The Cable to Crazy Connection on Guns

Time and time again Cable News Outlets such as Fox and commentators such as Lou Dobbs have deliberately hyped unfounded and unrealistic fears of a Totalitarian Take-Over of the U.S. by Obaman Forces.

AG Eric Holder discussing the 2nd Amendment and Heller decision.



There has been some discussion by the Obama Administration on restoring the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but this appears to have fallen onto the back burner, particularly in the wake of a letter from 65 Democrats in the House opposing reinstatement of the ban.

Today in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cited studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urged Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws

Holder has talked about restricting "Cop-Killer" bullets which can punch through body-army and other weapons which might endanger police. I'm neither hear nor there on this issue as I think any gun owner should held responsible for their actions with that weapon under any case. People may, under Heller, have the right to own a weapon - but exactly which kinds of weapons and what you can or can't do with it is another matter. I don't think the second amendment protects a right to own a rocket-launcher, a tank or a home-made bomb. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. At any case the Obama Administration is NOT making this a high priority issue, they are NOT preparing to have a HUGE ROUND UP of weapons, they aren't lobbying Congress to change the law, Congress is lobbying them NOT TO.

People need to calm the hell down. Seriously. This hysteria is costing lives. Stop it and use your heads.

Vyan

The Impending Perfect Wingnut Hate Storm

Crossposted from Dkos

We've all seen the warning signs and heard the angry cries from Wingnuttia - but it's time to stop laughing and recognize a very real threat that faces this nation.



The Southern Poverty Law Center headed by Morris Dees is the countries premier anti-hate resource, and in it's current yearly "Intelligence Report" on the activities of various domestic Hate Groups, there are more than a few familiar faces.

This week a report detailing at least 60 Post-9/11 plots of violence by Militant Right-Wing Militia and Birther groups was spiked in Missouri under the argument that sharing the information with Officers in the field would have been Political Profiling!

In Knoxville Tennessee it was shown that a mass-murderer, James Adkinson, - inspired directly by writings of Fox News Contributor Bernard Goldberg, as well as the rantings of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter - perpetrated a deliberate Hate-Crime (i.e. Terrorism) against Liberals.

"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

Yet, the mainstream media ignores the report of an attempted Right-Wing Dirty Bomber in Maine.

“Amber (Cummings) indicated James was very upset with Barack Obama being elected President,” reported the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center (PDF link). “She indicated James had been in contact with ‘white supremacist group(s).’ Amber also indicated James mixed chemicals in the kitchen sink at their residence and had mentioned ‘dirty bombs.’”

“Also found was literature on how to build ‘dirty bombs’ and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials,” said theBangor Daily. “The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups. This would seem to confirm observations by local tradesmen who worked at the Cummings home that he was an ardent admirer of Adolf Hitler and had a collection of Nazi memorabilia around the house, including a prominently displayed flag with swastika. Cummings claimed to have pieces of Hitler’s personal silverware and place settings, painter Mike Robbins said a few days after the shooting.”

Before he was inaugurated there were at least two distinct supramacists plots to assassinate Obama.



It's time we stopped sweeping this under the rug.

Since the year 2000 the number of U.S. hate groups has risen 54% to a current estimate of 926 active groups in 2008.

As in recent years, hate groups were animated by fears of Latino immigration. This rise in hate groups has coincided with a 40 percent growth in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2007, according to FBI statistics.

Two new factors were introduced to the volatile hate movement in 2008: the faltering economy and the Obama campaign.

"Barack Obama's election has inflamed racist extremists who see it as another sign that their country is under siege by non-whites," said Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a quarterly investigative journal that monitors the radical right. "The idea of a black man in the White House, combined with the deepening economic crisis and continuing high levels of Latino immigration, has given white supremacists a real platform on which to recruit."

Moving far behind the usual skin-head, supremacist and neo-nazi's we would expect to spout this kind of rhetoric we're now hearing plenty of panicked and frightened fear-mongering from many many "mainstream" sources.

Even members of Congress.

Such as Michele (I'm Not a Kook) Bachmann on staging an Orderly Revolution" against Obama.

Bachmann: At this point the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch. It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt, we who will be bankrupting this country, inside of ten years, if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer.

If Tim Geithner is successful under President Obama, and they move us to an international currency. Then we have no hope of standing on our own as a sovereign nation with our own economic system. It's over. We can't do that.

Bachmann: Right now I'm a member of Congress. And I believe that my job here is to be a foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines. And people need to understand, this isn't a game. this isn't just a political talk show that's happening right now. This is our very freedom, and we have 230 years, a continuous link of freedom that every generation has ceded to the next generation. This may be the time when that link breaks. And I'm going to do everything I can, I know you are, to make sure that we keep that link secure. We cannot allow that link to break, because as Reagan said, America is the last great hope of mankind.

We've been hearing this kind of "marxist, socialist, new world currency, we're losing america to the immigrants (and the Gays)" stuff for some time - and we've typically laughed it off - but it's time we stopped laughing.

The guys at Southern Poverty Law - aren't.

The histrionics over the supposed 5 million bad mortgages is a prime example. On Oct. 9, the conservative online news site Drudge Report included a link to a story on the website of conservative talk radio KFYI-AM in Phoenix that said HUD had reported that 5 million illegal immigrants held bad mortgages. That same day, the Phoenix Business Journal posted an article stating that a HUD spokesman said there was "no basis" for the 5 million figure, and that the agency had no data reflecting the number of bad mortgages held by illegal immigrants.

But a few hours later on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" — a primary venue for the airing of false allegations about undocumented immigrants — San Diego radio show host Roger Hedgecock cited the bogus HUD statistic as a hard fact. By the following day, others were engaging in the journalistic equivalent of fabricating a "big fish" tale, embellishing the falsehood with their own extravagant claims. Rush Limbaugh stated on his radio program that HUD was "admitting 5 million illegal aliens were given mortgages ... with fake Social Security numbers and so forth to go out and purchase homes that they didn't have to pay back." Over at Clear Channel's "The War Room with Quinn & Rose," Jim Quinn claimed that while there were some excesses on Wall Street, the bigger problem was the issuance of "5 million mortgages to illegal aliens who didn't even have to come up with an ID."

So the Bush Bailout isn't the result of mismanagement, greed and deregulation - it's all because of those damn dirty illegals, not to mention the rest of those shiftless minorities - and ACORN too!

As the mortgage crisis worsened in 2008, more diatribes followed regarding what syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin called "the massive illegal alien mortgage racket." In September, she wrote that it was "no coincidence" that the areas hardest hit by the wave of foreclosures "also happen to be some of the nation's largest illegal alien sanctuaries." Rick Oltman, a former top official of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) now with the anti-immigrant Californians for Population Stabilization, wrote on that group's website that foreclosures are highest in border states and cities "swollen with illegal aliens." Still, he added charitably, "illegal immigration didn't cause this, it just made it worse.

Conservative commentators also didn't let facts stop them from continually repeating the fallacy that the Community Reinvestment Act had forced lenders to make high-risk mortgage loans to illegal immigrants and other minorities.

The CRA regulations were tightened in 1995 when Bill Clinton was president. Critics contend that left-wing activists — especially at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which became embroiled in controversy during the presidential campaign when it was investigated for voter registration fraud — began to use data showing how CRA banks performed to petition regulators to deny lenders' plans to expand or merge with other institutions. This, they say, coerced banks into making risky, poorly documented loans — including to illegal immigrants — resulting in large numbers of defaults, which in turn caused the mortgage morass.

