You Decide

Always decide for yourself whether anything posted in my blog has any information you choose to keep.

Saturday, September 30, 2006


80-19 Affirmative Fence Vote

This is exemplary of what grass roots activism can accomplish.

  From:  Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date:  Friday 29SEP06     10:15 p.m. EDT
Master Headline Here


The Senate just finished passing the U.S. House of Representative's fence bill.

It will now go to President Bush who has promised to sign it.

This is a stand-alone bill. It was not bundled with any compromises, any increases in immigration, any new guestworker visas or any amnesty.

It deals only with making our southern border more secure and to further impede the flow of illegal workers and dependents.

Your incredible phoning today -- and all month -- and your relentless faxing and other pressure throughout the year left most Senators with little choice.

This fence was barely talked about two years ago and mostly thought to be a crackpot, off-the-wall (er, poor choice of words) idea -- and it still is by most of the newspaper editorial writers of this country. Our hat is off to, the Minutemen and a number of other smaller groups who really championed this rather obscure cause in the early stages.

So, how could this pass so overwhelmingly?

Ever since the House passed this fence bill 283-138 earlier this month, major Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they would refuse to allow this bill to come to a vote. They said passing an enforcement-only bill would take away a bargaining chip they need to pass a bill with guestworkers and an amnesty. They used all kinds of maneuvers to keep from having to vote directly on this bill.

But a lot of the Senators -- such as Sen. Martinez (R-FL) -- who so vociferously spoke against this bill ended up voting for it tonight.

Why? Because they knew that regular voting citizens like you would hold them accountable.

This lop-sided vote is absolutely a sign of the tremendous power that this growing citizen movement is accumulating -- and of your steadfast commitment.

You can read more about the fence and this bill (H.R. 6061) at:

This bill basically is the only step forward that Congress has taken this year in the fight against out-of-control mass immigration.

It is sad that this is all we got when we consider the great promise of the ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT bill (H.R. 4437) passed last December by the House.

But the Senate refused to deal with it unless it could add an amnesty and incredible increases in legal immigration.

In addition, we have to remember that the bill tonight was not an appropriations bill. The money to fund the fence must come in another bill. Money for a few hundred miles appears to be in the pipeline, but the Senate so far has not shown signs of being willing to provide all the money to build all 700 miles.

Nonetheless, there will be plenty of money to get started. As this fence begins to be erected at and near the populated settlements along the Mexican border -- and as it clearly slows the illegal traffic -- we can hope that steps of success will breed more interest and more money for more fence in Congress next year.

Just about exactly a year ago, leaders of many national groups fighting immigration insanity -- and some key staffers from Congress -- met in a private room for dinner on Capitol Hill.

We struggled to come up with the most important three tools needed to substantially reduce the illegal alien population in the U.S.

We came up with three (not necessarily ranked by importance):

1. Build a fence on the Mexican border.

2. Mandate every employer to run every new hire (and eventually all existing employees) through a national computerized verification system to keep most illegal aliens out of a job.

3. Mandate that the federal government cooperate with any local law enforcement agency that calls to report having apprehended an illegal alien.

Our groups pledged to work jointly and cooperatively with each other and with our allies in Congress to reach these three goals.

We were amazed when, two months later, the U.S. House passed a bill with all three.

We are sorry that only one of the three top tools got through this Congress. BUT WE GOT ONE!

The effectiveness of the fence will be severely limited until we pass the other two tools. We look forward to working with you to do that in the year ahead.

In addition, NumbersUSA is pledged to three other top goals to reduce the illegal alien population:

1. Eliminate the chain migration categories that allow immigrants to choose the next immigrants by bringing in their adult relatives (other than spouse). Because this starts a chain that connects hundreds of cousins and in-laws and aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces for each new immigrant, it builds up gigantic expectations for whole communities in (usually poor) foreign countries. Although most of them must wait for years before their "number gets called," large numbers of them decide they already are entitled to live in the U.S. and just go ahead and enter the country illegally.

2. Eliminate the visa lottery that randomly picks 50,000 foreign nationals to come to the U.S. to become citizens each year. Because millions of people apply for the lottery, large numbers of them begin to believe that they may win some day and decide to just come on to the U.S. illegally and wait to win the lottery while here.

3. Eliminate anchor baby citizenship, a policy that gives automatic U.S. citizenship to any baby born of an illegal alien on U.S. soil. Most industrialized countries in the world that once awarded anchor baby citizenship have stopped because it is a huge magnet to encourage women to enter a country illegally. And the illegal aliens use their anchor babies as a tool to avoid deportation.

So, those three goals, plus the left-over two from last year, head up the very ambitious list of what we must continue to advocate in the months ahead.

This weekend, however, let's celebrate a significant victory.



-- ROY

This fence was barely talked about two years ago and mostly thought to be a crackpot, off-the-wall (er, poor choice of words) idea -- and it still is by most of the newspaper editorial writers of this country. Our hat is off to, the Minutemen and a number of other smaller groups who really championed this rather obscure cause in the early stages. So, how could this pass so overwhelmingly? Ever since the House passed this fence bill 283-138 earlier this month, major Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they would refuse to allow this bill to come to a vote. They said passing an enforcement-only bill would take away a bargaining chip they need to pass a bill with guestworkers and an amnesty. They used all kinds of maneuvers to keep from having to vote directly on this bill. But a lot of the Senators -- such as Sen. Martinez (R-FL) -- who so vociferously spoke against this bill ended up voting for it tonight. Why? Because they knew that regular voting citizens like you would hold them accountable. This lop-sided vote is absolutely a sign of the tremendous power that this growing citizen movement is accumulating -- and of your steadfast commitment. You can read more about the fence and this bill (H.R. 6061) at:

Friday, September 29, 2006


Fence vote

I used the email option this morning, short and simple FENCE - YES , AMNESTY - NO.


We just got word from a knowledgeable insider that Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) has figured out a way to bring a "clean" fence bill to the floor of the Senate for a final vote.



Just call the Senate Switchboard and ask for the Senator by name. Many of you have written that you can't afford to make these calls and are asking for faxes. It is too late for the fax attack. Only phone calls at this late moment will do the job on this vote. (But I certainly understand and accept that some of you can't afford the phone calls.)

U.S. Senate Switchboard

If the Switchboard number is busy, you may want to call the direct line of the Senator. You can find that direct number at:

Friday, September 29, 2006


"Survivor of Jihad Issues Challenge to Muslim-Americans

There need to be more voices like this all joined together against terrorists.  So long as terrorists are allowed to bully the rest of the world they'll keep at it ...  just like the school bully until they met their comeuppance. 
"Survivor of Jihad Issues Challenge to Muslim-Americans
By Kevin Mooney Staff Writer
September 29, 2006

( - A survivor of Islamic Jihad in the 1970s is challenging Muslim Americans who reject radical teachings to "raise their voices" and to hold demonstrations in public venues across the country denouncing violent behavior.

Brigitte Gabriel is a journalist and news producer who said she had first-hand experience with militant Muslims as a teenager living in Lebanon. The Jihad launched against Christians in Lebanon in 1975 and its relevance to contemporary politics was the focus of Gabriel's talk at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday.

She took the opportunity to call on moderate Muslims in the U.S. to take better advantage of the constitutional freedoms that are not available to like-minded moderates in the Middle East.

"This is the only country in the world where they (moderate Muslims) can march in the streets, where they can demonstrate and speak out without being intimidated by radicals. I can understand why they cannot do it in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, Syria and Lebanon," Gabriel said. "But there is no excuse why Muslims in the U.S. cannot take to the streets and rally and send a message to the radicals in the Middle East."

That message from American-Muslims, Garbriel continued, should include an unambiguous proclamation of patriotism. "Where are their voices?" Gabriel asked audience members. "They should say we are Americans first, if you kill one of us, you kill all of us."

Gabriel said she could identify only one American-Muslim who has tried to organize the demonstrations she believes are necessary. Gabriel said Kamal Nawash, president of the Free Muslims Coalition, was opposed by other Muslim organizations when he sought support for organizing anti-terrorism rallies in Washington D.C., last year.

Those Muslims who reject extremism, but choose to remain silent are repeating some of the worst mistakes in history, Gabriel told listeners. She also said Americans must "wake up" and come to terms with the "barbaric" nature of the enemy they face before "Islamo-fascism" can be defeated.

She accused the news media of doing the American public a disservice when it failed to show footage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, victims of Muslim terrorists.

While she acknowledged that the majority of Muslim Americans are peaceful, Gabriel said she feels that they do not express themselves with as much energy and vigor as their more radical counterparts. She is particularly concerned about the pro-Hizballah demonstrations held in Dearborn, Mich.

"They were free to demonstrate in our country in support of Hizballah and against the United States of America," she said. "Yet, we haven't seen this same passion come out of moderates to defend America."

Gabriel also pointed to the controversy involving Roman Catholic Pope Benedict as more evidence of the spread of Islamic extremism. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the pope sparked intense reaction among some Muslims when he delivered a speech in Germany and referred to a 14th century discussion on Islam and Christianity between a "learned Persian" and the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus.

The pope quoted the emperor as saying to the Persian, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington, D.C., based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) told Cybercast News Service that only a "tiny minority" of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims was responsible for the violent reaction to the pope's speech.

The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and are open to constructive dialogue with the Christian world, Masmoudi said. Unfortunately, extremists on both sides are complicating interfaith efforts, in his view.

"There are Christian extremists in this country who want to see a religious war against Islam, not just the terrorists," Masmoudi said. "No one will win such a war. We will all be losers."

Masmoudi also called Pope Benedict's comments "insensitive and untimely." He said the pope should apologize and acknowledge that it was a mistake to quote material that reaches back to the "mentality of the Crusades."

But, at the same time, Masmoudi said that the "misinterpretation" of certain parts of the Koran can be used by extremists. A process known as "ijithad" was once used to furnish Muslims with interpretations that were tailored to fit the times they were living in.

"Unfortunately it (ijithad) stopped three centuries ago," Masmoudi said. "That's why the interpretations we have today are not suitable for the 21st century."

For her part, Gabriel is concerned about the educational material that is being presented to young Muslims in mosques throughout America. She claimed that books from Saudi Arabia teach Muslims "living in infidel land" that they have a religious duty to impose an Islamic government on every country in the world.

Furthermore, Gabriel said the same material teaches American-Muslims that it is their "sacred obligation" to "invade the western heartlands and struggle to overcome until all the world shouts by the name of the prophet Mohammed and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world."

Gabriel also said that America must become more attuned to the dangers associated with terrorist cells. She claimed that Hamas has cells in over 40 American cities, including Boston, Philadelphia, New York City, Washington D.C., Raleigh, N.C., Charlotte, N.C., Boca Raton, Fla., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Seattle Wash., and San Francisco, Calif.

"We need to take political correctness and throw it in the garbage, and start educating our people," she said. "We have a problem not only with Hamas but with radical Islam being spread through the mosques in the U.S. - financed by our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia."

Thursday, September 28, 2006


"al-Qaeda is in "dire need" of .....

Powerline just posted this.  Looks as if we may be getting the job done in spite if everything.

"Ex-terrorists of the best kind


AP reports that al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri) has produced an audiotape in which he says that 4,000 foreign insurgents have been killed in Iraq. According to the AP, the Arabic word al-Masri used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops."......

......"Finally, al-Masri urged explosive experts and nuclear scientists to assist al-Qaeda. Noting that al-Qaeda is in "dire need" of these services, he suggested that U.S. bases would make a fine subject for their "experimentation." Clearly, al-Qaeda needs some sort of "big bang" to create more pressure to induce an exit by the U.S.. Left-wing Dems aren't getting it done.".......

Thursday, September 28, 2006


""Recruiting terrorists: Cut-and-run would work best


"Recruiting terrorists: Cut-and-run would work best



"America’s intelligence agencies have determined that the war in Iraq has helped recruit more terrorists. Well, duh. It’s called fighting back.

Democrats leapt upon this news as proof that the Iraq war has made us less safe. But that is not what the bulk of the available evidence, including the declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, shows.

The NIE concludes that the No. 1 factor radicalizing Muslims continues to be "entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination. . ." Those first two are exactly the grievances President Bush is trying to remedy, in part by replacing Iraq’s despotic regime with a democratic one.

Remember, the terrorists hit us before we toppled Saddam Hussein: In 1983, 1998, 2000 and 2001. Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998, not 2002.

A report released late last month by Britain’s Royal Institute for International Affairs also found that America’s presence in Iraq had helped recruit terrorists. But it concluded that the Iraq war has sharply reduced the appeal of violence as a political tool in the Muslim world and slashed the popularity of terror organizations among most Muslims: a net gain for the West. It has received little if any media attention in the United States.

The NIE suggests that the best way to combat radical Islam is to divide and conquer: separate the radicals from the majority of Muslims, and fight them. The British report suggests this is what the war in Iraq is doing.

Pulling out now because the terrorists have decided to fight back instead of roll over would give terrorists the best recruitment poster they could imagine. If we want to reduce their ranks, now is the time to hit them even harder and let them know that we will never give up the fight."

Wednesday, September 27, 2006


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

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

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT



Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.



With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time."...........


........."There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them."

Tuesday, September 26, 2006


"Rice Boils Over At Bubba


By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent
Source New York Post
"September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

....."In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said."......

........."Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks."....

........"Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?" .....

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too." .......

........"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said. ".......

....."In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements."

Monday, September 25, 2006


How one reporter gave Clinton heartburn over Chinagate

Rather long but well detailed article which shows Clinton goes ballistic when confronted with facts about something he's made every effort to conceal.

Clinton echoes the same mantra as terrorists, blaming everyone, everything other than himself for being caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Archived timeline of China-gate here

My picnic with Bill
How one reporter gave Clinton heartburn over Chinagate

Posted: September 24, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: In the fall of 1999, President Bill Clinton endured something to which he was not accustomed -- a member of the news media challenging him with tough questions about issues of concern to the American people. WorldNetDaily Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry, then a reporter with Investor's Business Daily, went toe-to-toe with the president during a picnic on the White House south lawn. The widely publicized confrontation caused Clinton so much consternation that Sperry was subsequently banished from the White House.


The following was originally published as the cover story for WorldNet Magazine in February 2000.

By Paul Sperry

WASHINGTON -- There's probably no finer place to throw a party than the South Lawn of the White House, and no better time to do it than on a mild and breezy day in early fall. And there's probably no guest more grateful for such a free fete than the Washington press corps.

My colleagues will climb over each other to get to a table full of rubbery hoagies, soggy chips and stale Budweiser. Doesn't matter what it is, really, so long as it's free.

But this. This was hog's heaven for the cheap scribes who filed onto the White House grounds that Friday night in September for a Cajun party in their honor. What a spread. On red-checkered picnic tables spanning the length of the plush green lawn, beckoned trays of jambalaya, boudin and boiled shrimp.

And the bars, under colorful tents, were stocked full of liquor. No kegs here. Black-tie-clad help poured your favorite libation from bottles. Forget Budweiser; they had Guinness Stout and other imported brews. Fine reds and whites, too, and highballs. All free.

Zydeco tunes skipped across the crowd of giddy guests. As the sunny day faded to dusk, the soft lights of the White House portico glowed behind us. Intoxicating. What a night.

But, for me, there was still something wrong with this party -- namely, the host.

President Clinton, the function's main attraction, was due to make a cameo appearance at any moment. Despite having to wade through 40-plus scandals over the previous seven years, my cohorts in the press were all atwitter at the prospect of pumping Clinton's arm and snapping shots of him with their spouses and kids.

Just 48 hours earlier, four FBI agents had testified before the Senate that Justice Department lawyers had stopped them from pursuing leads back to Clinton in the ongoing campaign-finance investigation.

Not only that, agents swore that lawyers for months had blocked their request to ask a judge for a warrant to search the Little Rock, Ark., office of Clinton fund-raiser Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. Agents sifting through his trash found that key records subpoenaed by the Senate had been shredded.

Among the torn-up documents: checks from Asian donors to Clinton's legal defense fund, Democratic National Committee donor lists, travel records for Chinese money men and statements from Chinese bank accounts. There was also a FedEx slip showing the White House had sent two pounds of documents to Trie just two months before a 1997 Senate probe of Chinagate kicked off.

