for unneccesary government intrusion into our personal lives or the operation of our businesses without due and probable cause. We have to learn some consistency on this - it shouldn't matter if it's guns or pornagraphy. People have an equal freedom to own either, as long as they show the personally responsibility [yes, that's right - Steal those soundbytes and turn them around] not to let either fall into the wrong hands or be used irresponsibly. It should be about what you do and how it impacts those around you - not what you possess.

Our primary objective has to be election reform and accountability. We can't have a government "by and of the people" if we can't verify what the people actually voted for. At the moment this needs to be a state-level initiative, as various states have begun to test and challenge the security of Diebold and other automatically voting equipment. WIthout this, we have nothing.

Our secondary objective needs to be a revamping of our tax policy. Dems are also being accused of "taxing and spending", when the truth is that Republicans are Super-spending (with the debt approaching $8 Trillion) and tax-shifting the burden from us onto our children, and their children. A tax-cut doesn't really cut anything if all it does is explode the defecit, rather it simply forces those same taxes to be paid years later with interest.

Government isn't a surrogate Mommy or Daddy - but it can and should be a tool to help us get back up when we fall down as a result of medical problems, natural disasters or other tragedies. The axiom should be that government provides a platform where the strong can pool their resources and help those who need aid the most, simply because if they don't - no one else can without the neccesary resources.

Dems needs to allay the fears of Conservatives - No, not cynically shift to the right DLC style - but make it clear that they have a plan to address the deficit and welfare of America in new and innovative ways such as John Kerry campaign suggestion of a tax credit to businesses who provide for American jobs rather than overseas jobs.

I think this idea should be expanded and ceased upon.

Rather than simply rollback the Bush Tax cuts and thereby "raising taxes" (although the truth is that a full rollback would simply put the taxes back where they were when we were running surpluses) another idea would be to offer public service tax credits.

A Public service tax credit should be available anytime that an individual or corporation chooses to spend money to meet public service goals, for example television stations that provide for campaign ads to candidates free of charge (thereby removing the need to develop complex campaign finance laws and schemes to catch people who try to "game the system" like Abramoff and co.), or provide for books, materials and facilities donated to public schools, or add more employees to your health-care rolls. etc. The point being that the more that private citizens and companies do to take care of themselves and each other -- the less government has to spend doing it for them. Conservatives like to crow that people always know better than government. Well, sure sometimes they do - and sometimes they don't. Either way government taxes should NOT disable them from trying to do the best they can on their own before it the guvmint comes in afterward to pick of the left-over peices for all those who are -- to borrow a phrase - left behind. Public Service Tax Credits should be offered as an alternative to a straight repeal of the Bush Tax-Cuts.

Under this plan It's possible that the overall tax burden might go down even further than Bush's cuts if enough people and companies embrace the credit option, the end goal is on eliminating the need for government spending by having as many people as possible able to stand on their own without government assistance. This strategy would completely destroy the old "Tax and Spend Liberal" canard.

We also need to re-address not just tax issues, but moral ones. Issues of faith and values. A recent episode of West Wing contained a scene where the Ambassador stated the following to the American representative...

With "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness". All the aspirations of your people are financial - not ethical.

And the chilling truth of that statement was palpable. We equate the "greatness" of America not with our character or values, but with or individual financial circumstances. The size of our SUV and the strength of our economy. Dems certainly need to take this bull by the horns.

It goes without saying that bribery, corruption and cronyism are wrong. But it also needs to be said that abortion is great moral issue as well, and that we Dems certainly do not celebrate in the destruction of human life. Rather, we must seek policy which supports personal ethics that make abortion unneccesary. We must support comprehensive sex education,since almost 90% of teens indoctrinated into abstinence-only programs break their vows and have unprotected sex within 18 months (since they are discouraged and withheld knowledge of effective contraception). Abstinence is a good choice - but so is Safe-sex. Our foster system care needs to be serious reformed. Adoption should be cheaper and far more open. We should encourage the formation of extended families for child care, as well as family support from the corporate world as well such as on-site day care. Our schools need deep and serious reform using innovation rather than rote test teaching..

Being "Pro-Choice" need to include all the choices, all of the positive things that people can say "Yes" too, rather than simply say "No" to an embryo.

There are just a couple examples of what we need to allow people to be able to comfortably say "Yes" to the Democratic party, rather than simply say "No" to Repubs. Those that only say "No" are likely to sit-out the 2006 mid-term or even the 2008 elections, and we need them - we need them on our side if we're going to save this country from itself.

We need them as part of the Reality-based community, not neccesarily as Democrats - True Conservatism can function within our reality, I firmly believe this is true, but they still need to be in the same reality as the rest of us to start with.

The Conservative movement has been hijacked by Neo-cons, who are just exploiting the "wackos" with anti-Liberal rhetoric. Just remember, A Balanced Budget Amendment was included in the GOP's Contract on America a decade ago. Where did those Conservatives go? Just think, if the Neo-cons can pull all this crap, fail at so much of it this badly and still not be held accountable, just what will stop them from going even further next time?

Vyan

It's the Incompetence, Stupid

Crossposted on Dailykos.

As we look back over the last 5 dark years of Bush II, and particularly over the aftermath of Hurricane Fema in New Orleans, Alabama and Mississippi - it may finally have become glaringly obvious to more and more of the nation what Democrats and Progressives have been saying all along.

The problem with Bushco isn't the lies, it's not the cronyism, it's not the jingoism or the over-the-top militarism - it's the Incompetence, stupid.

From day one, Bush was on the wrong page.

He and Condoleeza Rice ignored Richard Clarke's warnings of impending problems with terrorism and al Qaeda.

They failed to respond to the California Energy Crisis, or to rein in the frenzy of corporate greed that gripped Enron, Tyco, Aldephia and others.

They shoved Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill out the door when he questioned their lust for tax cuts despite what it would do to the defecit.

They ignored the FBI Agent who reported that there are some Arab men here in Arizona who are learning to fly, but not how to land.

They ignored 52 warnings of potential highjacking with intent to crash from the F.A.A.

They ignored the August 6th PDB on Bin Ladin.

After 9/11 - they failed to sufficiently cut al Qaeda off from escape and let bin Ladin out of Tora Bora.

They failed to listen to the skeptics who questioned whether Saddam Hussein was really as dangerous as they thought, then intimidated (Kwaitkowski) or otherwise attempted to discredited their commentary (Plame/Wilson).

They failed to listen to Gen. Shinshekii when he said they needed more troops in Iraq.

After declaring "Mission Accomplished" : They failed to pay attention to the security problem created by dismantling the Iraqi Army, and how that lack of security would effect their efforts to begin restoring the water and power to the people of Iraq to also fail. (Just like in New Orleans)

They failed to realize that when you torture, rape and murder innocent Iraqi citizens in order to extort them to become "confidential informants" against the insurgency in places like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo - you just might fuel, rather than quell that insurgency.

So is it little wonder, that when a massive Category 4 Hurricane strikes sacred American soil and creates a brand new Atlantis -- that they fail to do what pure common sense indicates they need to do?

Many American's where shocked that their fellow Americans could be reduced to the state of existence that you would only expect to see in the third-world. The same state of existence that the prosperous and industrially developed country of Iraq was reduced to in the aftermath of "Shock and Awe".

I for one, was not surprised by what I saw in New Orleans -- haven't we been seeing this all along?

It's not the fact that those people were poor, or that they're black, or that they voted primarily democratic --

...it's the Incompetence.

Vyan