Jinned up by all of this misplaced fear and outrage, a brand new Xenophobic Militia Movement as been steadily growing. Unlike the lone-wolf acts of people like Adkinson or Cummings, what we truly need to worry about is what Bachmann and to some extend Glenn Beck with his "We Surround Them" bruhaha are clearly attempting to foment. A committed, directed, networked and focused Resistance Movement of batshit-wingnuts who see any and all Liberals (or their Gay, Black, Brown and poor allies) as their enemy and the enemies of America.

People who seriously believe - like Alan Keyes - that America has been hijacked by an illegitimate usurper.



What is likely to happen if and when radical anti-abortionists like Keyes (or Eric Rudolph the Olympic Park Bomber), join their ideology with that of the Birthers, the Sovereigns who are trying to make their own-currency and secede (Palin-style) from America, the anti-immigrant Minute-Men who've begun to be infiltrated by Nativist Extremist, with the 2nd Amendment-ers, and perhaps the most deluded of all - the End-Timers?

How long before all this "Revolution" talk goes from inspiring single persons, to organized groups?

How long before someone taps into all this pent up fear and anger and sends it careening in the wrong deadly direction?

HBO: Right America Feeling Wronged!


All these Palinite-Americans have not gone away - they're still with us and now they've been rendered powerless in Congress - making them more dangerous than they've ever been.

Here are IMO four potential catalyst events which could spark this kind of coalescence -

1) The Firing of BlackWater/Xe by the State Dept in Iraq, putting thousands of heavily trained and right-out of the war/post-stress impacted merceneries OUT Of A JOB.

Blackwater has been fired by the State Department from its job protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq.

Executives of the controversial U.S. security company were notified today by the State Department that its five-year, $1.2 billion contract for services in Iraq will not be renewed in May, U.S. officials tell ABC News. The contract provides yearly options for cancellations.

After working for noted Right-winger (and End-Times/Christian Supamacist) Erik Prince, these guys are ripe for Militia Recruitment. Just multiply Tim McVeigh by 1,000 and add seething hatred. What do you do when you're a former paid killer, go back to parking cars?

2) Re-instatment of the Assault Weapons Ban which originally fostered the Gingrich Revolt on '94.

3) Allowing for Government to "Take-Over" and fix Pseudo-Banks like AIG - something Newt Gingrich has already called something akin to a "Dictatorship".

And the coup de grace?

4) Repealing "Don't Ask - Don't Tell". (Which at the moment seem to be on the back-burner)

These are the wingnuts worst nightmares, and rest assured the selfish self-aggrandizing power-whores among them (Beck, Gingrich, O'Reilly, Malkin, Ingraham, Bachmann, Cantor, Boehner, Cornyn and McConnell) will NOT stop their fear and hate-mongering once the blood start flowing.

More than likely - they'll AMP IT UP.

I'm certain that innocent Americans will suffer for it, we just have to make sure those who incite political violence, as well as those who perpetrate it aren't allowed to get away with it.

Vyan

Pajamas Media Inteview with Yearlykos Sergeant

Well, we've certainly had a heap of excitement this weekend over YearlyKos, haven't we?

First we had O'Reilly attacking the Democratic Candidates for endorsing a "Partisan Hate Site" that dares to engaging in political (photoshop) cartoons. Oooh scary.

"Mama hide the kids! they're gonna drop the F-Bomb again!"

Then we had Michelle Malkin claiming that we've Kossified the Minnesota Bridge Collapse by daring to mix taxes with - uh - spending.

The sheer nerve!

Yesterday we had the latest flap over an Army Sergeant who attended YK2 in uniform and was reprimanded by John Soltz for violating the UCMJ which forbids those in uniform from being involved in politics.

Today, that soldiers has come forward - now out of uniform - to fight back.

Now, I wasn't able to attend YK myself, I've never been in the military - but then neither have most of the people on Pajamas Media so we're basically even on that score.

However, I have this thing for truthiness that they seem to lack. Showing that they have a deep and reverent respect for the "facts" - PJM set the stage this way.

Sergeant David D. Aguina returned to the YearlyKos gathering on Saturday, a day after he had been unceremoniously thrown out of a panel on the military and progressives.

Point of fact Sergeant Aguina, as is clearly visible from their own video, Was not thrown Out. The panel was over, he was allowed to speak at length after the questioning period was done - he was not interrupted, he was not cut short and he was not "censored." He did however receive an offline audience with Capt Jon Soltz, the moderator of the panel, who felt he clearly needed some talking to about the regulations he was in the act of violating.

When Sergeant David D. Aguina stepped up to the microphone at the YearlyKos forum on the panel on "The Military and Progressives: Are they that Different?" and began to quietly rebut many of the points that had been made about the failure of "The Surge," he knew he wouldn’t have an easy time of it. That is why he prepared a four-inch thick loose leaf binder full of charts, graphs, releases from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and Central Command, as well as articles from the mainstream media.

But for all his preparation, he was still taken by surprise when one of the panelists, John Soltz founder of the anti-war group Votevets.Org, took him to task and silenced him on the grounds that Aguina was wearing his uniform while expressing his political opinions.

As has been pointed out in the front page diary by The Angry Rakkasan - this wasn't the first time that Aguina had been warned. It was the second, following a confrontation with Gen. Wesley Clark the previous day.

Clark is said to have told the sergeant that, while he respected the sergeant’s opinion, political activism while in uniform was both inappropriate and illegal—and to do it at the much-publicized YearlyKos Convention would put the soldier in an unnecessary and precarious legal position. He told the sergeant firmly but politely that it would be in the soldier’s best interest to leave. And that was the end of it until the next day.

Aguina had no reason to be "surprised" by Soltz stern warning the next day. And it seems, he knows that.

"Technically, he was right," Aguina concedes. "He is a commissioned officer in the army and I follow the rules. I will respect his authority which is why today, I came in civilian uniform."

During his first interview with Pajamas Media immediately after the end of the panel discussion on Progressives and the Military, Sargent Aguina claimed that "We need to come together" and that we shouldn't let Al Qaeda divide us. He said those attending Yearlykos were "Good people."

His comments on the microphone had even begun with a statement that he wouldn't abide the attendants at Kos being attacked.

It seems his view on this has changed somewhat.

Despite his change of wardrobe, he remains boiling mad at Soltz for angrily chastising him in public for violating military regulations. If he wants to get technical about it, Aguina counters, two can play at that game.

"If I’m in violation of AR670-1 which is the regulation he brought up, then he’s in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88 which says no commissioned officer can criticize a government official."

A "Government Official?" Who exactly would that be?

Call me silly if you will, but I actually like to look things up. Natch, It's the President.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

So an Officer can not insult the President, but did Soltz actually "Insult" the President or does he simply disagree with him? Is it really a court-martial offense to say that the President's strategy in Iraq has been a failure?

I think not.

And then there's this.

Aguina also pointed out that Soltz violated the code of behavior between a commissioned and non commissioned officer. "Article 91," he said, forbids a commissioned officer from criticizing a non commissioned officer, and behaving in the "condescending" manner in which he was treated. "People in that audience didn’t have to see an American soldier be as rude and disrespectful toward another American soldier."

As is clearly visible on the tape, Soltz tried to speak to Aguina in Private and asked the Pajamas Cameraman repeatedly to give them some space. It was Aguina who countered saying "I have nothing to hide." and invited them over. ON TAPE Aguina acknowledged that he was willingly violating the rules, then attempted to justify that violating by claiming that he was doing it "for the Iraqi people" and that it was "worth it" to break the rules and help them rather than break the rules and hurt them "like they did in Abu Ghraib."

That's right, he actually attempted to justify his violation of the UCMJ by using someone else's greater violation of the UCMJ - and now he's trying to use the UCMJ against Soltz when he did his duty by trying to keep Aguina from violating the rules.

Are you getting a headache yet? I am.

Further Article 91 actually says the following.

891. ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER

Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This is a regulation that restricts insubordination from lower noncoms to Petty Officers and Sergeants like Aguina, not from Commissioned Officers like Soltz.

There's also this failure to heed the directive of a Superior Officer - like the way Sargent Aguina failed to heed both General Clark and Captain Soltz by appearing and speaking at Yearlykos in uniform.

809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.

Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

So is Aguina trying to find "common ground" with progressives? Er, not so much.

Aguina believes that the "netroots" – Soltz in particular, had used the uniform issue as an excuse to muddy the waters regarding what he had to say.
"They disagree with me because of my message, but they used the technicality of the uniform to try and influence something. And believe me, John Soltz? I am not done with him yet. I was up all night researching the USMCJ finding all the things he did wrong."

"He lost his professional standard when he couldn’t control himself on stage."

I would agree that Soltz got a might angry, but as I said - Aguina had already been warned! If you have to tell your kid four times to stop trying to stick their tongue in the light-socket, the fifth time you just might be a wee bit testy.

The primary claim that Aguina made during his time at the microphone was that the surge is working because Iraqi casualties are down... Well, except that they aren't.

Although, it is fair for him to point out that the casualty count went down from 1,941 the previous month to a measly 1,251 in June. The unfortunate fact is that in July they went back up again to 1,621. You can call that "progress" if you consider doing the hokey-pokey (2 steps forward, one step back) to be "progress."

Just as Aguina has apparently been misreading the Military Regs that he admitted he really doesn't care about anyway, he's been misreading the facts on the ground in Iraq as well.

There are severe problems with the Iraqi Power Grid, the one were supposed to have fixed almost four years ago.

shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

If Aguina cares so deeply about the Iraqi people, why doesn't he wonder why we can't keep the lights on?

Secretary Gates, who happens to be a unassailable "Government Official" says the Surge hasn't really helped where it counts - Politically.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates acknowledged Thursday that the Bush administration underestimated the difficulty of getting a political truce in Iraq, where Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government has been crippled by a walkout by Sunni Arab ministers.

The Pentagon chief’s remarks Thursday were his closest yet to acknowledging that the Bush administration’s top political goals for Iraq may not materialize during the buildup, even if it is extended into next spring, the latest the military could sustain the increase. He also is the top Bush administration official to express such concerns publicly.

If Aguina really wants to have a serious debate on these issues - which everyone serious notes is going to need a Political not Military Solution - I'm certain he'll more than welcome to do so by many of the attendees at YK. In fact he may already have.

"I understand trying to change people’s mind is a lot harder than it would seem or I would like it to be. I’m just here to provide information for people. If they want to talk, if they want to know, I’ll just show them."

He said that the conference-goers had treated him with respect and listened carefully to what he had to say, arguing strenuously against him but hearing him out nonetheless.

"There’s quite few people here who are open-minded and will listen. And even if they don’t agree with me, I at least thank them for listening. I’ve dealt with other people who insult me and then walk away."

Part of the task of truly attempting to change people's minds, is also being open to change yourself. He wants progressives to listen to him, but is he listening to them?

It seem to me that Aguina has nothing more than an agenda to push and his attempts to play "Gotcha" with Jon Soltz make me somewhat skeptical that his real goal is helping the Iraqi people, rather than trying to bait and punk progressive into fight with a cherry picked fact storm of right-wing talking points. Frankly my feeling is this guy is a Troll in the Flesh, nothing more.

I could be wrong, I wasn't there in person - but that's how I see it. Am I way off base or right on target? You decide.

Update Someone in the comments mentioned this, I had forgetten about it - but there recently were two Marines who were summarily discharged for violating the UCMJ in exactly the same way - wearing their uniform to an anti-war rally!

The Right-Wing site Newsbusters argued for their dismissal claiming that it wasn't partisan just part of the rules (not that they weren't fairly Schadenfreude about it)

Every time there is an anti-war rally, march, die-in, puke-in etc. you can find several protesters dressed in official military uniforms. The ones in uniform usually claim to have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. While some are truly vets, others are obvious posers (i.e. Jesse Macbeth). The uniforms are typically defaced with IVAW slogans or logos done in black marker. The tops are unbuttoned to show off the latest protest t-shirt. Medals and ribbons are usually in plentiful supply as a sign of "real service".

Two of the members of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are facing hearings by the Marine Corps for their protest attire. But if you read David Montgomery’s article, Antiwar to the Corps, in the Washington Post, you would think that the Marines were attempting to silence an anti-war voice. Not only did Montgomery miss the entire reason for the hearings, but he overlooked a few facts in his reporting.

Montgomery gave the background of the case...

In a case that raises questions about free speech, the Marines have launched investigations of three inactive reservists for wearing their uniforms during antiwar protests and allegedly making statements characterized as "disrespectful" or "disloyal."

Upon learning he was being investigated for wearing his uniform during the mock patrol, Kokesh wrote an e-mail to the investigating officer, Maj. John Whyte

Kokesh was notified by Major John Whyte via email of the investigation in March 2007. Major Whyte stated that he was reminding a "fellow Marine" of his obligations and duties, specifically the wearing of all or part of his uniform while engaged in political demonstrations or activities.

Soltz did the same thing that Major Whyte did.

How does that arguement about "If he had been speaking in support of Yearlykos" go, again?

Vyan

O'Reilly uses Dennis Miller to rebuild himself after being Destroyed by Dodd

Here's one of my favorite exchanges from Lethal Weapon I

Murtagh: God hates me, that's what it is.

Riggs: Hate him back, works for me.

It is pretty pathetic when you get your head handed to you on your own show as O'Reilly did when he tried to challenge Chris Dodd, but it's even worse that after you lose you have to try and rehabilitate yourself with a 5th rate hack of a comedian like Dennis Miller as your sole cheerleader.



Miller claims for starters that O'Reilly ratings are "8 Times" that of Kos, while the best sources I can find indicate that the Factor has a viewership of 2.1Million while Kos averages about 650,000 visits per day.

So now that we've dispensed with that particular whopper he continues with...

Not only has he not watched "The Factor", he's never read the Dailykos

Sorry, but not only does Chris Dodd read Dailkos -- Chris Dodd writes on Dailykos. He's a contributor just as John Kerry, John Edwards, John Conyers and many other prominent Democrats are. When you say as Michelle Malkin did that "Kos is a sewer from top to bottom" including all diarists with this broad brush you're also saying that about several of our current Presidential Candidates.

Now, I would agree with the premise that Dodd has indeed been savvy to use O'Reilly to increase his own profile in the Democratic primary - franky there isn't a downside for him to point out O'Reilly's incessant lies. (Not a precise transcript)

Miller: He's looking up (in the polls) at Dennis Kucinich's behind. He just wanted to come on here to smack you around so that it would make him a big man at this Kos thing this weekend.

O'Reilly: I agree with you. But don't you think the audience sees through it and knows the game?

Miller: No, I don't think most of you're audience does.

Which for most of O'Reilly's blue-haired audience is clearly a true statement and of course why Miller has temporarily interrupt their chasing the neighborhood kids off their lawn, by doing this little Kubuki theater and explain it to them..

More of Miller's sparkling wit.

That convention is a loser-fest, I mean there are hooker's who've put an embargo on that convention

Yeah, well maybe that's because Democrats simply can't live up to the shining example of republicans like Senator Vitter.

After his segment with Miller, O'Reilly reads some mail where one of his viewers claims that a search turned up 7 thousand mentions of the "F-Word" on Kos, but none of Free Republic.