What's more, one agent said 27 pages of notes detailing her struggles with Justice over the Trie case were ripped out of spiral notebooks after she turned them over to her superiors.

The explosive testimony was ignored by most of the media. But I couldn't shake it from my mind, no matter the occasion. Was Clinton's attorney general covering for him in one of the gravest probes in U.S. history, one with national security implications? Did Clinton have any knowledge of it?

Sometime after 6 p.m., the president emerged from the Oval Office. Dressed in a suit, he strolled down the walkway, only to disappear through a doorway. His aide Sidney Blumenthal strolled on and joined the crowd. At his side was Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. (I ran into Markey later in the evening inside the White House. He was giving his wife and father a tour. Markey's now all over the TV talk shows flacking for Vice President Al Gore's campaign.)

The suspense built as the guests closed in around a loose rope line that stretched from the edges of the Oval Office area to the stage where the band played. Then, at last, Clinton came out of the White House wearing what can only be described as a get-up -- tight black pullover shirt, tight black pants with a big silver-buckle black belt and black cowboy boots.

Strutting past me, he looked like a bad imitation of Johnny Cash. Or was it an over-the-hill Elvis? Tom Jones? Whatever, the silver-haired devil made a beeline for the stage, climbed up on it and drawled on about how great it was for all of us to be there with him on such a wonderful night listening to such great music. At that, a guest tried to hand a tenor saxophone up to him. Several painted-up women pushed their way to the stage. By the way, Clinton remarked, "Hillary wanted to be here with y'all, but she's up in New York tonight." Wink-wink.

Little did he know that in just a few minutes, a rude guest would give him a Maalox moment to remember and probably spoil any entertainment plans he had for the evening.

As Clinton worked the rope line on his way back toward the White House, it was hard not to be taken up in the electricity of the moment. Everyone was having such a good time. And a buoyant Clinton was working the crowd, yucking it up like no one can. At one point, he was even wearing baubles around his neck. Husbands were offering up their wives and children for grip-and-grin shots. Photojournalists were camped out like paparazzi. Why not? A notorious celebrity was in their midst. Even one of my reporters was snapping shots with his instamatic -- for his wife.

I stood there slack-jawed, watching one powerful journalist after another clamor like so many fawning teen rock-idol fans to grasp the hand of the most corrupt president in U.S. history.

So many scandals, so many unanswered questions -- so many unasked questions. National security at stake. That little boy there, that little girl over there ... your sons, your daughters. Don't you care what this president has or hasn't done with our military secrets?

Maybe I just cared too much. Relax. Yes, have a good time; it is a party after all. Don't be so serious. Loosen up.

But just as I was about to give in to the perverse euphoria, suspending disbelief about the harmlessness of old Slick like everyone else around me, I recalled a Proverb I'd read that morning -- "Do not envy wicked men, do not desire their company" -- and I closed my eyes for strength.

It was my turn to meet the celebrity president. As he approached me, I politely, if coolly, asked him when he would hold his next formal press conference. It had been several months since his last and he's had fewer than any recent president. I admit I was trying to agitate the proper forum for questions about the FBI agents' charges. But, to me, this was still a rather innocuous question, even within the supposedly neutral zone of a party. A relevant question, too, given the gathering. Other hard-nosed reporters surely were wondering when they'd get another crack at Clinton.

Or so I thought. My simple question was rewarded with boos and hisses from the adoring Clinton groupies around me. So much for the adversarial press.

But that was nothing compared with Clinton's reaction to my inquiry about his next press confab. In an instant, his 100-watt charm shut off, replaced by a taunting belligerence. "Why?" he barked.

"Because the American people have a lot of unanswered questions," I replied, struggling to hold my bladder. At that point, he moved back down the rope, pulling up square in front of me, and demanded, "Like what?"

"Well, like illegal money from China and the campaign-finance scandal ..."

What happened over the next 10 minutes was nothing short of a "scene." The party-goers collapsed in around us. I watched the blood rush to Clinton's gargantuan face as he launched into a tirade against ex-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, the FBI, Bob Dole and Republicans in general. All the while, he tried to belittle me by making faces (to get a rise out of his fans) and intimidate me by getting in my face.

And now I can see how he can do that to people. Clinton's not just intellectually intimidating, he's physically imposing. He's tall (6-2) and big-boned.

Luckily, I'm the same height and was able to stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with him. I'll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes. There was a moment, fleeting, where I sensed he wanted to try to take a swipe at me. I was getting full frontal Clinton. His volcanic temper, hidden so well from the public by his handlers, erupted less than 12 inches from my eyes.

Clinton always is game for a debate. That I asked him hard questions at a party wasn't what ticked him off. It's what I asked him about. He clearly doesn't want to talk about the mother of all scandals -- Chinagate.

He also may have been thrown by my grasp of the facts. I'd been tracking the Beijing-tied Lippo Group's influence in the Clinton White House since 1996 and have been suspicious of the probity of Attorney General Janet Reno's special task force since she let John Keeney Sr. set it up -- a month after the election -- to look into Lippo's influence.

Keeney's son is none other than a defense attorney for John Huang, the former Lippo executive and convicted Clinton-Gore fund-raiser. Junior, who's also a long-time Democratic National Committee lawyer, cut Huang a deal with daddy's old task force that got him no jail time and immunity from prosecution for espionage.

Clinton also was unprepared for my tenacity. Other reporters may back down after he singes their eyebrows with a verbal fusillade. Dummy me, I hung in there for more abuse, challenging his answers, following up with more questions. Which only made him madder.

Take, for instance, the exchange we had after I asked him what he thought of the FBI agents' charges two days earlier that they'd been blocked from following trails back to the White House in the Chinagate probe. (When I first mentioned the agents, he acted dumb: "What FBI agents?")

"The Eff-Bee-Ahh," Clinton said, his tone dripping with contempt and suspicion. "What do you think of the FBI?"

I don't have an opinion, sir. My question is to you.

"Yeah, the FBI wants you to write about that rather than write about Waco," a reference to lingering questions about the agency's role in the 1993 fire that killed Branch Davidian separatists in Waco, Texas.

It was an extraordinary remark. The president was questioning the motives and veracity of his own agency.

I piped up that these were career FBI agents. One had been with the agency 25 years. And they made these charges under oath.

"Are you suggesting they're not telling the truth, Mr. President?" I asked.

Clinton's face turned a darker hue of red, almost the purplish color of raw hamburger meat that's been left out on the counter. Changing the subject, he attacked Republicans for their own fund-raising woes.

After Clinton had had enough of me, he tried to move on. But, I pressed, reminding him that he still hadn't answered my original question: When will you have another formal news conference?

"You just had one," he snapped.

With that, I turned around and knifed my way through the crowd that had gathered. Two women -- one from AP, then another from CNN -- rushed up to me. Both asked what got Clinton so angry.

"Why'd he turn so red?" asked one. Good question, I said, then replayed the exchange for them. Both asked for my card, though neither of their news agencies filed a story.

Before grabbing a plate of Cajun food and a much-needed cold one, I scribbled down what Clinton had told me on some White House napkins and left the grounds soon after. As I made my way to the Metro station, I realized my knees were a bit wobbly.

Still dazed by the time I got home, I trudged in the front door and only half-jokingly told my wife to prepare for an IRS audit. As I did radio shows around the country over the next few weeks, I found I wasn't the only one with that thought. Except callers weren't fooling.

Some warned me to get my tax forms in order and "not to take any plane trips." They were concerned I'd pay a heavy price for "standing up to the scary occupant of the White House," as one put it.

Another radio caller reckoned "there is a lot of info from FBI files being used to leverage reporters." (That's actually not so far-fetched. White House correspondents have to submit to background checks.)

One wise guy actually posted a phony Washington Post obituary on the Internet.

"Paul Sperry, the Washington bureau chief of Investor's Business Daily, was found in the swimming pool of his Richmond, Va., home early this morning," the prankster wrote. "He had apparently shot himself in the head in his living room before throwing himself fully clothed into the pool. A .45-caliber bullet was found in his skull and he was holding the suicide weapon, a 9 mm automatic with the serial numbers filed off.

"His notes and home computer were found burning in a trash can," he added. "Police were alerted to the body by an anonymous tip. No foul play is suspected."

I'm of the mind that the president and first lady, both of whom have strangely gone out of their way to remind the public that they've "even been accused of murder," like that people think that. It breeds fear, and fear makes those who might otherwise confront the Clintons with the facts think twice about doing so.

Still, after taking calls into the wee morning hours, such thoughts didn't exactly help me sleep over the next several days as the story grew legs.

Saturday night, Sept. 25: As I was typing up my story, James Grimaldi, a reporter for the Seattle Times, called me at home. He had been covering the Microsoft trial in Washington but he was working on another story -- mine -- and had a few questions for me.

Turns out Grimaldi was standing right next to me during the exchange with Clinton. He heard the whole thing and we compared notes. He said he was filing a story for the Times' Sunday edition. At first, I was frosted seeing that Grimaldi would beat my story. My paper at the time, Investor's Business Daily, only publishes Monday through Friday and Monday's paper is put to bed on Friday. So my story wouldn't run till Tuesday.

Even so, I was thankful that another major paper would corroborate the interview.

"The blood was rushing in and out of his face," Grimaldi observed over the phone. "He actually blew up. His initial blow-up was unexpected and unanticipated."

He counted at least 10 exchanges, "back and forth." Not one question I asked, he said, was "rude" or "disrespectful," although the entire impromptu interview could be construed as such. He also said Clinton "was baiting you" into asking more questions.

At one point, Grimaldi said the official White House photographer standing behind Clinton shouted: "This is so inappropriate! This is so inappropriate!" I never heard him. Clinton's own shouting must have drowned him out.

Tuesday night, Sept. 28: The Drudge Report posted a story at the top of its website: "Fight Club: Furious Clinton Orders Reporter Banned After Grilling!"

Wednesday, Sept. 29, at 3:12 p.m. EDT: In the White House briefing room, a Washington Times reporter asked Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart about Clinton's FBI remark. But Lockhart brushed him off. Then the reporter asked about the Drudge Report.

Before answering, Lockhart lectured reporters on the "virtues or lack thereof" of using citizen cyberjournalist Matt Drudge as a news source. He nonetheless confirmed Drudge's report.

"I was asked for comment from the reporter about the incident and I made the comment that the only regret I have is inviting him to the party -- and I wouldn't make that mistake again," he explained. "So to the extent that we judge coverage of this building by the parties, he's banned."

Lockhart left the impression that he personally told me I was banned. And that's the way the press reported it.

In fact, Lockhart never called me. He had his girl give me the news. And even she passed it along sheepishly.

On Monday, Sept. 27, I had called Lockhart's deputy Jake Siewart to see if the president wanted to clarify any of the remarks he made to me. Siewart replied, bluntly, that Clinton "doesn't regret making" them.

Not 10 minutes after I hung up, a woman called from the White House identifying herself as Lockhart's assistant. She had a message for me.

What is it? I asked.

"I didn't say it. It's not coming from me," she assured me, speaking under her breath. "It's specifically from Joe Lockhart."

All right, what?

"The only regret we have is inviting you to the party," she said, quoting her boss, "and we won't make that mistake again."

Is he serious? I asked.


How juvenile, I thought, but how predictable for this White House.

I left that part out of my story at the request of my editor, who asked me to divorce myself from the story as much as I could.

But the next day, Drudge called from Hollywood and asked about the story which, by then, was bouncing around the Internet. I mentioned being kicked off the invite list. He wasted no time in posting the news later that night on his website.

Where Drudge got the "Class A s--thead" slur, I don't know. No one from Lockhart's office uttered it to me. (Could it be that Drudge has a mole in the White House?) If Lockhart indeed used the childish epithet, he clearly was accusing me of being a relative.

Wednesday, Sept. 29: Washington Post reporter Beth Berselli called my editor Wes Mann in Los Angeles for comment on the Drudge Report. Her first question: "So what disciplinary action do you plan to take against your reporter?"

The presumption of guilt came through loud and clear in the next day's "Reliable Source" column she helped pen. Reporting with the certainty of an eyewitness, Berselli said I "ambushed" Clinton.

Only, she wasn't there. She relied on the account of Lockhart, who told her I was "badgering" the president. Only, Lockhart wasn't there either. Berselli never talked to me.

I never planned to buttonhole the president, but I'm glad I did. His heated reaction to simple questions was revealing. And I pried away some remarkable quotes, particularly about the FBI.

Though admittedly a far cry from the backbiting seen during Watergate, there hasn't been this much tension between a president and his chief law enforcement agency since President Nixon.

It was news. Big news. Yet the Washington press corps, by and large, passed on the meat of the story and focused instead on the theater of a reporter mixing it up with the president at a picnic.

"National Papers Miss Flare-Up Highlighting Clinton-FBI Rift," said a report in Media Critic, an online newsletter of the nonpartisan Center for Media & Public Affairs in Washington.

"Beltway Blinders: Smaller Papers' Scoops Get Little Notice," said White House correspondent Josh Gerstein in his column. Gerstein was the only reporter who picked up my line of questioning with Clinton. On Oct. 1, as Clinton was dashing off to California, he pressed Clinton to open up more about his problems with the FBI, though without much luck.

Sure, the New York Times and the Washington Post eventually used my revealing quotes, while holding their noses and calling me "rude" and "impertinent" for extracting them at a social event -- as if I were the first to do that. According to former press secretaries, both Sam Donaldson and Helen Thomas worked over President Reagan and President Bush at press parties and state dinners.

A social aide for Reagan told me the two veteran correspondents were hectoring the president to such a degree during one dinner that she and other aides had to literally put their bodies between them and the president to spare the guests from more obnoxious shouting at closer range.

Funny how the press corps suddenly stands on ceremony when a Democrat is in the White House.

The old bar flies at the National Press Club roundly booed me when they saw me talking about the dust-up on one of the Fox News shows. And they weren't just booing my TV performance.

Though I clearly exposed a nerve on Chinagate, the White House press corps has failed to tap into it. At Clinton's Feb. 16 press conference, no reporter plied him with questions on the still-mushrooming conspiracy and now-fully active cover-up -- even though 10 days earlier the Los Angeles Times had reported that a foreign donor with ties to the People's Liberation Army laundered money through convicted Clinton fund-raiser Trie (who, it turns out, drove around Beijing in a PLA-issue car).

Citing FBI interviews, the story also revealed Trie sought "fund-raising help" from the Chinese consulate in Houston right after Clinton told him he was running for president early last decade.

Did Clinton in fact meet with Trie back then? What did they talk about? Did he have any idea that his Arkansas friend was so tight with the communists in Beijing? No one bothered to ask.

If I get banned for asking tough questions about a deadly serious scandal (unlike the Lewinsky affair), what does that say about all those among the White House press corps who haven't been banned? Are they tossing up softballs?

"I've been all around this country, and you are the first person to ask me about (Chinagate)," Clinton claimed. "Not one person has brought that up."

Maybe no one among the media elite. But average Americans have. Surely, Clinton's heard or seen the placard-waving citizens who for months have been protesting his blind appeasement of China at the north entrance to the White House. Many of them are tied to,  (  )  ( ) which has built a compelling chronology of the Chinagate scandal.

Investor's Business Daily got more than 1,100 e-mails and letters and hundreds of phone calls from readers. All but one were supportive (the lone dissenting voice wished I'd asked about the homeless). And most demanded more answers about Chinagate. Here is a sample:

"When President Clinton said Mr. Sperry was the first person to ask about the Chinese campaign finance scandal, he showed just how badly the American people are being under-served by the media," said T. Downs of Neptune Beach, Fla. "We Americans really would like to know what went on in the Chinese funny-money scandal."

Wrote Wendy Jacques of Farmington Hills, Mich.: "I read what happened to you when the president did not wish to answer your factually-based question regarding the apparent cover-up by the Justice Department of the president's acceptance of illegal campaign donations and apparent compromise of our country's national security in exchange for those donations. I admire you for asking an important question."

"Keep going after this China thing," said Jerry Hatch of Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Christopher Sivley of Decatur, Ala., said: "If the president took illegal money from the Chinese in exchange for U.S. technology, then he is guilty of treason. It's about time the press started ... asking real questions."

"Thank you for your courage in asking the president to explain to the people of the United States why he sold our secrets and weapons technology to the Chinese for campaign money," wrote Esther Nobrega, Nashua, N.H.