Well using the Google I did that search and actually found 650,000 mentions of "Fuck" and "DailKos", the first being "Fuck Off Democrats" (Clearly, this was a very old post since these days diaries with the F-Word in the title using get edited to "F*ck" or something equally clever)

The problem here is that this search produced a lot of non-Kos results, so I refined it to "dailykos.com,fuck" which specifically came from the Kos site and the results dropped to a measly 27,000.

I know I may be skewing these results by writing this post, but y'know what - Fuck it!

How'd I do with Free Republic? Well the first simple search (including outside sites) netted about 119,000. Not as many as Kos, but not exactly "zero."

This one from Ornicus I simply couldn't let slip by.

FUCK YOU YA GODDAMN LEFTIST PUKES AND DON'T EVEN THINK OF FUCKING WITH FREE REPUBLIC MOTHERFUCKERS! WE WILL BEAT YOU DOWN IN THE STREETS NEXT FALL! ...

Tsk. Such a potty-mouth.

When that is narrowed specifically to the freerepublic site only the result - ta da - is 557.

But then again, maybe my presumption here is entirely wrong. The letter said the "F-Word" and y'know that could be something besides "Fuck", it could also be Ann Coulter's favorite word - "Faggot"

Redoing the exact same site specific search for Free Republic turned up 1,740 results.

And Kos?

(Drum roll....

651!"

Interestingly most of the mentions on Kos are discussing Ann Coulter and various uses of the word, and while typical use on Freepervile is similar that isn't always the case as exampled from this one post concerning the rape and assault of a gay man in the castro district by two allegedly black assailants...

I’m getting some serious schadenfreude off watching liberal victim groups collide in San Cramcrisco.

Ha! Exactly! Without the evil white heterosexual male to beat up on who do the liberals & MSM root for in this "minority" vs "minority" spectacle?
9 posted on 07/24/2007 1:26:00 PM PDT by Altura Ct.

And

To: AppyPappy
They kept saying 'faggot' over and over again," whispers the 51-year-old owner of a video store in the Castro district. "It went on for what seemed like forever."

Sounds to me that it was only his feelings that got hurt. Those guys are really sensitive you know......

I remember a spanking I gave one of my girlfriends once. I kept calling her the "B" word for what seemed like forever..........she never got mad.
10 posted on 07/24/2007 1:26:26 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco

So yeah, Kossacks do love to use the F-word, but then again they really aren't the type of people to go all schadenfreude when one white male heterosexual viciously another white male heterosexual, like say when George Allen's security team attacked Mike Stark - but I admit we did enjoy watching how the Mark Foley Follies decimated the Republican Congress.

The point though, isn't whose more vicious, mean and hateful - they are, but that's not the point - it's who has the ear of our politicians, whose being more effective at motiving real people to commit to real change in our politics and country and just how deeply does that scare O'Reilly and his ilk?

The winner is clearly Dailykos as reviews from from YK2 clearly indicate.

And most of this online activism is being dominated by the left. Robert Bluey, a conservative blogger for the Heritage Foundation, notes that there isn't anything comparable on the right. While former Sen. Fred Thompson has assembled a talented Net team for his unofficial presidential run and Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have been fairly innovative online, nothing they are doing comes close.

The prominence of the upcoming event, which features 200 speakers and is expected to draw crowds of more than 1,400, may be a wake-up call for the less Internet-savvy organizations and candidates.

"So this is a lesson to the center and a real lesson to the Republican candidates," Cornfield says. "If you want to win elections in the digital age, you have to have a network; you have to have digital grass roots."

The one point that Dodd made repeatedly and BillO never even touched, is the fact that even if we were as polite as church mice - he would still attack us simply because we represent and growing and present threat to the status quo of media elites and the conservative syncophants like himself.

Dailykos is ushering forward the changing of the guard on our democracy and that's what makes Billo so frightened and he should be frightened.

He hates us for who we are, not what we say - but that's ok, most of us are happy to hate him (and everything he stands for) right back.

Vyan

Let's Talk about Real Hate Sites - like Faux News

People it's not just O'Reilly that has been on a jihad against progressive blogging as has been recently documented by producer Robert Greenwald (Outfoxed).

Routinely "Newscasters" and pundits on Fox accuse the left wing blogosphere of the most virilent forms of "Hate Speech", often making alleged incidents up completely out of whole cloth. They've been compared to Nazi's and the Klan. But there is one place where these many claims of "Hate" are documented and can be verified - The Southern Poverty Law Center.

Not long ago I wrote about how the right wing was having a "Nutty" over the influence of the left wing on the web, particularly Media Matters after they torpedoed the career of Don Imus.

On the April 16 edition of his television show, Bill O'Reilly invited Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce to comment on the firing of Don Imus, which, according to O'Reilly, "has metastasized into an ideological witch-hunt by evil forces." Bruce asserted that "small groups of people" are engaged in an "effort" to "silence[]" and "destroy[]" "people who are not intimidated" and that these groups "have a list of individuals that are to be targeted.

Since then Fox News has effectively declared bloggers as The Pox Americana

Last night on Special Edition, the "Fox News All-Stars," used this week’s Take Back America conference as an oppurtunity to bash progressive bloggers.

Describing bloggers as "a pox," Roll Call editor Mort Kondracke compared them to right-wing talk radio, charging that they are preventing "American problems" from being solved:

This has been followed by O'Reilly direct attacks on Dailykos and Jetblue.

They're a Hate Site. Deeply on the left. As bad as David Duke

O'Reilly comments led to a bit of dumpster diving by those on the left, and they managed to find more than a frothy nuggets of hate and venom direct at Presidental Candidate Hillary Clinton. Enough to gain the attention of the Secret Service.

"If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list."

...

If Hillary wins... my guns are loaded.

Last night O'Reilly continued his attacks and completely blew off the signifigance of the Secret Service investigating violent comments made on his own site with Dennis Miller.

On the July 25 edition of the program, O'Reilly noted that someone had notified the Secret Service about content on his website, saying to Miller: "I mean, they lie all the time. They -- I don't know whether you know this or not, but they contacted the Secret Service saying that there was somebody on BillOReilly.com threatening Senator Clinton. I mean, this is how insane these people are."

In the midst of all this, I think it might be instructive to take a look at what a REAL Hate Site looks and sounds like.

What is Southern Poverty Law?

The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm. Today, SPLC is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.

Located in Montgomery, Alabama – the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement – the Southern Poverty Law Center was founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, two local lawyers who shared a commitment to racial equality. Its first president was civil rights activist Julian Bond.

Throughout its history, SPLC has worked to make the nation's Constitutional ideals a reality. The SPLC legal department fights all forms of discrimination and works to protect society's most vulnerable members, handling innovative cases that few lawyers are willing to take. Over three decades, it has achieved significant legal victories, including landmark Supreme Court decisions and crushing jury verdicts against hate groups.

In 1981, the Southern Poverty Law Center began investigating hate activity in response to a resurgence of groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Today the SPLC Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and tracks extremist activity throughout the U.S. It provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement, the media and the public through its quarterly magazine, Intelligence Report. Staff members regularly conduct training sessions for police, schools, and civil rights and community groups, and they often serve as experts at hearings and conferences.

By tracking, documenting and using legal means to fight hate groups the Southern Poverty Law Center has scored many victories against the perveyors of hate and intolerance. Working since the Civil Rights movement SPLC has had many victories. They've fought the Klan and Won, over and over again.

In 1979, over 100 members of the Invisible Empire Klan, armed with bats, ax handles and guns, clashed with a group of peaceful civil rights marchers in Decatur, Alabama.

Though the FBI investigated and could not find enough evidence of a conspiracy to charge the Klansmen, SPLC filed a civil suit against the Invisible Empire and numerous Klansmen, Brown v. Invisible Empire of the KKK. SPLC investigators uncovered evidence that convinced the FBI to reopen the case, and nine Klansmen were eventually convicted of criminal charges.