Patrick Giagnocavo e-mailed: "Please know that I, too, would like to see many more answers from the White House concerning the very serious, very detailed charges of what can only be called treason."

"I send my appreciation to Mr. Sperry for asking President Clinton about China and campaign finance," wrote Connie Ward of Pensacola, Fla. "I am disgusted by the president's response."

"Despite what Mr. Clinton says, the American people do want to know," said Michael McTaggart.

R. North responded: "About time somebody rattled his cage about a very important matter."

"Please thank Mr. Sperry for his courage in confronting the president with questions about the Chinese contributions to the DNC," Bill Bynum e-mailed. "The president hasn't heard those questions asked in his travels around the U.S. because he is shielded. But I guarantee there are people like me who want answers to them."

Michael Audette insisted: "I, for one, am very interested in his connections with the People's Republic of China."

"It's about time the news media stopped giving Clinton a pass," wrote R.H. Langill of Plainfield, N.H. "The selling of policy for Chinese money in 1996 and probably earlier should be completely aired."

"Paul Sperry is to be congratulated for his efforts. He is asking what many Americans want to know," said J.A. Brady of Mashpee, Mass. "I hope that other reporters will also ask President Clinton for more details about his involvement. Clinton has never been held accountable for his part in those fund-raising activities due to the stonewalling of Attorney General Janet Reno. Please continue to press for answers."

Bo Mosley of Honolulu wrote: "The China fund-raising scandal has burned me to the core, and I am pleased to see that some inside the Beltway are just as concerned as I am."

"Someone has to have the guts to ask some of these questions," said Steve Tronnes of Edgerton, Wis. "If there wasn't anything to any of these allegations, then the president would not have gone ballistic."

Excellent point, but one apparently lost on my normally hard-boiled colleagues. They seem more interested in currying favor with this White House and maintaining their good standing in the Washington tail class than ferreting out the truth for the American people and holding the president accountable for sending our national security to China in a handbasket.

The press corps should be ashamed that a single reporter was able to fire off as many, if not more, specific and tough questions at the president about Chinagate in 10 minutes than they've managed to do in the three years since this scandal broke. Did I pay a price in becoming the persona non grata of the Clinton White House? Yes, but I wear it as a badge of honor. I did my job. Now it's your turn.

Paul Sperry is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist, WND contributor and author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington."


"New photos of Clinton
blowing a gasket
Pics record notorious dust-up between then-prez and WND's Sperry

Posted: September 24, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


"Just in time for the fourth anniversary of WND Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry's celebrated confrontation with then-President Bill Clinton on the White House south lawn, WND has obtained new photos of the verbal brawl revealing a visibly upset chief executive getting in the face of the one reporter who dared to ask the tough questions.

Sperry, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for Investor's Business Daily, five months after the incident accepted an offer for the same position at WorldNetDaily. In one of his first WND stories, he documented his fiery impromptu debate with Clinton in a widely read account titled "My picnic with Bill."

Clinton uses index finger in direction of Paul Sperry, right, to make a point. Janet Fallon is at left.

It was Sept. 24, 1999, when Sperry attended a White House south lawn party for Washington reporters. The event would turn out to be his last White House visit, since the Clinton administration banned him from the grounds after he dared confront the president on his own turf.

Sperry set the stage in "My picnic with Bill":


This was hog's heaven for the cheap scribes who filed onto the White House grounds that Friday night in September for a Cajun party in their honor. What a spread. On red-checkered picnic tables spanning the length of the plush green lawn, beckoned trays of jambalaya, boudin and boiled shrimp.

And the bars, under colorful tents, were stocked full of liquor. No kegs here. Black-tie-clad help poured your favorite libation from bottles. Forget Budweiser; they had Guinness Stout and other imported brews. Fine reds and whites, too, and highballs. All free.

Zydeco tunes skipped across the crowd of giddy guests. As the sunny day faded to dusk, the soft lights of the White House portico glowed behind us. Intoxicating. What a night.

But, for me, there was still something wrong with this party – namely, the host.

Clinton asks for and takes Sperry's business card.

Around 6 p.m., Clinton emerged from the White House to greet his guests. The president was dressed in an all black casual outfit, as Sperry described, "like a bad imitation of Johnny Cash."

As Clinton began working the crowd of reporters, Sperry asked the president a simple question – one that set off a 10-minute confrontation the reporter recalls as "nothing short of a 'scene.'" The question: When would he hold his next formal press conference?

Clinton barked back, "Why?" and the bout began:


"Because the American people have a lot of unanswered questions," I replied, struggling to hold my bladder. At that point, he moved back down the rope, pulling up square in front of me, and demanded, "Like what?"

"Well, like illegal money from China and the campaign-finance scandal ..."

The party-goers collapsed in around us. I watched the blood rush to Clinton's gargantuan face as he launched into a tirade against ex-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, the FBI, Bob Dole and Republicans in general. All the while, he tried to belittle me by making faces (to get a rise out of his fans) and intimidate me by getting in my face.

And now I can see how he can do that to people. Clinton's not just intellectually intimidating, he's physically imposing. He's tall (6-2) and big-boned.

Luckily, I'm the same height and was able to stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with him. I'll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes. There was a moment, fleeting, where I sensed he wanted to try to take a swipe at me. I was getting full frontal Clinton. His volcanic temper, hidden so well from the public by his handlers, erupted less than 12 inches from my eyes.

One of the event's attendees was Janet Fallon, a public-relations specialist who, ironically enough, had worked for Pat Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign. Fallon stood just to the right of Clinton – a front-row seat for the dust-up. "..........

Monday, September 25, 2006


More on Clinton's purple faced rage

I've seen Powerline dissect inaccuracies printed by the New York Times and other media outlets.  One thing you can say for them is they don't give up until all the facts come out.

Looks like Bill Clinton is getting the same attention.  Remember these guys are attorneys so have built in antennae for BS snow jobs, concealing truth.  First mistake was attempt at censorship which sent up a red flag.  Second mistake was "purple faced rage" in the interview with Chris Wallace. 

That purple faced rage will be seen as a reaction to someone calling him on something he's concealing as shown in the next article after this one I'm posting with verifiable time-lines of events, people, etc.

"Play it as it lies


The most striking feature of Bill Clinton's bloviations on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday was the incredibly low ratio of facts to whoppers. If Chris Wallace could prompt that red-faced response with such an innocuous question, I wonder if a few minutes with Richard Miniter (author of Losing bin Laden, interviewed by NRO here), might not send him to intensive care. I would love to hear Miniter ask Clinton a few questions about Clinton's treatment of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- an attack that Clinton shrugged off in a few paragraphs of his subsequent Saturday morning radio talk, never to return to the subject. (Miniter quotes the relevant paragraphs of the radio address at pages 28-30 of his book.)

Our friends at RealClearPolitics have posted a tough column by Ronald Cass begins to address Clinton's rewriting of the record."....................

Sunday, September 24, 2006


Clinton's temper tantrums in 1990

Had to chase this down but knew I'd read it.  It's correctly quoted and linked for reference.

"Setting the Record Straight
An open letter to Hillary Clinton.

By Dick Morris

Dear Hillary,

In your new book, Living History, you correctly note that when you asked me to help you and Bill avert defeat in the congressional election of 1994 I was reluctant to do so. But then you assert, incorrectly, that my reluctance stemmed from difficulties in working with your staff. You even misquote me as telling you: "I don't like the way I was treated, Hillary. People were so mean to me."

As you know, I never said anything of the sort. I had, in fact, no experience in dealing with either your staff or the President's at that point, and had not yet met Leon Panetta or George Stephanopoulos. My prior dealing with Harold Ickes had been twenty five years earlier.

The real reason I was reluctant was that Bill Clinton had tried to beat me up in May of 1990 as he, you, Gloria Cabe, and I were together in the Arkansas governor's mansion. At the time, Bill was worried that he was falling behind his democratic primary opponent and verbally assaulted me for not giving his campaign the time he felt it deserved. Offended by his harsh tone, I turned and stalked out of the room.

Bill ran after me, tackled me, threw me to the floor of the kitchen in the mansion and ed his fist back to punch me. You grabbed his arm and, yelling at him to stop and get control of himself, pulled him off me. Then you walked me around the grounds of the mansion in the minutes after, with your arm around me, saying, "He only does that to people he loves."

I continued to work for Bill since I felt a responsibility to do so until Election Day in 1990. But our relationship was never close and never the same. After the 1990 campaign we parted ways as a direct result of the altercation.

When the story threatened to surface during the 1992 campaign, you told me to "say it never happened."

That, and not the invented conversation in your memoir, was the reason that I was reluctant to work for Bill again.

Dick Morris

- Dick Morris, an adviser to Bill Clinton for 20 years, is author, most recently, of Off with Their Heads : Traitors, Crooks & Obstructionists in American Politics, Media & Business.

Sunday, September 24, 2006


"Bill Clinton's Excuses


"Bill Clinton’s Excuses
No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism.

By Byron York

National Review Online

....."But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up."......

......"But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror."

Saturday, September 23, 2006


"Child slavery suit charges 30,000 held in camel-racing camps

Like I've said before slavery is STILL thrives in the Middle East.  Saw this on another site a few days ago and found the follow up this morning. 

"Child slavery suit charges 30,000 held in camel-racing camps

Monday, September 18, 2006

WASHINGTON - U.S. relations with the United Arab Emirates could face another challenge amid a suit that charged the Gulf state's vice president with enslaving tens of thousands of children.
UAE Vice President Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been accused of enslaving about 30,000 children, some of them as young as two, since 1975.

The suit filed in U.S. district court in Miami charged that Al Maktoum, crown prince of Dubai, and his brother, Hamdan, ordered the stealing of the children to raise them as camel jockeys, Middle East Newsline reported.

"Boys as young as two years old have been stolen from their families, trafficked across international borders, and kept in brutal camel-racing camps throughout the United Arab Emirates, forced to train camels and perform as jockeys," the suit said.

The 56-page suit, filed on Sept. 13, could test the U.S. commitment to end human trafficking. The UAE, a leading defense client of the United States, has been cited as a major violator of human trafficking.
The Al Maktoums have property in Florida, including a horse ranch. The Dubai crown prince has not responded to the suit.

The six plaintiffs in the case have not been identified, but were said to be parents of children stolen by the UAE leaders. The suit said agents for Al Maktoum took young boys from such countries as Bangladesh and Sudan and transferred them to Dubai where they were forced to train camels and perform as jockeys.

The suit does not ask for specific compensation for the victims. Instead, the plaintiffs called for a jury to determine the damages.

"We hope to punish the perpetrators of these vile crimes and compensate the victims for their pain and suffering," Ron Motley, an attorney with the South Carolina-based law firm Motley Rice LLC, said. "

"Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum and Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid al Maktoum
"A lawsuit has been filed and is seeking class action status against several rulers of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for allegedly enslaving tens of thousands of boys over the past three decades. The boys were allegedly forced to work as jockeys in the popular sport of camel racing. The lawsuit alleges Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the crown prince of Dubai, and Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid al Maktoum, the deputy ruler, were the most active perpetrators. The lawsuit claimed the boys were taken largely from Bangladesh and Pakistan, were held at desert camps in the UAE and other Persian Gulf nations, and forced to work. It also claimed some boys were sexually abused, given limited food and sleep and injected with hormones to prevent their growth.

Register your Camel Racing Complaint
If you or a loved one has suffered damages in this case, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible class action or lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint to a lawyer for a free evaluation, or call 1-866-886-5529 toll free."

Friday, September 22, 2006


"Tinpot Tyrants and Madmen

Via Powerling The Anchoress blog's assessment of Chavez.  He and Ahmadinejad have taken their clue and followed suit by repeating what Dem leaders their watering holes and MSM have encouraged for 6 years.

Since it just bit them on the behind but good, perhaps they can muster some shame for having wallowed in street trash coarseness. 

"More on Chavez, the Dems and the Press

Blog of the Week The Anchoress has excellent thoughts on the provenance of Hugo Chavez's over-the-top attack on President Bush at the United Nations. A sample:  (highlight below)

"Chavez clearly listened to Dems and Air America


But maybe some on the left finally understand that while they’ve been having fun and laughing while calling President Bush every manner of ugly name and insult, dangerous people have been watching. And they have made a calculation: We can disrespect Bush and America will laugh with us. Bush is weak. America is once again the appeasing “weak horse” it was throughout the 1990’s and even before…when we could attack anything and be accountable to no one.

I’m sure Hugo, once he left the guffawing chamber of hyenas at the UN, was shocked to discover that most Americans were not laughing, that even some Democrats were not.

And I’m sure some Democrats were shocked to see just how ugly their words sounded, when coming out of the mouth of someone else, someone with “no right,” to spew hate for political expediency.

There are some on the left who are suggesting that Hugo Chavez’s remarks are simply an indicator that the world “disrespects” President Bush…well…I wonder who gave them the idea that they could? Was it John Kerry calling him a “***king liar,” and not having to answer for that rudeness to anyone while the press shrugged it off? Good heavens, Bush calls terrorism “evil” and he was mocked and criticized for using that word, but the press never had a problem with “***king liar, ***king crooks and thieves” or with adolescent musings about the president’s name and female genitalia. It was alllllll soooooo funnnnneeeeeee, newsreaders could hardly deliver the spite without grinning, themselves.

Let me tell you, I didn’t see “disrespect” at the UN while President Bush was speaking…while he was speaking he was accorded that dubious body’s full and complete attention, and like it or not, nothing he said was disregarded, because the world knows he means what he says. They may not like him, but they respect him. And if they don’t respect him, they fear him just enough to pretend. Which frankly I prefer to a president they all “love” but don’t respect or fear, one who plays games.

But if Bush is being disrespected, then the Democrats need to look to themselves and their actions and understand how complicit they have been in encouraging it. Dems like Charlie Rangel, who called President Bush “Bull Connor,” knowing full well how wrong, inaccurate, unfair and inflammatory that was, or like the idiots who called Bush “a genocidal racist” after Hurricane Katrina, or like the party (and the press) who spent years telling America about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction only to later pretend they never said such things, and to pretend further that somehow Bush’s believing the same things they believed…made him a liar.

The Democrats alleged something that disingenuous - that what they believed was true was suddenly not only false but one man’s lie - and the press let them do it.

The press repeated it, ad nauseam, and the press and the Dems promoted films with that message, and books, until that damnable, transparent and nonsensical lie was repeated enough…because everyone knows that if you tell a big lie enough, it becomes “the truth.”

If tinpot tyrants and madmen now come to the United Nations and believe they can say anything they wish about The American President, it is because - as some of us have been warning, for some time - while all manner or irresponsible nonsense and hate has been directed at this president…the world has been watching.

And now, these tyrants and madmen sound eerily like the Democrats and the press and the left. One ideology, the world over, had completely lost its bearings, its self-control and its manners concerning one man who has never - not once -repaid them back in kind. Not in speeches. Not to the press. Not to “friendly audiences.” He came to town talking about “changing the tone,” and that’s what happened, in a perverse way. One side’s tone went rabid, the other side went nearly-silent, but this one man…kept his tone."...............

Thursday, September 21, 2006


"Chavez Wants to Reboot UN

Found a pic of Chavez in his new car.       

"Venezuela was the fourth-largest crude oil supplier to the U.S. last June, ." .... ... and we owe a debt of gratitude to the "greens" for hamstringing domestic drilling, refinery expansion thereby subjecting us to the whims of this tiny little despot seated above.

Just maybe the UN will move to Venezeula and a more meaningful, effective world organization can be formed.


"Chavez Wants to Reboot UN
By Patrick Goodenough International Editor
September 21, 2006

( - Hugo Chavez has spelled out his plan for creating the type of United Nations he could work with - including moving the U.N. headquarters from New York City to a country of "the South," like Venezuela.

The left-wing populist's suggestion that the U.N. leave U.S. shores may be the one point in his controversial speech to the General Assembly that American conservatives support.

In a 15-minute address laden with personal attacks against President Bush, whom he called the devil, Chavez outlined why he thought the U.N. was "worthless."

That the U.N. had "collapsed," he said, was evident from Washington's use of its "immoral veto" to block Security Council efforts to stop Israel's war in Lebanon over the summer.

Complaining that the General Assembly had been "turned into a merely deliberative organ," Chavez laid out his four-step formula for re-establishing the U.N.

The Security Council had to be expanded, with new permanent seats going to developing and less-developed countries. There must be "immediate suppression" of the veto power currently wielded by the big five -- the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China.

Decisions at the U.N. to resolve the world's conflicts must be "transparent," he said.

And finally, the role and powers of the secretary-general must be strengthened.

In contrast to his criticism of the U.N., Chavez remarked positively on the Non-Aligned Movement, a grouping of 118 nations -- more than 60 percent of the General Assembly -- which held a summit last week in Havana, and is chaired by Cuba for the next three years.

The resolutions adopted by the NAM, he said, followed "open debate in a transparent matter."

He urged his audience to "lend your goodwill to lend momentum to the Non-Aligned Movement for the birth of a new era -- to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism."

"A new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the South. We are men and women of the South."

'Voice of the world's people'

Chavez also attacked the U.S. for opposing Venezuela's bid for a rotating Security Council seat. A seat earmarked for Latin America becomes vacant at year's end, and Venezuela has been lobbying hard to fill it.

Washington, however, is supporting Guatemala as an alternative candidate. The General Assembly will vote on the matter in a secret ballot on October 16, and the winner will need the backing of two-thirds of members, or 128 countries.

China and Russia have declared their support for Venezuela's candidacy, and Chavez said in his U.N. speech that he also received the endorsement of major Latin American countries, the entire (22-member) Arab League, and "almost all of Africa."

"Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth."

A key concern for the U.S. and its allies is that Venezuela -- even as a non-permanent member -- will play an additional spoiler role in the already divided council at a time it faces challenges posed by the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. Chavez has allied himself closely with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and is also sympathetic to Pyongyang.

Responding to Wednesday's speech, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said: "The U.N. is an important world stage and an important forum, and leaders come there representing their people and their country. And I'll leave it to the Venezuelan people to determine whether President Chavez represented them and presented them in a way they would have liked to have seen.'

Rep. Connie Mack (R-Florida) said Chavez had shown the world his true colors.

"Quite simply, Chavez's anti-freedom tirade at the United Nations only bolstered the fact that he is little more than a champion of despair and despotism and a sworn enemy of hope and opportunity," Mack said in a statement.

"Chavez's growing alliance with proven enemies of freedom including Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea, coupled by his rapid militarization, pursuit of nuclear technologies and relentless broadside attacks on freedom in Venezuela, pose a real threat to the stability of the Western Hemisphere and indeed the world."

Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil producer. According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, Venezuela was the fourth-largest crude oil supplier to the U.S. last June, after Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia."

Thursday, September 21, 2006


Rangel: An attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans

Wow what posturing from the party who invited the world to foist insults onto a seated president during wartime, never miss an opportunity to grandstand when it suits their agenda. 

Way too little ..... way too late .... totally unbelievable dog and pony show. 

 RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'...

Wednesday, September 20, 2006


Pope and Kissinger Warn the World

A clash of old against new, the old accustomed to ruling in darkness because it's been able to do so for 1500 years or more. 

However, considering the amount of spiritual light or enlightenment that has poured onto the planet since the Harmonic Convergence in 1987, no wonder dark elements are fighting for their very lives.  It's evident even here in the US. 

They'll lose, light always prevails over darkness especially now that the balance is changed. 


"The Pope and Kissinger Warn the World

September 20, 2006
By Tony Blankley
Washington Times

There is an historically fairly predictable pattern to the unfolding strategies and views of great wars. They often start with a morally ambiguous view of the enemy, a more limited conception of the war's magnitude and a restrained application of violent tactics.

Eventually, moral clarity is obtained, war objectives expand - often to grandiosity, and tactics become ferocious. For example at the start of our Civil War in 1861 at the Battle of First Manassas, spectators came out by carriage with picnic lunches to observe the event. By 1865, Gen. Sherman executed a campaign of civilian terror and material obliteration in his march to the sea. Likewise, the war started with the purpose of saving the union, but morally expanded to end slavery - north and south.

World War II started out in Europe first with the phony war and mutual thoughts of a negotiated peace, then with careful bombing (Hitler initially ordered that London not be bombed) and ended with the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even during his war on the Jews, as late as 1940, Hitler was thinking of deporting German Jews to Madagascar, and ended in rounding up Jews throughout Europe and perpetrating genocide in industrially designed death camps (although some historians believe the Madagascar plan may always have been a subterfuge for the Final Solution.)

Today, the West's struggle to resist radical Islamic aggression (both cultural and terroristic) is still in that early phase of moral confusion and limited tactics. Thus we continue to debate the ethical merits of minor intrusions into American civil liberties (such as NSA surveillance of some phone calls from foreign suspects), and even serious and patriotic men such as Sen. John McCain and Gen. Colin Powell challenge the need to permit psychologically rough - but nonviolent - interrogation of captured terrorists.

But there are some signs that the early stage of moral confusion is beginning to give way to greater clarity. Last week, two towering intellects - Pope Benedict XVI and Henry Kissinger - began to offer clarity. On Tuesday the pope gave his now famous, but still misunderstood, lecture at the University of Regensburg, and on WednesdayMr. Kissinger published in The Washington Post a half page seminal article on the risk of civilizational war.

Any fair and careful reading of the pope's lecture must conclude that it was not an inadvertent insult to Islam. Rather it was a firm assertion that the Judeo-Christian God acts in accordance with reason (In the beginning was the logos - word and reason.), and thus Christians and Jews can undertake a rational debate about the morality of violence. He quotes, now famously, Emperor Manuel II's assertion in 1391 that Islam spreads its faith through violence - which, he says, is unreasonable and incompatible with the nature of God. He then cites an 11th-century Arab Muslim theologian, Ibn Hazn, who argued that Allah is transcendent of reason.

After criticizing secular Christians for not giving reason its proper place in understanding faith and God, he concludes his lecture by again quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II on his same criticism of Islam. Then the pope finishes his lecture with the following words: "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."

In other words, he is inviting Islam to explain whether its God is like ours - inherently understandable by reason (and thus, is their God opposed to violence, as ours is?)

He was also, I strongly suspect, speaking to his own flock, both to return to proper Christianity and to consider the nature of Islam. And, I suspect, the pope did not inadvertently quote the now inflammatory passage. If he had not included that quote, the world would not now be debating his lecture. While the pope surely did not want to see violence, he just as surely wanted to engage the world in this vital search for clarity.

While not the pope, Mr. Kissinger is the world's premier practitioner and scholar of real politic. So, it is consequential that in his article last week he warned the world that "we are witnessing a carefully conceived assault, not isolated terrorist attacks, on the international system of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The creation of organizations such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda symbolizes the fact that transnational loyalties are replacing national ones. The driving force behind this challenge is the jihadist conviction that it is the existing order that is illegitimate."

He went on to warn that "The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces...the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the backdrop of a nuclear-armed Middle East...We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe."

These are shocking words coming from the verbally impeccably careful diplomatist.

So, within 24 hours the pope raises the question whether Islam is inherently violent and unreasonable, while Henry Kissinger warns of a possibly emerging nuclear clash of civilizations.

Moral clarity, anyone?

Wednesday, September 20, 2006


"The Associated (with terrorists) Press

What the MSM siding with terrorists ......................  Whoda thunkit?????

"The Associated (with terrorists) Press
By Michelle Malkin
"The Associated Press proudly calls itself the "essential global news network" and a "bastion of the people's right to know around the world." But when it comes to the "people's right to know" whether Associated Press employees are cooperating with terrorists overseas, the "essential global news network's" motto is: Bug off.

On April 12, I learned from military sources that an Associated Press photographer in Iraq, Fallujah native Bilal Hussein, had been captured in Ramadi in an apartment with insurgents and a cache of weapons. This was news. I asked the AP for confirmation. Corporate spokesman Jack Stokes informed me that company officials were "looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time." After reporting the alleged detention on my blog (, I followed up several more times with AP over the past five months for status updates on Hussein. No reply.

On Sept. 17, the Associated Press finally acknowledged that Hussein was being detained. The AP's overdue revelation was likely part of an attempt to drum up sympathy for Hussein, who has made critical public statements against our troops in Fallujah, and undermine Bush administration interrogation efforts involving military detainees. The AP article not only confirmed Hussein's capture, it also revealed (buried deep in the story) that it knew of Hussein's capture from at least May 7 -- when it received an e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner revealing bombshell details:

"The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. 'He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces,' according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq."

In fact, the Pentagon said on Monday, after three separate independent reviews, the military had deemed Hussein a security threat with "strong ties to known insurgents . . . involved in activities that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing in that country." Hussein "tested positive for traces of explosives."

Let me repeat that: An Associated (with terrorists) Press journalist gets caught with an alleged al Qaeda leader and tests positive for bomb-making materials. That. Is. News. How does a news organization explain away its decision to sit on it for five months? Like this: "The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach."

The best approach to journalism? No. The best approach to suppressing a damning connection to terrorists.

The mainstream media enjoys mocking bloggers as journalistic wannabes who don't do any "real" reporting and have no concern for the "public interest." But as in the case of the Reuters photo-faking debacle this summer, it is bloggers in their little home offices -- not the professionals on the ground thousands of miles away -- who smoked out a war story with profound national security implications. Well before I reported on Hussein's capture, military bloggers and media watchdog bloggers had raised persistent questions over the past two years about Hussein's relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were staged in collusion with our enemies. (For a thorough overview, see ) ".................

Tuesday, September 19, 2006


video link "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

Posted this a few weeks ago ...... link was bad after a few days.  Back up, running and worth time investment to watch.  For anyone who ever thought Muslim extremists could ever be reasoned with this may shed some light as to their mindset.

They blame everyone and everthing but themselves.

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West [full-length]  1 hr 17min 31 sec

Monday, September 18, 2006


Illegals crossing border carrying "KI Tablets"

Nuclear Threats : Law Enforcement Sources Confirm: Illegals crossing border carrying "KI Tablets"
*18 September 2006: In an article provided exclusively to the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press by Dr. Paul Williams and Mr. David Dastych on Saturday, “final preparations have been made for the next major attack on the US” identified as “American Hiroshima,” suggesting the attack will be nuclear in nature. Since we published that report, confidential sources in law enforcement positions have privately confirmed to the Northeast Intelligence Network that a "disturbing trend" is being reported on both of our borders – a pattern that is consistent with a potential nuclear attack scenario against the US. According to these sources, a "significant and alarming number" of illegal aliens attempting entry into the US, caught by border patrol agents, have been found to be carrying Potassium Iodide tablets, which are used to protect against exposure to radiation in emergency situations.*

According to our sources, the illegal aliens who have been caught have been described as OTMs (other-than Mexicans), and consist primarily of Chinese and Iranian nationals on our southern border, and Asians and others from a variety of Middle Eastern countries at the US-Canadian border. Law enforcement sources providing this information to the Northeast Intelligence Network agreed that this is “a very recent phenomena,” but one that has increased to “alarming levels” and is of particular concern to government officials.

Additional and more specific information will be contained in the upcoming issue of the HQ INTEL-ALERT Private Intelligence Report.

*NOTE: An astute and well-educated reader accurately points out that Potassium Iodate, also referred to as KI, protects only one organ in the body (the thyroid) from ONE form of radiation (I-131). And it does so only if a person takes the tablet BEFORE (or just after) being exposed to I-131, as the KI fills up the thyroid gland with "good" salt instead of the radioactive version.

Too many people nationwide already falsely believe that KI is a so-called "anti-radiation" pill that will protect them from all forms of radiation. If a person takes the tablet and fails to leave/evacuate a radioactive area, they will still be exposed to radiation and will likely become ill or even die from radiation sickness. Further, Gamma radiation, (the type of radiation that killed so many people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan, after the atomic blasts in 1945) is deadly; Potassium Iodate offers no protection on this type of nuclear radiation.

For further and more specific information, you may download the KI Fact Sheet compiled using information from the National Institutes of Health, Food & Drug Administration, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (PDF File).

Monday, September 18, 2006


photos "The Pulitzer Prize for Felony Murder, Part II

No wonder the press reports pro-terrorist ... whoda thunk it??????  Permalink to discussion at the bottom.

"The Pulitzer Prize for Felony Murder, Part II
........."Now, the Associated Press wants us to believe that the man who took these photographs showed "extraordinary courage" because they were "taken at great personal risk" to the photographer. But I don't buy it. It appears obvious that the person who took these photos knew that the terrorists wanted the pictures taken. If the terrorists hadn't wanted the pictures taken, they would have shot the photographer. And what was the photographer doing within a few yards of the terrorists in the first place? Are we supposed to believe that he just stumbled across them while they were in the act of committing murder or firing a mortar? Of course not. The photographer was present at the invitation of the terrorists, who wanted the pictures taken for propaganda purposes.".............

Sunday, September 17, 2006


"Al-Qaida warning: Muslims leave U.S.

My last post has established that al Qaida and the like are descended from Hitler's Nazis, also one article I posted said bin Laden was intent on "ethnic cleansing" so I'm not sure what it's going to take to convince some how serious their threat is. 

These two articles are likely the intelligence President Bush was referring to in his latest speech because he was stressing the point that YES they do want to kill us, and YES they're planning another attack. 

BTW, I use World Net Daily quite frequently for intelligence articles because Joseph Farah who owns WND also has an intelligence bulletin, G-2 which has been pretty accurate.

Live links. 

"Al-Qaida warning: Muslims leave U.S.
Afghan terror commander hints at big attack on N.Y., Washington

Posted: September 17, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


"The new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. – particularly Washington and New York – in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11, according to an interview by a Pakistani journalist.

Abu Dawood told Hamid Mir, a reporter who has covered al-Qaida and met with Osama bin Laden, the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah and suggests it may involve some form of weapon of mass destruction smuggled across the Mexican border.

"Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again," he is quoted as saying. "There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time."

As WND has previously reported, el-Shukrijumah is a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot who has been singled out by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The terrorist was last seen in Mexico, where, on Nov. 1, 2004, he allegedly hijacked a Piper PA Pawnee cropduster from Ejido Queretaro near Mexicali to transport a nuclear weapon and nuclear equipment into the U.S., according to Paul Williams, a former FBI consultant and author of "The Dunces of Doomsday."

"He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago," said Dawood. "We call him 'Jaffer al Tayyar' (Jafer the Pilot); he is very brave and intelligent. (President) Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel."

Dawood said he was currently conducting operations in Afghanistan under the leadership of the Taliban. He warned of a series of upcoming suicide bombings there directed against government and coalition forces during Ramadan.

He is also quoted as saying the next attack in America will not be conducted by people like Atta.

"We have a different plan for the next attack," he told Mir. "You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter."

He said there will be another audio message from bin Laden aired within the next two weeks.

Mir reportedly interviewed Dawood Sept. 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters. The al-Qaida commander had contacted Mir by cell phone to arrange the meeting.

"You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians," said Dawood. "9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the U.S.-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by U.S.-made cluster bombs. Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and (Afghani President Hamid) Karzai are their collaborators. We will teach a lesson to all of them."

El-Shukrijumah was born in Guyana Aug. 4, 1975 – the firstborn of Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, a 44-year-old radical Muslim cleric, and his 16-year-old wife. In 1985, Gulshair migrated to the United States, where he assumed duties as the imam of the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn.

The mosque, located at 554 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, has served as a hive for terrorist activities. It has raised millions for the jihad and has served as a recruiting station for al-Qaida. Many of the planners of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, including blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, were prominent members of this notorious "house of worship."

In 1995, the Shukrijumah family relocated to Miramar, Fla., where Gulshair became the spiritual leader of the radical Masjid al-Hijah Mosque, and where Adnan became friends with Jose Padilla, who planned to detonate a radiological bomb in midtown Manhattan; Mandhai Jokhan, who was convicted of attempting to blow up nuclear power plants in southern Florida; and a group of other home-grown terrorists.

Adnan Shukrijumah attended flight schools in Florida and Norman, Oklahoma, along with Mohammad Atta and the other 9/11 operatives, and he became a highly skilled commercial jet pilot, although he, like Atta and the other terrorists, never applied for a license with the Federal Aviation Commission.