...

SPLC lawsuits in 1982 and 1984 ended Klan paramilitary activity in Texas and Alabama. Klan groups in these states were training paramilitary forces in the use of grenades, explosives, weapons, techniques of ambush and hand-to-hand combat, all in preparation for what they believed was an impending "race war."

...

In 1988, Tom and John Metzger sent their best White Aryan Resistance (WAR) recruiter to organize a Portland Skinhead gang. After being trained in WAR's methods, the gang killed an Ethiopian student. Tom Metzger praised the Skinheads for doing their "civic duty."

SPLC attorneys filed a civil suit, Berhanu v. Metzger, asserting the Metzgers and WAR were as responsible for the killing as the Portland Skinheads. In October 1990, a jury agreed and awarded $12.5 million in damages to the family of the victim, Mulugeta Seraw.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review Metzger's appeal, allowing SPLC attorneys to begin distributing funds from the sale of WAR's assets. The principal beneficiary is Seraw's son, Henok, who receives monthly payments from WAR's bank account.

Their efforts in the Metzger case effectively brought WAR to bankruptcy and shut them down.

In the online world the SPLC has tracked and documented the use of the internet to recruit and indoctrinate the youth into the culture of hate, a technique which David Duke and sites such as Stormfront have refined into a near-art.

On most days, the man once labeled a "near genius" in a Time magazine article spends the bulk of his time in an office of the Mandeville, La., home of infamous white supremacist David Duke.

There, Jamie Kelso whips across Duke's hardwood floors on a wheeled office chair as he attends to his work: monitoring the burgeoning community of the racist Stormfront Web site on one of six different computers.

To the thousands of white supremacists who regularly visit Stormfront and its forum, Kelso is best known by his e-moniker, "Charles A Lindbergh." He signs off all his posts with a quote from Lindbergh, a well-known racist and anti-Semite: "We can have peace and security only as long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood."

Interestingly, the techniques employed by Stormfront are remarkably similar to those employed by Fox News. It all began with one Duke Acolyte by the name of Don Black, an ex-con who spent three years in prison for attempting to implement a coup on the Carribean Island of Dominica which - they hoped - would have ousted it's black-run goverment and turned it into a "White State."

Black saw clearly that with this new technology, white supremacists might finally bypass the mainstream media and political apparatus, getting their message out to people who otherwise would never hear it — people who now could listen in the privacy of their own homes without fear of embarrassment or reproach. "The potential of the Net for organizations and movements such as ours is enormous," Black told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1996. "We're reaching tens of thousands of people who never before had access to our point of view."

Being the first of its kind helped Stormfront win enormous publicity. Black and his site were written up in newspapers around the country and the world, and he frequently appeared on major network news shows like abc's "Nightline," where, clad in suit and tie, he talked politely about allowing people access to information not filtered by the "media monopoly." Though he undoubtedly turned off many viewers, each major TV appearance led to a spike in visitors to Stormfront.

And just what do Stormfront Visitors have to say on their message board about say - blacks?

AryanWill: The blacks that I see around my area and school are a total disgrace. Seeing them go out with amazing white girls... . It's true, I've heard them bragging.

FuriousD: I don't have any black friends, but I think that some are good but a lot are bad. I hate niggers (Snoops Dogg, 50 Cent), but black people (Gary Coleman and such) don't bother me.

eRiC1488: I hate all Blacks.

GuyverSS: I hate them all. I seriously would like to hang a couple of them. I'm not a violent person at all and the sight of gore makes me sick, but I could really like seeing them suffer. ... They will make jokes about me as I pass just because I am a kind and well-dressed person.

Heritage_Not_Hate: I don't hate them, I just don't want them around!

Annihilate: I would definitely have to say that blacks do not work hard and want everything given to them. ... As for Hispanics, I hate them more than anything. ... They try to take white women and our jobs, too.

My some of that rhetoric sounds a bit familiar, kinda like Bill O'reilly.

On their site SPLC includes a Hate Map, which lists and tracks various Hate-based groups nation wide. Far from simply focusing on White-Supremacist, Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Racist Skinhead and Neo-Confederate groups the SPLC also includes listings for the Black National of Islam, Jewish Defense League, Arab Anti-defamation, the Catholic Family News, the American Border Patrol and dozens upon dozens of others.

They are clearly an equal-oppurtunity anti-Hate organization, one that is far from stingy when it comes to pointing a finger at intolerance. It doesn't matter to them if the Hate comes from the left or the right - either way, they will fight it. As of today, they currently count 844 active hate groups in the United States.

If you look on their Hate Map, and focus in on California (where they count 63 Hate Groups), and then focus in further on the San Francisco Area the one thing you won't see listed - IS DAILYKOS

However on their front page you might find someone highly familiar - Billy O'Reilly and his report on Pink Pistol Packing Lesbian Gangs!

A "national underground network" of pink pistol-packing lesbians is terrorizing America. "All across the country," they are raping young girls, attacking heterosexual males at random, and forcibly indoctrinating children as young as 10 into the homosexual lifestyle, according to a shocking June 21 segment on the popular Fox News Channel program, "The O'Reilly Factor."

Titled "Violent Lesbian Gangs a Growing Problem," the segment began with host Bill O'Reilly briefly referencing for his roughly 3 million viewers the case of Wayne Buckle, a DVD bootlegger who was attacked by seven lesbians in New York City last August. Deploying swift, broad strokes, O'Reilly painted a graphic picture of lesbian gangs running amok. "In Tennessee, authorities say a lesbian gang called GTO, Gays Taking Over, are involved in raping young girls," he reported. "And in Philadelphia, a lesbian gang called DTO, Dykes Taking Over, are allegedly terrorizing people as well."

The SPLC then proceeded to take O'Reilly report apart peice by peice pointing out that it's facts and sourcing were either weak or entirely fabricated, in almost the exact same way that the "vile hate site" Media Matters or Daily Kos might do.

The only specific instance of actual violent lesbian gang activity that Wheeler cited on "The O'Reilly Factor" was a May 19 attack on a 15-year-old boy who was stabbed near a transit station in Prince George's County, Md. "And the police found out that it was a group of six women who identified themselves as being members of a lesbian gang that actually attacked this young man," Wheeler told O'Reilly.

According to a June 15 article in The Washington Post, however, two of the three individuals arrested in that assault were teenage males, though the article did note that, "Metro officials said the fight was between two gay and lesbian gangs that operate in Maryland."

To be fair the SPLC doesn't yet have listing on the Hate Map for Fox News Channel in New York City, as they tend to focus on actual physical violence that has occured in direct relation to hate-filled rhetoric - but I suspect it's only a matter of time before that changes because the one form of Hate they have yet to quantify, but has clearly become an increasing danger in this nation is the open and viciously naked Hatred of Liberals.

Vyan

Why Al Gore Needs to be the Next President

Although he has so far refused to declare his candidacy Al Gore remains a very strong contender in various polls against the various Democrats who are currently running for President.

After his "loss" to George Bush in 2000 and the subsequent battle that went all the way the Supreme Court, Gore has remained a sympathetic high profile figure with his Academy Award winning film An Inconvenient Truth and his new best seller The Assault on Reason.

In a field full of strong candidates from H. Clinton to Edwards and Obama the drive for something and someone different in the field driving many proclamations of Gore's Imminent Entry into the Race is palpable - but none of these are reasons to support Al Gore as our next President.

Most of his own strongest supporters don't seem to even know just why we need him as desperate as we do.

It is true that Al Gore never voted for the Iraq War as did both Clinton and Edwards.

It's true Al Gore wouldn't have to explain why he "voted for the troop funding bill, before he voted against it."