In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9/11. He also traveled to Trinidad and Guyana, where virulent al-Qaida cells have been established. The following month, he obtained an associate's degree in computer engineering from Broward Community College.

During this time, he managed to get passports from Guyana, Trinidad, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States, according to Williams. He also began to adopt a number of aliases, including Abu Arifi, Jafar al-Tayyar, Jaafar At Yayyar, Ja'far al-Tayar, and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan (the name that appeared on his official FBI file). He traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where he met with Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other members of the al-Qaida high command. He also spent considerable time within al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, where he received training in explosives and special operations.

Following 9/11, el-Shukrijumah was reportedly singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America. One plan was for a nuclear attack that would take place simultaneously in seven U.S. cities, leaving millions dead and the richest and most powerful nation on earth in ashes.

"Muslims should leave America," said Dawood. "We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington."

Mir, the journalist, has reported previously that al-Qaida has smuggled nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S.

"I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime," he said. "Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them."


Osama's biographer says nukes in U.S.
Border used to smuggle WMDs inside America, says source

Posted: May 24, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


"Al-Qaida has smuggled tactical nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S. across the Mexican border and is planning to launch a major terrorist attack using a combination of nukes and dirty nukes, according to an interview with Osama bin Laden's biographer, Hamid Mir, in

The information confirms reports previously published in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin and in a new book by Paul L. Williams, "Dunces of Doomsday."

"I came up with this conclusion after eight years of investigation and research in the remote mountain areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I traveled to Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan and Russia and met dozens of people," Mir said. "I interviewed not only al-Qaida operatives but met scientists and top U.S. officials also. I will have the details in my coming book. At least two al-Qaida operatives claimed that the organization smuggled suitcase nukes inside America. But I have no details on who did it. But I do have details about who smuggled uranium inside America and how."

Mir claims his information is based not only on what al-Qaida operatives, including bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, told him, but also upon his own independent research as a journalist. Mir says his upcoming book, a biography of bin Laden, will disclose al-Qaida's nuclear attack plans.

"As far as I know, they smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Europe," Mir says about al-Qaida. "They smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects. They said in 1999 that they must have material for more than six dirty bombs in America. They tested at least one dirty bomb in the Kunar province of Afghanistan in 2000. They have planned an attack bigger than 9-11, even before 9-11 happened. Osama bin Laden trained 42 fighters to destroy the American economy and military might. Nineteen were used on 9-11, 23 are still 'sleeping' inside America waiting for a wake-up call from bin Laden."

Mir said al-Qaida operatives told him that tactical nuclear weapons were smuggled over the Mexican border before Sept. 11, 2001.

Mir said again he believes al-Qaida may use its nuclear arsenal after the U.S. attacks Iran in an effort to stop its nuclear weapons program.

"This is my opinion," he says. "No al-Qaida leader has ever admitted that they are working with Iran. I also think that, maybe, the Iranians will organize some attacks inside America and you will accuse al-Qaida."

Asked why al-Qaida hasn't used nuclear weapons it already possesses, Mir said: "They are waiting for the proper time. They want the U.S. to be involved in a mass killing of Muslims, so that they will have some justification. That is what I was told by a top al-Qaida leader in the Kunar Mountains of Afghanistan."

Mir made similar comments in an earlier interview with G2 Bulletin.

Hamid Mir's credibility skyrocketed when he accurately predicted in G2 Bulletin last month the imminent release of a new recorded communiqué from bin Laden through al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV network. Two days later, bin Laden's tape was the focus of international news coverage.

"If you think that my information and analysis about bin Laden's location is correct," said Mir, "then please don't underestimate my analysis about his nuclear threat also." 

Saturday, September 16, 2006


Nazi roots of al Qaida

"It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance." Dr. Thomas Sowell

From a speech by John Loftus, former US government prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer. 
.........."Bob, go to your computer and type two words into the search part. Type the word 'Banna', B-a-n-n-a."
He said, "Yeah."
"Type in 'Nazi'."
Bob typed the two words in, and out came 30 to 40 articles from around the world. He read them and called me back and said, "Oh my God, what have we done?" ..........
"The Muslim Brotherhood,
The Nazis and Al-Qa'ida

Banna Nazi Google search

Saturday, September 16, 2006


"CNN talk show reaches a new depth of sleaze

If it bleeds it leads.  Hope Pukeshe ejoys the spike in ratings. 

"CNN talk show reaches a new depth of sleaze

C.W. Nevius


Friday, September 15, 2006

Nancy Grace was in vintage form on her national talk show on CNN's Headline News. Her guest was a soft-spoken 21-year-old mother named Melinda Duckett. Police in Florida suspect Duckett had something to do with the disappearance of her 2-year-old son, Trenton, on Aug. 27.

But Grace wasn't satisfied with suspicion. She wanted to solve the case right there in front of a coast-to-coast television audience.

"Why are you not telling us where you were?'' Grace demanded, pounding the table. "Miss Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason. What is the reason?''

As the woman stumbled over her words, trying to come up with answers, a small yellow text box appeared at the bottom of the screen: "SINCE SHOW TAPING," it read, "BODY OF MELINDA DUCKETT FOUND AT GRANDPARENTS' HOME.''

That's right. Grace was interviewing a dead woman. Just hours before the taped interview aired last Friday, Duckett committed suicide at her grandparents' house.

Given the circumstances, Grace's grandstanding, badgering interview was bad enough. But the idea that her producers at CNN elected to go ahead and run the interview, even though they knew Duckett had killed herself, has veterans of television news shaking their heads.

"Look, Nancy Grace does what she does. She's an act,'' said Judy Muller, an Emmy-winning former ABC correspondent who now teaches at USC. "But to go ahead and air it -- that's despicable.''

The incident has rekindled the running debate about the ethics and the future of cable television news. Once, the idea of a network like CNN was all news, all the time. But now the cable news outlets seem to be staging a modern version of the Roman circus, and the louder the better.

"The truth of the matter is television has slowly changed as time has gone on,'' says Richard Wald, a former ethical standards director for ABC News who is a professor at Columbia University. "What started out as a conservative medium has become much more powerfully in your face.''

That's for sure.

Grace, a former prosecutor in Atlanta, made her television reputation by being louder and more aggressive than anyone else. She bills her show as "television's only justice themed/interview/debate show."

The scolding she gave Duckett was nothing unusual for her evening show. Viewers tune in to watch her grill guests. And she was anything but apologetic on Monday night when her show returned after the furor over Duckett's death hit over the weekend.

When one viewer called in to ask on the air whether Grace was worried she "might have somehow pushed her over the edge or contributed to her suicide,'' the anchor was unrepentant.

"I do not feel that our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett,'' she replied. "The truth is not always nice or polite or easy to go down. Sometimes it's harsh, and it hurts.''

Well, that's one way of putting it. Another would be that, with a crowded field of cable talk shows, from Fox to MSNBC to CNN to Court TV, it isn't easy to grab ratings unless you are the loudest and the most controversial. From JonBenet Ramsey to Scott Peterson, sensational crime stories draw viewers.

The idea is to cover the crimes, particularly murders, exhaustively, but make it seem as if it is a kind of public service. That's why, CNN Headline News explained, it went ahead and aired the interview even after Duckett killed herself.

Network spokeswoman Janine Iamunno provided us with the following statement on Thursday:

"We received the news of Ms. Duckett's death shortly before our special on Trenton's disappearance went to air. While we were saddened to hear of this development, our original goal in doing the special was to bring attention to this case, in the hopes of helping find Trenton Duckett. We decided to air the show, including a graphic announcing the news about Ms. Duckett, in keeping with that goal, and we will continue to cover the story until Trenton is found.''

See? They're actually helping with the investigation. And yet -- get this -- some spoilsports continue to complain that this was a sleazy and cynical play for ratings.

"I am not sure anymore,'' says Muller. "I used to think there were standards, but I don't begin to understand how someone can do this. Nancy Grace has become a parody of herself.''

That may be, but she continues to attract attention, if not huge ratings. Her show generally runs second or third among cable news outlets at the 8 p.m. time slot, behind Bill O'Reilly on Fox and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. But Grace has a formula, and she's going to stick with it. Wald compares the sleaze to pornography.

"The whole world will tell you that porn is horrible,'' Wald says. "But it is a multimillion-dollar industry that flourishes quite happily.''

So is there any hope, any light at the end of the tunnel?

"Sure,'' Wald says. "It isn't the light at the end of the tunnel, it is life. Someone will do something so egregious that it will become beneath our dignity and we won't watch. And it will change.''

And could this be that moment?

"Not even close,'' Wald says."................

Friday, September 15, 2006


"Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Came in email this morning.  Interesting numbers. 



A few minutes ago, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a stand-alone border security and fence bill (H.R. 6061).

H.R. 6061 was introduced just this week (as a result of the special hearings) by Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY).


See how your own Representative voted at:

Probably the most encouraging news in this vote was to see 64 Democrats vote for the fence.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 446(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 6061      RECORDED VOTE      14-Sep-2006      3:41 PM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: Secure Fence Act of 2006

Republican2196 5
Independent 1  


---- AYES    283 ---

Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cole (OK)
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
English (PA)
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Green (WI)
Hastings (WA)
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lungren, Daniel E.
McCaul (TX)
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schwarz (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

---- NOES    138 ---

Brady (PA)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hastings (FL)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
McCollum (MN)
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Neal (MA)
Price (NC)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Wasserman Schultz
Young (AK)

---- ANSWERED “PRESENT”    1 ---


---- NOT VOTING    10 ---

Davis (FL)
Johnson, Sam

Friday, September 15, 2006


Photo link "ongoing challenge: life in balance

Sahara Desert.

ongoing challenge: life in balance

Thursday, September 14, 2006


Immigration Counters - Real time data

On their actual page they have live tickers. 
THE #1 Site For Real-time Immigration Statistics
Finally, one site that finds the totals for you. provides a single source of totals on the most pressing categories resulting from illegal immigration in America. Using the latest government and private organizational sources available, research and analysis trending data is factored at their individual rates of increase. For more information about the research behind this site, click here - DATA SOURCES.

This site supports legal immigration and the human rights of all, yet highlights the significant weight of illegal immigration as a result of poor governmental controls.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006


"The Grand Tax Illusion

This is one of the best arguments for "FAIR Tax" a consumption tax which directly taxes the most wealthy individuals and luxury ... sometimes outlandish.... items they do purchase.  FAIR Tax eliminates all federal payroll taxes and allows you to bring home all you've earned to spend it as you choose.  No tax below the poverty line.

"The Grand Tax Illusion

By Tim Worstall

Source: TechCentralStationDaily

"You will have seen, around and about, a lot being said about how the current recovery just isn't feeding through to the average man and woman out there. Wages don't seem to be rising; in fact, Paul Krugman recently made the astonishing claim that they haven't risen for the average man, per hour, since 1973. Rather than rootling around in Census Bureau data to show the inanity of this claim (largely because neither you nor I desire a simple rehash of something I wrote here back in January) I thought I'd try and offer something constructive. A solution if you wish, offered with humility.


Let us put ourselves into the position of those complaining. Wages should rise -- a noble goal. How, exactly, are we to achieve this? By what mechanism are we going to reshuffle the current distribution of income so that more flows into the moth-eaten wallets of the hardworking US citizens? Simple:


Abolish the Corporate Income Tax.


I know, I know, you're aghast at the idea that corporations won't be paying their fair share, that somehow they'll be getting away with something. In fact, they'll be getting away with precisely nothing. For, you see, corporations don't actually pay taxes. Only people pay taxes. This is an idea called "tax incidence". It means that people we think aren't being taxed are in fact coughing up the dough demanded by a specific impost.


Think of it this way. The money withheld from your paycheck for FICA and income taxes is in fact paid over to the IRS by the corporation that cuts your very paycheck, is it not? But no one thinks that it is the corporation actually paying those taxes, despite their name being on said check. Things become a little greyer with the corporations's own FICA payments for the joy and pleasure of employing you. Whether all of this comes from lower wages paid to you or whether at least some of it (but definitely not all of it) comes from the profits of the company depends on a few inelasticities which we'll not trouble ourselves to go into right now.


Yet we have established at least one point: whose name is on the check paying the taxes does not necessarily coincide with who is actually paying the taxes, yes? In the case of the corporate income tax we've also just been told who it is that really pays it and no, it isn't the company. Some of it is paid by the investors in the company, in the form of lower dividends or returns on their investment. But as a working paper from the Congressional Budget Office tells us:


"Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares that are reasonable for the U.S. economy. Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax."


Now I do hope I don't have to point out that the CBO is in fact non-partisan, that they are the closest we get to an informed and non-ideologically driven examination of such matters?


There are other very good reasons for abolishing the corporate income tax, as this piece from Jane Galt a few years ago reminds us. One of the best is that it is hugely expensive to actually collect:


"The Corporate Income Tax brought in $204.9 billion in 1998. My tax professor (a Democrat) estimated the cost of corporate compliance in that year to be $300 billion. That's just the direct cost -- what corporations paid tax lawyers and accountants.

This labor is unproductive. It adds no new wealth to the economy; we are paying people simply to transfer money from one place to another, a net economic loss."

There are many alternative ideas about how we should best tax investment returns but the idea of abolshing this specific tax in order to stick it to the tax lawyers and accountants has its features, does it not? Plus, of course, we would be lifting a burden from the backs of the working people, for as our CBO report tells us, they in fact pay 70% of the tax through their receipt of lower wages.

As Wikipedia tells us, the corporate income tax is expected to raise $220.3 billion in fiscal year 2006. Abolition would mean that some $154 billion, 70% of that sum, would feed back in higher wages to the very working stiffs we all claim to be fighting for. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Given that this one tax raises some 10.1% of the federal budget, we would, by making this cut, in fact be returning 7% or so of that budget to precisely the group that our Democratic friends wish to aid: the workers.

It's extraordinarily difficult to see any one other thing in either the expenditure or revenue accounts of the federal budget that would in fact have an impact of anywhere near this sort of magnitude. So no doubt we'll be able to get them all on board to aid in taking this simple and obvious step? What's that? I'm insanely optimistic? Yes, I suppose I am, expecting anyone to be thinking about economic facts just two months before an election.

One final thought, there will be those who wonder how I would fill the revenue gap. No, I'll not make claims about the Laffer Curve, or increased dynamism, nor identify specific programs that should be cut, for after all, it is only 10% of federal revenue.

As O'Rourke's Law of Circumcision points out, you can take 10% off the top of absolutely anything.

Tim Worstall is a TCS Daiy contributing writer living in Europe."

posted by konane  # 12:34 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, September 12, 2006


Photos of the World Trade Center Attack

Photo link found on another site.

America Under Attack
Photos of the World Trade Center Attack

posted by konane  # 3:06 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, September 12, 2006


"The Smear Campaign Against ABC�_Ts �_~The Path to 9/11�_T

Headlined story is in second section below with bold emphasis added being mine.

First section from Powerline.  Generally if they pick up something you can consider it having legs and won't go away. 

"September 11, Five Years On
....."Which is where The Path to 9/11 comes in. I have no idea whether the scenes featuring Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger are accurate or not; it is certainly regrettable if they aren't. But they are at most an incidental aspect of the series. The real reason the Democrats don't want people to see it is that it reveals the utter failure of the Clinton approach to terrorism. Clinton's policies failed, and the failure didn't begin on 9/11. Over the course of the Clinton administration, there were dozens of successful attacks and near-misses, ( ) many of them directed against American interests both here and abroad. All the while, the terrorist movement grew stronger. This is certainly not a template to which we should want to return."

"Did the Dems Threaten ABC?

"There is no doubt about the fact that the terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during the Clinton administration. To note just a few highlights: (  )

* January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees.

* February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people.

* March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured.

* July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.

* July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah.

* July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah.

* December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning.

* December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris.

* January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot.

* June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists.

* July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100.

* November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7

* November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.

* January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers.

* February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.

* June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12.

* June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded.

* February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

* November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people.

* January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

* February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.

* August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

* August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War.

* December 1998: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb American and Israeli tourists in Jordan, and arrest 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.

* December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists.

* January 2000: The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

* August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90.

* August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people.

* October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.

However Path to 9/11 portrays the Clinton administration, it can be no worse than the reality.".........

"The Smear Campaign Against ABC’s ‘The Path to 9/11’
Written by Noel Sheppard
Tuesday, September 12, 2006





The fifth anniversary of the attacks on 9/11 has come and gone and Americans once again face the horrors surrounding this event and the ominous portent it conveyed. Yet, for some reason, one group of citizens has chosen to commemorate this solemn occasion by protesting an ABC miniseries documenting the history of this calamity.
As amazing as it might seem, the top brass in the liberal blogosphere’s “Netroots” have been frantically writing the past couple of days about “The Path to 9/11,” declaring to their readers that this docudrama is “a piece of fiction,” and that ABC’s airing it represents “gross negligence.”
At the heart of the controversy is the belief universally shared by these Michael Moore devotees that the ABC program in question doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of their Hero-in-Chief, William Jefferson Clinton. Yet, it appears that none of the disgruntled has actually seen the miniseries – a fact that some hypocritically suggest represents a part of the conspiracy – and, therefore, are coming to conclusions about the program’s contents from reviews by others.
Take for example Markos Moulitzas, the outspoken proprietor of Daily Kos. On September 5, he posted a blog (go here)at his website entitled “ABC’s Work of Fiction”:
ABC's piece of fiction, written by Rush Limbaugh's personal friend and marketed heavily in wingnut circles, bills itself as "objective" and a "docudrama". It includes the following scene, as recounted by Limbaugh.
That’s some truly objective review-work there, isn’t it? Wouldn’t every movie and television critic have an easy job if all he or she had to do was reference the opinions of others rather than actually see the film or program in question? Imagine the time you’d save!
Maybe more importantly, when did liberals start taking the word of Rush Limbaugh as the Gospel truth? Isn’t he wrong about everything in their view?
Yet, that wasn’t the only cardinal sin of journalism broken by Moulitzas. After copying the text from Limbaugh’s depiction of this scene, Kos then listed reasons why the miniseries was presenting falsehoods. Nowhere did Markos inform the reader that this analysis was apparently made by former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke as reported by another Netroot member, Think Progress (go here ).
Did Kos hide this from his readers due to the precarious credibility of Clarke, and the fact that his opinion on events leading up to 9/11 have come under serious question by many of his colleagues? In particular, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit – and no friend of the Bush administration! – Michael Scheuer, was not shy about his disgust for Clarke in a November 2004 Weekly Standard article (go here):


Scheuer thinks Clarke is a risk-averse poseur who didn't do enough to fight bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. At his breakfast with reporters, Scheuer said that on 10 separate occasions his unit, codename "Alec," provided key policymakers with information that could've lead to the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden. "In each of those 10 instances," Scheuer said, "the senior policymaker in charge, whether it was Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, or George Tenet," resisted taking action, afraid it would result in collateral damage or a backlash on the Arab street. According to Scheuer, Clarke's story has changed in the time since.
Regardless of Clarke’s lack of credibility, as a result of his position on what he perceived were inaccuracies in the ABC miniseries, TP’s editor, Judd Legum – who, like Kos, has apparently also not seen this “offensive” program for himself – concluded:
In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
Really? Well, pages 110 through 115 of the 9/11 Commission report (go here) quite disagreed. In this section, subtitled “The CIA Develops a Capture Plan,” the commissioners chronicled a 1997 - 1998 strategy to capture or kill bin Laden in Afghanistan:


A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin’s wives and one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.
By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval.
Sound like Nowrasteh “completely made up” this plan? As to who stopped this covert action, the Commission wasn’t sure:
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG [Counterterrorist Security Group headed by Clarke] saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted the principals would not approve it. “Jeff” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.
Hmmm. So, the 9/11 Commission wasn’t really sure who was responsible for putting the kibosh on this plan. However, given Clarke’s lack of credibility, and the fact that Sandy Berger was so intent on covering up the missteps of the Clinton administration that he actually stole documents from the National Archive just prior to testifying before the Commission, their take on this matter seems easily discounted.
Yet, questioning the accuracy of this miniseries wasn’t the only strategy involved in this smear campaign. Another high-ranking member of the Netroots, Americablog, posted a piece (go here) on September 4 entitled “GOP Congress Blocked Clinton Push For Anti-Terror Legislation.” The author used a July 30, 1996, article (go here) from to make the point:
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
However, this posting, which was plastered all over the liberal blogosphere, including being the lead link at the September 5 Raw Story, omitted some key facts. First, on April 24, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, (go here): which was the most comprehensive terrorism bill ever enacted by Congress up to that point. Contrary to the uninformed implications of Americablog, this was accomplished with tremendous support from Republicans who controlled both chambers at that time.
Also overlooked by the Netroots concerning this issue was that there was a bipartisan effort to stop the passage of this bill. As depicted by this December 6, 1995, letter (go here) to the then leaders of the House, disparate groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, the Cato Institute, defense lawyers, and law enforcement organizations all rallied to block the enactment of this legislation.
In addition, the restrictions to this bill, which were approved by the House on March 13, 1996, were passed in a bipartisan fashion by a margin of 246 to 171, with 68 Democrats voting in favor. As such, exclusively blaming Republicans for watering down this legislation is nothing less than absurd.
Another issue missed in Americablog’s lather was that this request by President Clinton for stronger antiterrorist legislation came two days after the Atlanta Olympics pipe-bombing, and less than two weeks after TWA flight 800 exploded over New York. As a result, within three days of this 1996 CNN report now making its way across the blogosphere, two antiterrorism bills were proposed in the House: one (go here) by Bud Schuster (R-Pennsylvania), and; a second (go here) by Henry Hyde (R-Illinois).

So much for Republicans blocking Clinton’s antiterror legislation. "

About the Writer: Noel Sheppard is a frequent contributor to The American Thinker. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters blog, and a contributing writer to its Business & Media Institute. Noel welcomes feedback at ....."

posted by konane  # 11:08 AM 3 comments

Monday, September 11, 2006


Video ""Remembering the Reaction to 9-11

Link and above title via Powerline.  Sounds like our homegrown conspiracy theorists got their ideas from them.


Superbly done documentary translations of


"The Arab and Iranian Reactions to 9-11-01"


posted by konane  # 9:45 PM 4 comments

Monday, September 11, 2006


"Clinton�_Ts Loss?

The old adage  "Bush was holding it when it broke on 9-11" isn't working anymore now that dates, times, events and documented facts are spilling out.   

Blaming Clinton .......  It's placing responsibility on the correct shoulders.  Lurking

"Clinton’s Loss?
How the previous administration fumbled on bin Laden.

A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

Source National Review Online

Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist. His new book, has just been released by Regnery. He spoke to NRO early today about the run-up to the war on terror.


Kathryn Jean Lopez: What did the Clinton administration know about Osama bin Laden and when did they know it?

Richard Miniter: One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year.

In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.

Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines housed in two towering Yemen hotels. Within hours, the CIA's counterterrorism center learned that the Yemen suspected a man named Osama bin Laden. (One of the arrested bombing suspects later escaped and was detained in a police sweep after al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000.) Lake says he doesn't remember briefing the president-elect about the attempted attack, but that he well might have.

So it is safe to conclude that Clinton knew about the threat posed by bin Laden since 1993, his first year in office.

Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole?

Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.

Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had ordered his staff to review existing intelligence in relation to the bombing of the USS Cole. After that review, he and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, were convinced it was the work of Osama bin Laden. The Pentagon had on-the-shelf, regularly updated and detailed strike plans for bin Laden's training camps and strongholds in Afghanistan.

At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services. If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.

Lopez: When the World Trade Center was first bombed in '93, why was it treated at first as a criminal investigation?

Miniter: The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full extent of the bin Laden menace because the president's decision to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its information with the CIA — without also having to share the same data with the accused terrorists. Woolsey told me about his frustration that he had less access to evidence from the World Trade Center bombing — the then-largest ever foreign terrorist attack on U.S soil — than any junior agent in the FBI's New York office.

Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all — even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad.

More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he tried.

By contrast, if Clinton treated the bombing as the act of terrorism that it was, he would be assuming personal responsibility for a series of politically risky moves. Should he deploy the CIA or special forces to hunt down the perpetrators? What happens if the agents or soldiers die? What if they try to capture the terrorists and fail? One misstep and the media, Congress, and even the public might blame the president. So Clinton took the easy, safe way out, and called it a crime.

Lopez: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not take advantage of such opportunities?

Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?

The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.

After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."

In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.

Steven Simon, Clinton's counterterrorism director on the National Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would benefit U.S. security since "It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time." Buys time? Oh yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected.

Lopez: This amazes me every time I hear it: You write, "When a small plane accidentally crashed into the White House lawn in 1994, West Wing staffers joked that it was [Jim] Woolsey trying to see the president..." How could the CIA director have that bad a relationship with his president? And this, after the first WTC attack. Did no one in the West Wing get it?

Miniter: Never once in his two-year tenure did CIA director James Woolsey ever have a one-on-one meeting with Clinton. Even semiprivate meetings were rare. They only happened twice. Woolsey told me: "It wasn't that I had a bad relationship with the president. It just didn't exist."

One of the little scoops in the book is the revelation that Clinton froze Woolsey out because the CIA director refused to put a friend of Bill on the agency's payroll. This account was confirmed by both Woolsey and the Clinton's consigliore Bruce Lindsey.

Considering the Justice Department's experience with Webster Hubbell, another Friend of Bill, Woolsey's decision may have done the CIA a great deal of good. But Clinton's pique did not make America any safer from bin Laden.

Another Clinton intelligence failure involved a refusal to help the CIA hire more Arabic language translators. In 1993, Woolsey learned that the agency was able to translate only 10 percent of its Arabic intercepts and badly wanted more translators. But Sen. Dennis DeConcini refused to approve the funds unless Clinton phoned him and said it was a presidential priority. Despite entreaties, Clinton never phoned the Democratic senator and the CIA didn't get those translators for years.

Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?

Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

Lopez: You sorta defend Clinton against "wag the dog" criticisms in regard to that infamous August 1998 (Monica times) bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan and some bin Laden strongholds in Afghanistan. That wasn't the problem, was it — that we fired then?

Miniter: Certainly the timing is suspicious. The day before the East African-embassy bombings, Monica Lewinsky had recanted her prior affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. The sex scandals kicked into overdrive.

Still, the president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden because of his sex scandals — he was doing too little. He should have launched more missile strikes against bin Laden and the hell with the political timing. Besides, after the East African-embassy bombings, any president would have been negligent not to strike back. If he had not, it would be open season on Americans. He would have been as ineffectual as Carter was during the Tehran hostage crisis. Indeed, this was the mistake made following the attack on the USS Cole.

But Clinton was distracted by sex and campaign-finance scandals and his political support was already heavily leveraged to get him through those scandals. If he fought bin Laden more vigorously, the leftwing of the Democratic party might have deserted him — which could have cost him the White House.

Instead Clinton's token, ineffectual missile strikes that only emboldened bin Laden. He believed that America was too intimidated to fight back — and was free to plan one of the most-murderous terrorist attacks in history.

Lopez: How did George Tenet perform during the Clinton years vis-à-vis al Qaeda/bin Laden?

Miniter: Tenet seemed to take a too legalistic view of CIA operations. He was risk-averse, wanting almost absolute certainty before recommending action, focused on safeguards against error and unintended consequences. Tenet seemed more concerned with not getting in trouble rather than relentlessly pursuing results to safeguard Americans against terrorism, the focus of a warrior.

Each time U.S. intelligence pinpointed bin Laden, Tenet was against a missile strike on the grounds that the information was "single threaded" — a pet phrase of the director which means single source. The predator was armed and fitted with video cameras mostly to overcome Tenet's objections to taking out bin Laden.

Lopez: Madeline Albright — frequently called upon expert nowadays — what's her record vis-à-vis al Qaeda?

Miniter: Albright always insisted that diplomatic efforts would best yield results on bin Laden. Even after the Cole bombing, Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts with the Taliban to turn him over, even though that effort had been going on for two years with no progress. Two simple facts should have made Albright aware that the Taliban would never turn over bin Laden: Osama had married off one of his sons to Mullah Omar's daughter. The Taliban weren't about to surrender a member of the family — especially one that commanded thousands of armed fighters who helped maintain Omar's grip on power.

Lopez: What exactly is the Iraq-al Qaeda connection?

Miniter: Osama bin Laden's wealth is overestimated. He had been financially drained during his years in Sudan and financing terrorist operations in dozens of countries, including training camps, bribes, etc., requires a large, constant cash flow. Saddam Hussein was unquestionably a generous financier of terrorism. Baghdad had a long history of funding terrorist campaigns in the bin Laden-allied region that straddles Iran and Pakistan known as Beluchistan. Documents found in Baghdad in April 2003 showed that Saddam funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden since the 1990s. Saddam openly funded the Iraqi Kurdish Group and its leader, Melan Krekar, admitted that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan. George Tenet testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq had provided training in forging documents and making bombs. Farouk Harazi, a senior officer in the Iraqi Mukhabarat reportedly offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq. Salah Suleiman, an Iraqi intelligence operative, was arrested in October 2000 near the Afghan border, apparently returning from a visit to bin Laden. One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin, reportedly fled to Baghdad in 1994. Iraq ran an extensive intelligence hub in Khartoum; Sudanese intelligence officers told me about dozens of meeting between Iraqi Intel and bin Laden. Tellingly, reports that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague several times in 2000 and 2001 have not been disproved. I have far more on this in Appendix A of Losing bin Laden.

Lopez: What most surprised you to learn about the Clinton years and terrorism?

Miniter: Three things:

1) That the Sept. 11 attacks were planned in May 1998 in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan, according to American and British intelligence officers I interviewed. In other words, the 9/11 attacks were planned on Clinton's watch.

2) The sheer number of bin Laden's attacks on Americans during the Clinton years.

3) And how much senior Clinton-administration officials knew about bin Laden and how little they did about it.

Lopez: This sounds like this could all be right-wing propaganda. How can you convince readers otherwise?

Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials, including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA director, Clinton's counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

And, while I shine the light on Clinton's shortcomings in dealing with bin Laden, I also give credit where it is due. Chapter nine is all about one of the greatest (and least-known) Clinton victories over bin Laden — the successful thwarting of a series of plots to murder thousands of Americans on Millennium night, 1999.

If anyone has any doubts about the credibility of this book, they should read the acknowledgements, which list many of my sources. Or peruse the more than 15,000 words of footnotes, that allow the reader to see exactly where information is coming from. Or examine the intelligence documents reproduced in Appendix B. Or pick a page at random and read it. Any fair-minded reader will see a carefully constructed and balanced account that attempts to lay out the history of Clinton and bin Laden."

posted by konane  # 9:02 PM 2 comments

Monday, September 11, 2006


"How the Left Undermined National Security Before 9/11

"How the Left Undermined National Security Before 9/11
By David Horowitz | September 11, 2006

(The following article by David Horowitz first appeared in our March 24, 2004, issue. An updated version appeared last September 11. It has been further updated to reflect information that has come to light since then. With last night's premiere of the ABC-TV movie "The Path to 9/11," the truth impact of the Left's policies in bringing about the nation's worst terrorist attack is finally coming to light. -- The Editors)



“While the nation was having a good laugh at the expense of Florida’s hanging chads and butterfly ballots, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi were there, in Florida, learning to drive commercial jetliners [and ram them into the World Trade Center towers]. It will take a novelist to paint that broad canvas properly. It will take some deep political thinking to understand how the lackadaisical attitude toward government and the world helped leave the country so unready for the horror that Atta and Shehhi were preparing.”
                      — Michael Oreskes, New York Times, October 21, 2001.

THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center marked the end of one American era and the beginning of another. As did Pearl Harbor, the September tragedy awakened Americans from insular slumbers and made them aware of a world they could not afford to ignore. Like Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush condemned the attacks as acts of war, and mobilized a nation to action. It was a sharp departure from the policy of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, who in characteristic self-absorption had downgraded a series of similar assaults—including one on the World Trade Center itself—officially regarding them as criminal matters that involved individuals alone.
But the differences between the September 11 attacks and Pearl Harbor were also striking. The latter was a military base situated on an island 3,000 miles distant from the American mainland. New York is America’s greatest population center, the portal through which immigrant generations of all colors and ethnicities have come in search of a better life. The World Trade Center is the Wall Street hub of the economy they enter; its victims were targeted for participating in the most productive, tolerant and generous society human beings have created. In responding to the attacks, the president himself took note of this: “America was targeted for attack,” he told Congress on September 20, “because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.”
In contrast to Pearl Harbor, the assault on the World Trade Center was hardly a “sneak attack” that American intelligence agencies had little idea was coming. Its Twin Towers had already been bombed eight years earlier, and by the same enemy. The terrorists themselves were already familiar to government operatives, their aggressions frequent enough that several commissions had been appointed to investigate. Each had reached the same conclusion. It was not a matter of whether the United States was going to be the target of a major terrorist assault; it was a matter of when.
In fact, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks had first engaged U.S. troops as early as 1993 when the Clinton administration deployed U.S. military forces to Somalia. Their purpose was humanitarian: to feed the starving citizens of this Muslim land. But, America’s goodwill ambassadors were ambushed by al-Qaeda forces. In a 15-hour battle in Mogadishu, 18 Americans were killed and 80 wounded. One dead U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets in an act calculated to humiliate his comrades and his country. The Americans’s offense was not that they had brought food to the hungry. Their crime was who they were—”unbelievers,” emissaries of “the Great Satan”—in the political religion of the enemy they now faced.
The defeat in Mogadishu was a blow not only to American charity, but to American power and prestige. Nonetheless, under the leadership of America’s then commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton, there was no military response to the humiliation. The greatest superpower the world had ever seen did nothing. It accepted defeat.
The War
On February 26, 1993, eight months prior to the Mogadishu attack, al-Qaeda terrorists had struck the World Trade Center for the first time. Their truck bomb made a crater six stories deep, killed six people, and injured more than a thousand. The planners’s intention had been to cause one tower to topple the other and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. It was not only the first major terrorist act ever to take place on U.S. soil, but—in the judgment of a definitive account of the event—”the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted, anywhere, ever.”

Six Palestinian and Egyptian conspirators responsible for the attack were tried in civil courts and got life sentences like common criminals, but its mastermind escaped. He was identified as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi intelligence agent. This was a clear indication to authorities that the atrocity was no mere criminal event, and that it involved more than individual terrorists; it involved hostile terrorist states.

Yet, once again, the Clinton administration’s response was to absorb the injury and accept defeat. The president did not even visit the bomb crater or tend to the victims. Instead, America’s commander-in-chief warned against “overreaction.” In doing so, he telegraphed a clear message to his nation’s enemies: We are unsure of purpose and unsteady of hand; we are self-indulgent and soft; we will not take risks to defend ourselves; we are vulnerable.
The al-Qaeda terrorists were listening. In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden told ABC News reporter John Miller:
We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut, when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions [to attack]. We rely on Allah.
Among the terrorist entities that supported the al-Qaeda terrorists were Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO had created the first terrorist training camps, invented suicide bombings and been the chief propaganda machine behind the idea that terrorist armies were really missionaries for “social justice.” Yet, among foreign leaders Arafat was Clinton’s most frequent White House guest. Far from treating Arafat as an enemy of civilized order and an international pariah, the Clinton administration busily cultivated him as a “partner for peace.” For many Washington leftists, terrorism was not the instrument of political fanatics and evil men but the product of social conditions—poverty, racism and oppression—for which Western democracies, including Israel, were always ultimately to blame.
The idea that terrorism has “root causes” in social conditions whose primary author is the United States is, in fact, an organizing theme of the contemporary political Left. “Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’”—declared the writer Susan Sontag, speaking for this faction—“but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?” (Was Susan Sontag unaware that Iraq was behind the first World Trade Center attack? That Iraq had attempted to swallow Kuwait and was a regional aggressor and sponsor of terror? That Iraq had expelled UN arms inspectors—in violation of the terms of its ceasefire—who were there to verify the destruction of its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs? Was she unaware that Iraq was a sponsor of international terror and posed an ongoing threat to others, including the country in which she lived?)
During the Clinton years the idea that America was somehow responsible for global distress had become an all too familiar refrain among left-wing elites. It had particular resonance in the institutions that shaped American culture and policy: universities, the mainstream media and the Oval Office. In March 1998, two months after Monica Lewinsky became a White House thorn and a household name, Clinton embarked on a presidential hand-wringing expedition to Africa. With a large delegation of African-American leaders in tow, the president made a pilgrimage to Uganda to apologize for the crime of American slavery. The apology was offered despite the fact that no slaves had ever been imported to America from Uganda, nor any East African state; that slavery in Africa preceded any American involvement by a thousand years; that America and Britain were the two powers responsible for ending the slave trade; and that America had abolished slavery a hundred years before—at great human cost—while slavery has persisted in Africa without African protest to the present day.
Four months after Clinton left Uganda, al-Qaeda terrorists blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
“Root Causes”
Clinton’s continuing ambivalence about America’s role in the world was highlighted in the wake of September 11, when he suggested that America actually bore some responsibility for the attacks on itself. In November 2001, even as the new Bush administration was launching America’s military response, the former president made a speech at Georgetown University in which he admonished citizens who were descended “from various European lineages” that they were “not blameless,” and that America’s past involvement in slavery should humble them as they confronted their attackers. Characteristically the president took no responsibility for his own failure to protect Americans from the attacks.
The idea that there are “root causes” behind campaigns to murder innocent men, women, and children, and terrorize civilian populations was examined shortly after the World Trade Center events by a writer in the New York Times. Columnist Edward Rothstein observed that while there were many mea culpas on the Left after September 11, no one had invoked “root causes” to defend Timothy McVeigh after he blew up Oklahoma City’s Murrah Federal Building in 1995, killing 187 people. “No one suggested that this act had its ‘root causes’ in an injustice that needed to be rectified to prevent further terrorism.” The silence was maintained, even though McVeigh and his collaborators “asserted that their ideas of rights and liberty were being violated and that the only recourse was terror.”
The reason no one invoked “root causes” to explain the Oklahoma City bombing was because Timothy McVeigh was not a leftist. Nor did he claim to be acting in behalf of “social justice”—the historical code for totalitarian causes. In an address to Congress that defined America’s response to September 11, President Bush sagaciously observed:
We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism.
Like Islamic radicalism, the totalitarian doctrines of Communism and fascism are fundamentalist creeds. In the words of Edward Rothstein, “The fundamentalist does not believe [his] ideas have any limits or boundaries…[Therefore] the goals of fundamentalist terror are not to eliminate injustice but to eliminate opposition.” That is why the humanitarian nature of America’s mission to Mogadishu made no difference to America’s al-Qaeda foe. The terrorists’ goal was not to alleviate hunger; it was to eliminate America. It was to defeat “The Great Satan.”
Totalitarians and fundamentalists share a conviction that is at once religious and political. Their mission is social redemption through the power of the state. Using political and military power they intend to create a “new world” in their own image. Rothstein observed this revolutionary transformation encompasses all individuals and requires the control of all aspects of human life:
Like fundamentalist terror, totalitarian terror leaves no aspect of life exempt from the battle being waged. The state is felt to be the apotheosis of political and natural law, and it strives to extend that law over all humanity…. No injustices, separately or together, necessarily lead to totalitarianism and no mitigation of injustice, however defined, will eliminate its unwavering beliefs, absolutist control and unbounded ambitions.
In 1998 Osama bin Laden explained his war aims to ABC News: “Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers.” As The New Republic’s Peter Beinart commented, bin Laden is not a crusader for social justice but “an ethnic cleanser on a scale far greater than the Hutus and the Serbs, a scale that has only one true Twentieth Century parallel.”
In the 1990s, America mobilized its military power to go to the rescue of Muslims in the Balkans who were being ethnically cleansed by Serbian Communists. This counted for nothing in al-Qaeda’s calculations, any more than did America’s support for Muslim peasants in Afghanistan fighting for their freedom against Red Army invaders in the 1980s. The war against radical Islam is not about what America has done, but about what America is. As bin Laden told the world on October 7, the day America began its military response, the war is between those of the faith and those outside the faith, between those who submit to the believers’s law and those infidels who do not.
While the Clinton Administration Slept
After the first World Trade Center attack, President Clinton vowed there would be vengeance. But like so many of his presidential pronouncements, the strong words were not accompanied by deeds. Nor were they followed by measures necessary to defend the country against the next series of attacks.
After their Mogadishu victory and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, unsuccessful attempts were made by al-Qaeda groups to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and other populated targets, including a massive terrorist incident timed to coincide with the millennium celebrations of January 2000. Another scheme to hijack commercial airliners and use them as “bombs” according to plans close to those eventually used on September 11, was thwarted in the Philippines in 1995. The architect of this effort was the Iraqi intelligence agent Ramzi Yousef.
The following year, the terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers, a U.S. military barracks in Saudia Arabia, killed 19 American soldiers. The White House response was limp, and the case (in the words of FBI director Louis B. Freeh) “remains unresolved.” Two years later al-Qaeda agents blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 245 people and injuring 5,000. (One CIA official told a reporter, “Two at once is not twice as hard. It is a hundred times as hard.”) On October 12, 2000, the warship USS Cole was bombed while re-fueling in Yemen, yet another Islamic country aligned with the terrorist enemy. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and 39 injured.
These were all acts of war, yet the president and his cabinet refused to recognize them as such.
Why the Clinton Administration Slept
Clinton’s second term national security advisor, Sandy Berger, described the official White House position towards these attacks as “a little bit like a Whack-A-Mole game at the circus. They bop up and you whack ‘em down, and if they bop up again, you bop ‘em back down again.” Like the administration he represented, the national security advisor lacked a requisite appreciation of the problem. Iraq’s dictator was unimpressed by sporadic U.S. strikes against his regime. He remained defiant, expelling UN weapons inspectors, firing at U.S. warplanes, and continuing to build his arsenal of mass destruction. But “the administration held no clear and consistent view of the Iraqi threat and how it intended to address it,” observed Washington Post correspondent Jim Hoagland. The disarray that characterized the Clinton security policy flowed from the “administration’s growing inability to tell the world—and itself—the truth.” It was the signature problem of the Clinton years.
Underlying the Clinton security failure was the fact that the administration was made up of people who for 25 years had discounted or minimized the totalitarian threat, opposed America’s armed presence abroad, and consistently resisted the deployment of America’s military forces to halt Communist expansion. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was himself a veteran of the Sixties “antiwar” movement, which abetted the Communist victories in Vietnam and Cambodia and created the “Vietnam War syndrome” that made it so difficult afterwards for American presidents to deploy the nation’s military forces.

Berger had also been a member of “Peace Now,” the leftist movement seeking to pressure the Israeli government to make concessions to Yasser Arafat’s PLO terrorists. Clinton’s first National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake was a protégé of Berger, who had introduced him to Clinton. All three had met as activists in the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign, whose primary conclusion was the “arrogance of American power,” rather than Communist aggression, fueled the Vietnam War.

Anthony Lake’s own attitude towards the totalitarian threat in Southeast Asia was displayed in his March 1975 Washington Post article, “At Stake in Cambodia: Extending Aid Will Only Prolong the Killing.” The prediction contained in Lake’s title proved exactly wrong. It was not a small mistake for someone who in 1992 would be placed in charge of America’s national security apparatus. Lake’s article was designed to rally Democrat opposition to a presidential request for emergency aid to the Cambodian regime. The aid was required to contain the threat posed by Communist leader Pol Pot and his insurgent Khmer Rouge forces.
At the time, Republicans warned that if the aid was cut, the regime would fall and a “bloodbath” would ensue. This fear was solidly based on reports that had begun accumulating three years earlier concerning “the extraordinary brutality with which the Khmer Rouge were governing the civilian population in areas they controlled.” But Anthony Lake and the Democrat-controlled Congress dismissed these warnings as so much “anti-Communist hysteria” and voted to deny aid.
In his Post article, Lake advised fellow Democrats to view the Khmer Rouge not as a totalitarian force—which it was—but as a coalition embracing “many Khmer nationalists, Communist and non-Communist,” who only desired independence. It would be a mistake, he wrote, to alienate Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge lest we “push them further into the arms of their Communist supporters.” Lake’s myopic left-wing views prevailed among the Democrats, and the following year the new president, Jimmy Carter, rewarded Lake with an appointment as Policy Planning Director of the State Department.
In Cambodia, the termination of U.S. aid led immediately to the collapse of the government allowing the Khmer Rouge to seize power within months of the congressional vote. The victorious revolutionaries proceeded to implement their plans for a new Communist utopia by systematically eliminating their opposition. In the next three years they killed nearly 2 million Cambodians, a campaign universally recognized as one of the worst genocides ever recorded.
The Warnings Ignored
For nearly a decade before the World Trade Center disaster, the Clinton administration was aware that Americans were increasingly vulnerable to attacks which might involve biological or chemical weapons, or even nuclear devices bought or stolen from the former Soviet Union. This was the insistent message of Republican speeches on the floors of Congress and was reflected in the warnings of several government commissions, and Clinton’s own Secretary of Defense, William Cohen.
In July 1999, for example, Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post predicting a terrorist attack on the American mainland. “In the past year, dozens of threats to use chemical or biological weapons in the United States have turned out to be hoaxes. Someday, one will be real.” But the warnings did not produce the requisite action by the commander-in-chief. Meanwhile, the nation’s media looked the other way. For example, as the president of the Council on Foreign Relations told the New Yorker’s Joe Klein, he “watched carefully to see if anyone followed up on [Cohen’s speech]. But none of the television networks and none of the elite press even mentioned it. I was astonished.”
The following year, “the National Commission on Terrorism—chaired by former Reagan counter-terrorism head Paul Bremer—issued a report with the eerily foreboding image of the Twin Towers on its cover. A bipartisan effort led by Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein—was made to attach the recommendations of the panel to an intelligence authorization bill.” But Senator Patrick Leahy, who had distinguished himself in the 1980s by opposing the government’s efforts to halt the Communist offensive in Central America, “said he feared a threat to ‘civil liberties’ in a campaign against terrorism and torpedoed the effort. After the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Kyl and Feinstein tried yet again. This time, Leahy was content with emaciating the proposals instead of defeating them outright. The weakened proposals died as the House realized ‘it wasn’t worth taking up.’”
After the abortive plot to blow up commercial airliners in the Philippines, Vice President Al Gore was tasked with improving airline security. A commission was formed, but under his leadership it also “focused on civil liberties” and “profiling,” left-wing obsessions that diluted any effort to strengthen security measures in the face of a threat in which all of the proven terrorists were Middle Eastern and Asian Muslims. The commission concluded, “no profile [of passengers] should contain or be based on…race, religion, or national origin.” According to journalist Kevin Cherry, the FAA also decided in 1999 to seal its passenger screening system from law-enforcement databases, thus preventing the FBI from notifying airlines that suspected terrorists were on board.”
In 1993, the FBI identified three charities connected to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas that were being used to finance terrorist activities, sending as much as $20 million a year to America’s enemies. According to presidential adviser Dick Morris, “At a White House strategy meeting on April 27, 1995—two weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing—the president was urged to create a ‘President’s List’ of extremist/terrorist groups, their members and donors ‘to warn the public against well-intentioned donations which might foster terrorism.’ On April 1, 1996, he was again advised to ‘prohibit fund-raising by terrorists and identify terrorist organizations.’” Hamas was specifically mentioned.
Inexplicably, Clinton ignored these recommendations. Why? FBI agents have stated that they were prevented from opening either criminal or national-security cases because of a fear that it would be seen as “profiling” Islamic charities. While Clinton was “politically correct,” Hamas flourished.
In failing to heed the signs that America was at war with a deadly adversary, overcome the ideological obstacles created by the liberal biases of his administration and arouse an uninformed public to concern, it was the commander-in-chief who bore primary responsibility. As one former administration official told reporter Joe Klein, “Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defense than any other president in recent memory.” Clinton’s political advisor Dick Morris flatly charged, “Clinton’s failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack [on the World Trade Center] led directly to the 9/11 disaster.” According to Morris, “Clinton was removed, uninvolved, and distant where the war on terror was concerned.”
Opportunities Missed
By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the president, despite the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. “James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’”
In 1996, an American Muslim businessman and Clinton supporter named Mansoor Ijaz opened up an unofficial channel between the government of the Sudan and the Clinton administration. At the same time, “the State Department was describing bin Laden as ‘the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world’ and was accusing the Sudan of harboring terrorists.” According to Mansoor, who met with Clinton and Sandy Berger:
President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among the members of these networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

President Bashir sent key intelligence officials to Washington in February 1996. Again, according to Mansoor, “the Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to ‘baby-sit’ him—monitoring all his activities and associates.” But the Saudis didn’t want him. Instead, in May 1996 “the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere. Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the September 11 attacks….”