It's true that by voting to take it from an internal government/university development project for protecting our vital assests and information from nuclear war to the world changing public information and publishing system - Al Gore really did help "create the Internet".

Vinton Cerf: Good evening, or whatever time zone you are in, hi!! While we're waiting for questions, I'd like to clear up one little item - about the Vice President ... He really does deserve some credit for his early recognition of the importance of the Internet and the technology that makes it work. He was certainly among the first if not the first in Congress to realize how powerful the information revolution would be and both as Senator and Vice President he has been enormously helpful in supporting legislation and programs to help further develop the Internet - for example the Next Generation Internet program.

It's true that Al Gore has been way out on the bleeding edge of telling truth to power with his speeches to Moveon.org four years ago on fact that 9/11 could have been avoided by good old fashion good police work rather than ever intrusive electronic surveillance and no knock warrants that have become so massively abused under the Patriot Act. (Not to mention Gitmo, Extraordinary Rendition and "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques")

* "In late August 2001, Nawaq Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar bought tickets to fly on American Airlines Flight 77 (which was flown into the Pentagon). They bought the tickets using their real names. Both names were then on a State Department/INS watch list called TIPOFF. Both men were sought by the FBI and CIA as suspected terrorists, in part because they had been observed at a terrorist meeting in Malaysia.
* Checking for common addresses (address information is widely available, including on the internet), analysts would have discovered that Salem Al-Hazmi (who also bought a seat on American 77) used the same address as Nawaq Alhazmi. More importantly, they could have discovered that Mohamed Atta (American 11, North Tower of the World Trade Center) and Marwan Al-Shehhi (United 175, South Tower of the World Trade Center) used the same address as Khalid Al-Midhar.
* With Mohamed Atta now also identified as a possible associate of the wanted terrorist, Al-Midhar, analysts could have added Atta’s phone numbers (also publicly available information) to their checklist. By doing so they would have identified five other hijackers (Fayez Ahmed, Mohand Alshehri, Wail Alsheri, and Abdulaziz Alomari).
* Closer to September 11, a further check of passenger lists against a more innocuous INS watch list (for expired visas) would have identified Ahmed Alghandi. Through him, the same sort of relatively simple correlations could have led to identifying the remaining hijackers, who boarded United 93 (which crashed in Pennsylvania)."

In addition, Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhamzi, the two who were on the terrorist watch list, rented an apartment in San Diego under their own names and were listed, again under their own names, in the San Diego phone book while the FBI was searching for them.

It's true that Al Gore has blasted the Administration for ignoring the contrary information about the Niger forgeries and aluminum tubes and for concocting phony connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (again way back in 2003 just one year into the Iraq War long before it was either fashionable or politically expedient to do so.

For example, according to the just-released Congressional investigation, Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. Therefore, whatever other goals it served -- and it did serve some other goals -- the decision to invade Iraq made no sense as a way of exacting revenge for 9/11. To the contrary, the US pulled significant intelligence resources out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to get ready for the rushed invasion of Iraq and that disrupted the search for Osama at a critical time. And the indifference we showed to the rest of the world's opinion in the process undermined the global cooperation we need to win the war against terrorism.

In the same way, the evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama Bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction. So our invasion of Iraq had no effect on Al Qaeda, other than to boost their recruiting efforts.

And on the nuclear issue of course, it turned out that those documents were actually forged by somebody -- though we don't know who.

As for the cheering Iraqi crowds we anticipated, unfortunately, that didn't pan out either, so now our troops are in an ugly and dangerous situation.

Moreover, the rest of the world certainly isn't jumping in to help out very much the way we expected, so US taxpayers are now having to spend a billion dollars a week.

In other words, when you put it all together, it was just one mistaken impression after another. Lots of them.

Meanwhile Al Gore has gotten the correct impression. Lots of them.

But backseat quarter-backing the Bush Adminstration alone whether it be on his ineffectual response to 9/11 warnings or his failure to support and expand the Kyoto Treaties alone isn't a qualification for the Presidency.

Rather, there are two primary reasons why Al Gore is essentially needed as the next President lay in what he has already shown he is capable of accomplishing when he previously sat at heartbeat away from that position for 8 years.

Reason Number One: REGO

During that time President Bill Clinton placed Gore in charge of his Reinventing Government Program which during course of it's life saved $137 billion and reduced the federal workforce by 300,000 (Averaging 10% across all agencies, except the DOJ which increased personnel) and at the same time improving efficiency and responsiveness.

One of the key models that was used, amazingly, was FEMA.

During the 1990s, FEMA was routinely praised as one of the best-functioning federal agencies. Its response to the Midwestern floods of 1993, the Northridge earthquake of 1994, and 1995's Oklahoma City terrorist attack are considered models of emergency response.

We now know that under Bush FEMA has been utterly destroyed, as have nearly each and every other major government function. Rather than responding to the needs of the people, they make excuses as they did with Governor Sibelius.

Rather than reducing the size and excessive influence of Government - Bush has overseen the most massive Federal Agency ever - The Department of Homeland Security.

And yet our ports still aren't properly protected or inspected.

Under Clinton and the direction of Al Gore, the government worked for the benefit of the people, not just for corporations or to implement a partisan agenda as we've seen with the Bush DOJ Firings, the "Faith Based Initiatives" and refusal to implement EPA regulations.

The mess that Bush has made of the Government is going to require someone with a vast level of experience to correct and no one in the current set of Democratic or Republicans Presidential hopefuls has this experience except for Al Gore.

Reason Two: Terrorism

The true test of a leader isn't the photo-ops you take after things have already blown-up and gone hell, it's what you do to prevent that sitaution from occuring in the first place.

As most of us know former NSC Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clark attempted to get a urgent meeting of the NSC Principles in place on the danger of Al Qaeda pretty much from the first minute Bush walked into office - and was brushed off.

January 25, 2001 Richard Clarke Memo:

"We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida network.

Even after the midnight intervention on Condi Rice by Clarke, Tenet and Cofer Black in July of 2000, August PDB and personal meeting between Tenet and Bush in Crawford - there still wasn't even a single meeting until just a week before the attack on 9/11.

While planning counter-terrorism efforts in preparation for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Clark found himself faced with a similar set of stalling, excuse making and buck passing. Considering the plot by Ramzi Yousef (the original World Trade Center bomber) to blow up nearly a dozen 747 simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean Clark asked the Special Agent in Charge at the Atlanta FBI Office... (Against All Enemies. page 106)

"What if somebody blows up a 747 over the Olympic Stadium, or even flies one into the stadium?!"

His response?

"Sounds like Tom Clancy to me," he sneered. "But if it happens well, that's an FAA problem."

In order to get some of the agencies planning for the Olympics to properly focus, Clarke made some phone calls.

One Week Later, Vice President Al Gore agreed to Chair the Counter-terrorism meeting himself.

He and Clarke made plans in the motorcade on the way to the meetihg.

"Here are some question you might like to ask, innocently." (The Same ones that Clarke had asked a week ago and received the run-around). "Then, after a awhile, you ought to look really mad."

"I do mad well." Gore smiled.

Once the meeting began he asked the questions, and got the same lame answers Clark had. He got mad, REAL Mad.

I know (then Joint Chiefs Chairman) General Shelton over there could probably personally scare away most terrorists, but we can't put Hugh on every corner. We need a better plan than this. Dick, I am going to ask you to pull that together, use whatever resoures these agences have that are needed. Anybody got any problems with that?

They didn't.

As a result Clark developed and implemented a comprehensive plan to look at all the various possible security issues involving the entire games and implemented it.

When Eric Robert Rudolph eventually did set off a backpack bomb at the Olympics all the emergency first responders were well primed and prepared, including hundreds of federal agents who roamed the games in plainclothes. Clarkes plan become known as the Atlanta Rules as were reused to help prevent the Millenium Bomb plot and protect numerous other threats.

After the crash of TWA Flight 800 Al Gore implemented an FAA Safety Commission, which attempted to improve the process of baggage screening, carry-on luggage checks and passenger screening.

In 1996 an oppurtunity arose to "snatch" bin Laden in Kharthoum shortly before he left Sudan for Afghanistan. Clarke's CSG made plans to implement a capture. A similar discussion of this had occurred in 1993 and had invovlement then President Clinton who after hearing and recounting both sides of the arguement (stopping a terrorist vs violating international law) Gore stated.

That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a cover action. The guy is a terrorist, Go grab his ass!"

Similar grabs had already been used to capture Ilych Sanchez (aka "Carlos the Jackel"), but in the 1996 situation it was the CIA and Special Forces who dropped the ball, then blamed Clinton for it when he'd given them the complete go ahead after listening to Gore's advice.

Like Ramsa Yousef, Bin Laden would have been brought back to the U.S. to stand trail - not GITMO - and in all likelyhood would have been convicted and imprisoned seven years before 9/11 if not for Tenet and the Pentagon Brass's cold feet after Somalia.

In both of these areas Gore is uniquely qualified and experienced to take the dismall situation we find ourselves in after 6 years of Bush Administration lies, cronyism, malfeasance and pandering to corporate profits internationally with the world's leading trade deficit, a crumbling national infratructure, dangerously over-extended and underequiped military and first responders, exploding deficit and government spending and dangerous loss of our moral authority around the world as we battle to win the hearts and minds of those who really would love to see all America stands for destroyed.

Over and above his committment to fight the Climate Crisis and to help return reasoned discourse to our social and political fabric via his books and movies, Al Gore can and has made the tough decisions when they needed to be made. He has placed the needs of his nation and the world above his own personal self-aggrandizement.

Al Gore needs to be the Next President Of the United States, for all of ours sakes.

America Needs Him. With luck and a healthy dose of begging, he just might heed the call.

Vyan

The Contempt of Condoleeza

Today the Secretary of State made a whirlwind tour appearing both on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer and This Week with George Stephanapolous to address the multi-headed shit storm that coming her way from the never-ending 16 Words Controversy, George Tenet's New Book, her failure to respond to 9-11 warnings and apparent "inclination" to ignore a Congressional Subpoena.

Yeah, Life Sure can be a Bitch when you're a Gangsta! eh, Condi?

The most pressing issue, since George Tenet will be appearing on 60 Minutes tonight, is the fact that in his new book he confirms the July 10th briefing with Condi Rice and Stephan Hadley that was first revealed by Bob Woodwards "State of Denial".

Rice originally denied that the briefing had even happened, claiming that it wasn't mentioned in the 9-11 report!

But that canard didn't last long when her spokesman Sean McCormack revealed that there really had been a briefing, but gee it wasn't really any "big deal", ok?

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack [said]... the information Rice got "was not new'’ and didn’t amount to an urgent warning.

Strange, that's not how McClatchy reported it.

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10″ that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again...

Today Schieffer pressed Rice on this issue, using excerpts from tonights 60 minutes report where Tenet states that his briefing was intended to spark immediate pre-emptive offensive attacks in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda.

Rice: The idea of launching preemptive strikes into Afghanistan in July of 2001, this is a new fact. I don't know what we were supposed to pre-emptively strike in Afghanistan. Perhaps someone should ask that question...

A New Fact? Really? Back when the Woodward's book came out, it was discussed on Olberman with Roger Cressey.

OLBERMANN: My first question, you‘re now consulting within a firm with Richard Clarke, who was at that meeting on July 10, on the central question of whether Rice was warned then of an attack on the U.S. Do we know who‘s right here, Woodward or Secretary Rice?

CRESSEY: Yes, she was warned. I mean, there was a meeting. It was George Tenet, Dick Clarke, another individual from the agency, Cofer Black, and Steve Hadley. And what it was, Keith, was a briefing for Dr. Rice that was similar to a briefing the CIA gave to us in the situation room about a week before, laying out the information, the intelligence, laying out the sense of urgency. And it was pretty much given to Dr. Rice and Steve Hadley in pretty stark terms.

But it was more than just a warning - there was a plan attached also.

OLBERMANN: The $500 million Cofer Black action plan against bin Laden, would have read like crazy talk if that had been presented to her as Woodward describes it?

CRESSEY: Not crazy talk, but because in some respects, that‘s what we did after 9/11...

Although Cofer's amazing Bucket-o-Bin-Laden's-Head plan was probably a tad over the top (Wassa matter, they don't make decent Pikes no more?!), at the very least they could have done what Bill Clinton Did in 1998 against Al Qaeda and even if they didn't kill bin Laden, they could have disrupted their operations and sent a signal that we were on to them, just as he had with the Lincoln and Holland Tunnel Attacks and the Millenium Bomb Plot. It might have postponed or even caused 9-11 to be aborted.

Or they could have done what Clinton really wanted to do which was have Special Forces go after Bin Laden. Clinton stated...

"Hugh [Shelton, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs], 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."

Except that the Joint Chief's wouldn't let him.

Then there was the Armed Predator Project which had languished on the shelf since Bush had taken office, and the fact that despite Richard Clark's desperate plea for a meeting of the NSC Principles to discuss the immentent threat of Al Qeada and implement his PLAN TO ATTACK AND DISMANTLE THEM (pdf) back in January of 2001 - No Such Meeting took place until September!

Anyway, while the Bush Administration was laying down in the face of Al Qaeda - they were more than ready to stand up and swat down the "imminent threat" of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Rice on This Week today. (Not an exact transcript)

Stephanapolous: So was Iraq really an imminent threat?

Rice: Imminent? An "imminent threat" is not "if somebody is going to strike tomorrow," but rather, "it’s whether you believe you’re in a stronger position today to deal with the threat, or whether you’re going to be in a stronger position...

Well, what we tried to do was assess whether the threat was growing better or worse. Saddam has abused the UN Oil for Food Program. His people were under harsh sanctions, while he was enriching himself. He was still filing mass graves. This was a threat that needed to be dealt with. It was the totality of the picture prompted the President to make the decision he made

Ok, we had to solve the mass grave problem in Iraq, but not in Darfur? We had to "Get Saddam" but Bin Laden wasn't news? Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S. was "Historical Information?" Yeah, right.

It's odd that I've never noticed a single mention of Mass Graves in HJ 141, the Iraq Force Resolution. But maybe that's because IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY.

It does say this...

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

This seems to be more about recovering our MIA's and property stolen from Kuwait during the First Gulf War than addressing the "imminent threat of Iraqi mass graves", doesn't it?

Well, it does talk about Saddam Hussein's attempts to gather WMD's and Nuclear Materials.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Unfortunately, none of this was true.

Which then leads us to the next issue that Rice was hammered about this morning - The 16 Words.

Back in 2003 Rice said on This Week:

The Intelligence Community did not know, at least at levels that got to us (in the White House), that their were serious questions about this report

And today on This Week:

Stephanopolous: But that statement wasn't true. You and Stephen Hadley received a memo in October of 2002 that indicated that there were serious questions [ about the 16 words report].

On both shows, Rice stuck to her talking points.

This has been one of the most investigation issues...

The information was included in the NIE...

Both the Robb-Silbermann Commission and the Select Senate Commitee have addressed this...

I have answered these questions [of Rep Waxman] with hundreds of pages of documents and with several letters...

I answered these questions at my confirmation hearing...

Maybe we [Hadley and I] should have remembered [to keep the 16 words out after the Cincinatti speach], but we didn't

In point of fact neither the Robb-Silberman Commission or the Senate Select Commitee investigation had the authority to address the question of how the Bush Administration used, manipulated and/or ignored the intelligence it was provided.

The Robb-Silbermann commission essentially blames the Intelligence Community for Bush's 16 word mistake.

The Intelligence Community failed to authenticate in a timely fashion transparently forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.

This is basically true, since the CIA didn't yet have copies of the documents in question, but they had sent Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate and he had found that there was no "there" there. Besides the NIE did include a a lengthy dissent from the State & Energy Depts about the viabiilty of aluminum tubing for use in a centerfuge.

Contrary to her claims Sec Rice has not addressed all of Waxman's questions...

In my March I2 letter, l requested information about what you knew about this assertion and how it ended up in the State of the Union address. I asked you to answer specific questions raised in a June 10, 2003, letter and a July 29,2003, letter, both of which I enclosed. These questions included: (1) whether you had any knowledge that would explain why President Bush cited forged evidence about Iraq’s efforts to procure uranium from Niger in the State of the Union address; (2) whether you knew before the State of the Union address of the doubts raised by the CIA and the State Department about the veracity of the Niger claim; (3) whether there was a factual basis for your reference in a January 23,2003, op-ed to "Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad"; and (4) whether you took appropriate steps to investigate how the Niger claim ended up in the State of the Union address after it was revealed to be fraudulent.

He has sent her a total of 16 letters, most of which she has blown-off.

According to Committee records, you have satisfactorily responded to only five of those 16 letters.

Now she's been put under subpoena and she's going to blow that off too.

Rice apparently feels that a) She's already answered the question and/or b) She prefers to answer them on TV, but not in front of the House Oversight Commitee.

Stephanopolous: Why not Testify?

Rice: It's a seperation of powers issue. I was in the White House, and it's up to the White House Counsel's Office.

Stephanopolous: Waxman intends to site you for Contempt of Congress

Rice (and Hadley's) problem here is that George Tenet didn't just send a single memo about the Niger issue. He sent several, as well as phone calls. From the Washington Post via Common Dreams.

The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to [Bush]'s deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.

Hadley, who also received a phone call from CIA Director George J. Tenet before the president's Oct. 7 speech asking that the Africa allegation be removed, took the blame for allowing the charge to be revived in the State of the Union address. "I should have recalled . . . that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue," he said

Shortly after Friday's briefing, [Dan Bartlett] and Hadley said yesterday, Gerson discovered the first of two CIA memos to the White House from last October. The CIA memo, dated Oct. 5 and addressed to Gerson, Hadley and others, objected to a sentence that the White House included in a draft of Bush's upcoming speech, saying [Saddam Hussein]'s "regime has been caught attempting to purchase" uranium in Africa. The officials did not release the memo but said the uranium information was on Page 3 of a four-page document.

Oh, it was all the way back on Page 3? So you guys only read the cliff notes of your memos from the CIA now?

Two memos and a call directly from the Director of Central Intelligence himself - and they just plain forgot? No wonder she doesn't want to go under oath with that stinker of a story. The "I was just too busy" defense didn't work for Scooter and it doesn't work here.

Instead Rice intends to play chicken with the Congress, which could get very interesting indeed. As Kagro X has mentioned, there have been occasions when the Attorney Generals' Office has declined to prosecute a Contempt of Congress Charge against an Administration official, but that isn't the last card they have to play.

Just as John Murtha brought up today during his appearance on Face the Nation in regards to influencing the President - they also have the option of Impeachment, particularly if the Alberto Gonzales hand-picked lapdogs at the DOJ decide not to prosecute Secretary Rice for the pure and utter Contempt she's shown the Congress and the American people with this cock and bull story of her's.

The simple fact is that she failed to respond to genuinely urgent warnings about Al Qaeda and then ignored evidence that Saddam Hussein wasn't any kind of imminent threat to the U.S. Even the NIE, incomplete though it was, still stated that "he was unlike to use WMD's Unless he was provoked."

So of course, we provoked him didn't we!

The body count for the blunder of ignoring what the weapons inspectors were actually saying ("The U.S. Intel is Garbage") has risen to over 3,300 for Americans and hundreds of thousands for Iraqis, not to mention those who've been permenently wounded by this war - and those who were needlessly lost on 9-11.

It's high time someone was held accountable for the fact that the Bush Administration was completely asleep at the switch on 9-11 and the total FusterCluck we're made out of Iraq. Rice is as good a person to start with as anyone.

Investigate, Indict, Impeach, Remove - then Rinse and Repeat.

Update 4-30-07:

Ok, I've had a chance to review Tenet's performance on 60 Minutes and first thing I have to say is "Wow, doesn't that guy have some issues!"

Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern has taken him to task on OpedNews.

We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the "damage to your reputation". In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

McGovern also recounts what Bob Baer has to say about Tenet's ridiculous of his "Slam Dunk" whine...

"So, it is better that the 'slam dunk' referred to the ease with which the war could be sold? I guess I missed that part of the National Security Act delineating the functions of the CIA - the part about CIA marketing a war. Guess that's why I never made it into senior management."

I myself have two major bones to pick with him. First his claim that "Enhanced Interrogation" has been worth it.

What he seems to conveniently forget is that while he was sitting there behind Colin Powell at the UN while he talked about Al Qaeda and Saddam being "in cooperation" - that information came from someone who had been part of the CIA Ghost Detainee program named Ibn Sheik al-Libi and that al-Libi had told us what we wanted to hear in order to stop being tortured.

Former CIA European Chief Tyler Drumheller had tried to remove references to "biological labs" from the UN Speech because he knew the information came from a source he knew to be a fabricator codenamed "Curveball". Yet those references found their way back into the speech.

Tenet may like to protend that "No one has died" from being tortured under the CIA program, but he ignores the fact that the Pentagon and Military intelligence have also implemented their own interrogation and Ghost Detainee programs which have so far resulted in the deaths of at least 26 people (that we know of so far).

Yes, it is to his credit that Tenet tried to have the 16 words removed from various speeches made by the President - but he wasn't the only one.

Vanity Fair has found at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union in which analysts at the C.I.A., the State Department, or other government agencies who had examined the Niger documents or reports about them raised serious doubts about their legitimacy--only to be rebuffed by Bush-administration officials who wanted to use the material. "They were just relentless," says Wilkerson, who later prepared Colin Powell's presentation before the United Nations General Assembly. "You would take it out and they would stick it back in. That was their favorite bureaucratic technique--ruthless relentlessness."

The second issue I have with Tenet is this arguement that the CIA had assets on the ground in Afghanistan in 1999 that could have "done something about bin Laden, but President Clinton wouldn't give the go ahead."

This is frankly a line of bull. Former NSC member Roger Cressey has already debunked this:

Mr. Miniter (In his Book "Losing Bin Laden") also alleges that in the spring and summer of 1998 the Clinton administration was deadlocked over the decision to conduct a special forces mission near a bin Laden camp. Mr. Miniter suggests that the president did not want to overrule Pentagon concerns over risks because he could not "stomach sending thousands of troops into harm's way." Mr. Clinton was, in fact, ready and willing to undertake a special forces or other paramilitary assault on bin Laden, particularly after our missile attacks on bin Laden in the summer of 1998, and often pressed his senior military advisers for options. But Mr. Clinton's top military and intelligence advisers concluded that a commando raid was likely to be a failure, given the potential for detection, in the absence of reliable, predictive intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts.
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. As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden.

In point of fact, it wasn't Clinton who refused to pull the trigger on bin Laden when he might have had a chance - it was Tenet as has been documented by Richard Clark as he debunked ABC's "Path to 9-11".

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.

Vyan

Vyan