One month after Clinton let him go, the U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia was blown apart by a 5,000 lb. truck bomb. Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity, concludes Mansoor, “represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”
According to a London Sunday Times account, based on a Clinton administration source, responsibility for this decision “went to the very top of the White House.” Shortly after the September 11 disaster, “Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let bin Laden go was probably ‘the biggest mistake of my presidency.’” But according to the Times report, which was based on interviews with intelligence officials, this was only one of three occasions on which the Clinton administration had the opportunity to seize bin Laden and failed to do so. In February 2002, Bill Clinton described his perfidy before the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon thus: ( )

At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

When the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky became public in January 1998, and his adamant denials made it a consuming public preoccupation, Clinton’s normal inattention to national security matters became subsumed into general executive paralysis. In Dick Morris’s judgment, the United States was effectively “without a president between January 1998 until April 1999,” when the impeachment proceedings concluded with the failure of the Senate to convict. It was in August 1998 that the al-Qaeda truck bombs blew up the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The Attacks He Could Have Prevented

They need never have been struck. In February 1998—six months before the bombing of the U.S. embassies—the CIA had arranged for an indigenous Afghan militia to raid Osama's compound, Tarnak Farms; take him alive; and deliver him to the FBI to face criminal charges in the United States. However, the Clinton administration aborted the raid that May for fear Osama would be killed before facing a jury of his peers. Another time, Washington vetoed agents in the field, who had tracked Osama for days, fearing civilian collateral damage. A February 1999 missile strike in the desert south of Kandar was nixed because, although bin Laden was clearly in the crosshairs, he was traveling with several members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family. Richard Clarke telephoned the UAE, apparently without permission, on March 7 to discussion the royals's cozy relationship with the Saudi scion; the 9/11 Report reports "less than a week after Clarke's phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted."

At least three times following the U.S. embassy bombings, the Clinton administration held up imminent missile strikes on Osama bin Laden, deeming the intelligence insufficient but those on the ground say the administration set the standards of "actionable intelligence" unreachably high. In what the 9/11 Commission dubbed "the last, and most likely the best, opportunity" to get bin Laden, in Kandahar in May 1999, the Clintonistas again choked; the Commission noted, "If this intelligence was not 'actionable,' working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence on Bin Ladin in Afghanistan would meet the standard." Another said, "This was in our strike zone. It was a fat pitch, a home run." Again, the Left refused to swing. Bill Clinton did strike back on August 20, 1999, bombing a Sudanese medicine factory and an empty tent. Clinton often boasts he missed Osama by mere hours; he does not disclose that, following Richard Clarke's sterling example, his administration notified Pakistan of the coming missile attack, allowing the Pakistanis to notify bin Laden, who escaped unharmed.

In the fall of 2000, the unmanned Predator drone captured video of Osama bin Laden training his terrorist guerrillas in Afghanistan. Yet the Clinton administration did nothing. As NBC's Brian Williams put it, "Weeks later, bin Laden's attack on the USS Cole killed 17 sailors." No retaliation followed.

Ignoring “Able Danger”

Not only did Osama bin Laden remain free to kill Americans overseas, his minions were able to plot the worst act of terrorism in American history from within our own borders. More than 100 Islamist operatives participated in the attack on the Twin Towers. They did so over a period of several years, often eliciting the notice of military intelligence officers. However, Clinton-era policies ensured those officers could not ask for the FBI to follow-up on the 9/11 hijackers then preparing to strike at the heart of the infidel.

Not everyone responded to Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman’s 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center with blithe indifference. Five years later, Army Intelligence and the Special Operations Command launched an investigation into potential Islamist terrorists living in the United States. This operation was named “Able Danger.” Using “data mining” techniques to track Muslims associated with radical mosques, agents identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and three of his fellow hijackers as members of a New York City-based al-Qaeda cell (codenamed “Brooklyn”). Three witnesses—Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer, Captain Scott Philpott, and Defense contractor J.D. Smith—have come forward to verify that “Able Danger” identified Mohammed Atta as a potential al-Qaeda threat by name as early as 1999. However, when officers asked permission to inform the FBI of their findings and request they closely supervise “Brooklyn,” military lawyers prevented from them sharing this information on three separate occasions.

The trouble, the attorneys told the intelligence agents, stemmed from federal guidelines prohibiting various agencies from sharing intelligence or coordinating investigations across bureaucratic lines. The Legal Left had claimed this practice violated civil liberties and, with an advocate in the White House, existing barriers were raised ever higher.

This barrier, which kept federal officials from monitoring a tragedy in progress, came to be known as “The Wall.” Although restrictions had existed since the Carter administration, in the summer of 1995 Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, drafted a memo raising the wall well beyond existing guidelines. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, who was based in New York City, protested the infringement on terrorist investigations, writing:

            It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required…These instructions leave entirely to OIPR [the Office of Intelligence and Policy Review] and the [Justice Department’s] Criminal Division when, if ever, to contact affected U.S. attorneys on investigations including terrorism and espionage…The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.

When Gorelick ignored her suggestions, White warned the new federal guidelines “will cost lives.” She proved no mean prophet.

The Clinton administration placed the aforementioned OIPR, for the first time in its history, under a political appointee: Richard Scruggs. The “wall memo” and the politicization of intelligence were only the first step. The Clinton Justice Department brought all intelligence under increasingly centralized control in order to discourage investigations. At this time, agents were looking into allegations that Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign had accepted substantial amounts of illegal campaign contributions originating in the People’s Republic of China. To insulate himself against “overzealous” federal investigators, he effectively saw to it all inquiries had to receive approval from high-level political appointees under his management. Not only did Bill Clinton’s policies keep Army Intelligence from informing the FBI about the brewing al-Qaeda threat in New York City—which was then finalizing plans for the terrorists’ most successful assault against the “Great Satan” and give al-Qaeda an invaluable recruiting tool—it seems to have done so in order to protect Bill Clinton from his own unseemly deeds.

The Lost Plotters

The fig leaf Clinton thatched about his campaign finance donors concealed a multitude of al-Qaeda's sins. The Wall shielded at least two actual hijackers and a third potential hijacker, aside from the Able Danger debacle. 

According to many journalists, the CIA had tapped the telephone of 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi before they attended the January 2000 al-Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur, where the terrorists fixed many of the details of 9/11. Although the CIA photographed the pair at this meeting, they were able to return to the United States and settle in San Diego under their given names for another year, because the Agency did not share its intelligence with the FBI until shortly before 9/11. In the meantime, al-Midhar had returned to Saudi Arabia to recruit willing martyrs for his strike. When he returned, the FBI—at last alerted of the danger he posed to the United States—begged for other law enforcement agencies to track down and interdict both plotters, only to have their pleas bounce off The Wall. Denied the ability to pursue the terrorists, an agent e-mailed his superior these prophetic words: "Whatever has happened to this—someday someone will die—and wall or not—the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let's hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, [bin Laden], is getting the most 'protection.'" Weeks later, the men joined 17 of their co-religionists  in an act of jihad.

The FBI fared little better when it actually arrested its suspects. An agent nabbed "20th Hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui for immigration violations on August 16, 2001; suspicions ran high as he had told his flight instructor he wanted to learn how to steer an airplane—but not take-off or land. Agents asked and were denied permission to search his computer, told doing so would appear to violate the sacrosanct Wall. Twenty-six days later, the error of Gorelick's ways would visit itself upon the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

The Failure to Take Security Seriously
Yet this was only half the story. During its eight years, the Clinton administration was able to focus enough attention on defense matters to hamstring the intelligence services in the name of civil liberties, shrink the U.S. military in the name of economy, and prevent the Pentagon from adopting (and funding) a “two-war” strategy, because “the Cold War was over” and in the White House’s judgment there was no requisite military threat in the post-Communist world that might make it necessary for the United States to fight a two-front war. Inattention to defense also did not prevent the Clinton administration from pursuing massive social experiments in the military in the name of gender and diversity reform, which included requiring “consciousness raising” classes for military personnel, rigging physical standards so women were able to meet them, and in general undermining the meritocratic benchmarks that are a crucial component of military morale.
While budget cuts forced some military families to go on food stamps, the Pentagon spent enormous sums to re-equip ships and barracks to accommodate co-ed living. All these efforts further reduced the Pentagon’s ability to put a fighting force in the field—a glaring national vulnerability dramatized by the war in Kosovo. This diminished the crucial elements of fear and respect for American power in the eyes of adversaries waiting in the wings.
During the Clinton years, the Democratic Party’s insistence that American power was somehow the disturber—rather than the enforcer—of international tranquility, prompted the White House to turn to multilateral agencies for leadership, particularly the discredited United Nations. While useful in limited peacekeeping operations, the UN was in large part a collection of theocratic tyrannies and brutal dictatorships that regularly indicted and condemned the world’s most tolerant democracies—specifically the United States, England, and Israel—while supporting the very states providing safe harbors for America’s al-Qaeda enemies. Just prior to the World Trade Center attacks, the UN’s “Conference on Racism” engaged in a ritual of America bashing over “reparations” for slavery and support for Israel. The agendas had been set by an Islamic coalition led by Iran.
During the 1990s, Bill Clinton’s most frequent foreign guest was Yasser Arafat, whose allegiance to Iraq and betrayal of America during the Gulf War could not have been more brazen. Following the defeat of Iraq, a “peace process” was launched in the Arab-Israeli conflict that predictably failed through Arafat’s failure to renounce the terrorist option. But why renounce terror if there is no price exacted for practicing it?
Clinton and the Military
It is true that the Clinton White House was able, during its eight-year tenure, to shed some of the Democrats’ normal aversion to the use of American military might. (As recently as 1990, only 6 Democratic Senators voted to authorize Operation Desert Storm against Iraq.) But the Clinton deployments of American forces were often non-military in nature: a “democracy building” effort in Haiti that failed; flood relief and “peacekeeping” operations that were more appropriately the province of international institutions. Even the conflict Clinton belatedly engaged in the Balkans was officially characterized as a new kind of “humanitarian war,” as though the old kinds of war for national interest and self-defense were somehow tainted. While the Serbian dictator Milosevic was toppled, “ethnic cleansing”—the casus belli of the Western intervention—continues, except that the Christian Serbs in Kosovo have now become victims of the previously persecuted Albanian Muslims.
Among Clinton’s deployments were also half-hearted strikes using cruise missiles against essentially defenseless countries like Sudan, or the sporadic bombing of Iraq when Saddam violated the terms of the Gulf peace. Clinton’s strikes failed in their primary objective: to maintain the UN inspections. On the other hand, a negative result of this “Whack-A-Mole” strategy was the continual antagonizing of Muslim populations throughout the world.
The most notorious of these episodes was undoubtedly Clinton’s ill-conceived and ineffectual response to the attacks on the African embassies. At the time, Clinton was preoccupied with preparing his defense before a grand jury convened because of his public lies about the Lewinsky affair. Three days after Lewinsky’s grand jury appearance, without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff or his national security advisors, Clinton launched cruise missiles into two Islamic countries, which he identified as being allied to the terrorists and their leader Osama bin Laden. One of these missiles hit and destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, killing one individual. Since the factory was the sole plant producing medicines for an impoverished African nation, there were almost certainly a number of collateral deaths.
The incident, which inflamed anti-American passions all over the Islamic world, was—in conception and execution—a perfect reflection of the distorted priorities and reckless attitudes of the Clinton White House. It also reflected the irresponsibility of congressional Democrats who subordinated the safety concerns of their constituents to provide unified support for the presidential misbehavior at home and abroad.
The Partisan Nature of the Security Problem
The terrorist plotters and hijackers were able to enter the United States with or without passports, seemingly at will. They received training in flying commercial airliners at American facilities despite clear indications that some of them might be part of a terrorist campaign. At the same time, Democrats pressed for greater relaxation of immigration policies and resisted scrutiny of foreign nationals on the grounds that to do so constituted “racial profiling.” To coordinate their terrorist efforts, the al-Qaeda operatives had to communicate with each other electronically on channels that America’s high-tech intelligence agencies normally intercept. One reason they were not detected specifically plotting terrorism was that the first line of defense against such attacks was effectively crippled by powerful figures in the Democratic Party, who considered the CIA the problem and not America’s enemies.
Security controls that would have prevented adversarial agents from acquiring encryption devices that thwarted American intelligence efforts were casually lifted on orders from the highest levels of government. Alleged abuses by American intelligence operatives became a higher priority than the abuses of the hostile forces they were attempting to contain. Reporter Joe Klein’s inquiries led him to conclude, “there seems to be near unanimous agreement among experts: in the ten years since the collapse of the Soviet Union [and the eight years of the Clinton presidency, and the seven since the first al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center] almost every aspect of American national-security—from military operations to intelligence gathering, from border control to political leadership—has been marked by…institutional lassitude and bureaucratic arrogance.”
The Democrats’ Anti-Intelligence Bill
The Democrats’ cavalier attitude towards American security in the years preceding September 11 was dramatized in a bill to cut the intelligence budget, sight unseen, which was introduced every year of the Clinton administration by Independent Bernie Saunders. The fact that Sanders was an extreme leftist proved no problem for the Democrats—still enjoying their long-standing congressional majority—when they appointed him to a seat on the House Intelligence Committee. Indeed why should it be a problem? Shortly before the World Trade Center attack, Senate Democrats made another leftist—California Senator Barbara Boxer, an opponent of the war against Saddam Hussein and a long-time critic of the American military—the chair of the Senate Sub-committee on Terrorism.
The Sanders initiative was launched in 1993, after the first al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center. In that year, the Democrat-controlled House Intelligence Committee had voted to reduce President Clinton’s own authorization request for the intelligence agencies by 6.75 percent. But this was insufficient for Sanders. So he introduced an amendment that required a minimum reduction in financial authorization for each individual intelligence agency of at least 10 percent.
Sanders refused to even examine the intelligence budget he proposed to cut: “My job is not to go through the intelligence budget. I have not even looked at it.” According to Sanders the reasons for reducing the intelligence budget were that “the Soviet Union no longer exists,” and that “massive unemployment, that low wages, that homelessness, that hungry children, that the collapse of our educational system is perhaps an equally strong danger to this nation, or may be a stronger danger for our national security.”
Irresponsible? Incomprehensible? Not to nearly half the Democrats in the House who voted in favor of the Sanders amendment. In all, 97 Democrats voted for the Sanders cuts, including House Armed Services Committee chair Ron Dellums and the House Democratic leadership. As the terrorist attacks on America intensified year by year during the 1990s, Sanders steadfastly reintroduced his amendment. Every year thereafter, right until the World Trade Center attack, nearly 100 Democrats voted with him to cut the intelligence budget.
According to a study made by political consultant Terry Cooper:
Dick Gephardt, D-MO, the House Democratic leader, voted to cut on five of the seven amendments on which he was recorded. He appears to have “taken a walk” on two other votes. David Bonior, D-MI, the number-two Democratic leader who as Whip enforces the party position, voted for every single one of the ten cutting amendments. Chief Deputy Whips John Lewis, D-GA, and Rosa DeLauro, D-CT, voted to cut intelligence funding every time they voted. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, just elected to replace Bonior as Whip when Bonior leaves early in 2002, voted to cut intelligence funding three times, even though she was a member of the Intelligence Committee and should have known better. Two funding cut amendments got the votes of every single member of the elected House Democratic leadership. In all, members of the House Democratic leadership supported the Saunders funding cut amendments 56.9 percent of the time.
Many of the Democrats whose committee positions give them immense say over our national security likewise voted for most or all of the funding cut amendments. Ron Dellums, D-CA, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee from 1993 through 1997, cast all eight of his votes on funding cut amendments in favor of less intelligence funding. Three persons who chaired or were ranking Democrats on Armed Services subcommittees for part of the 1993-99 period—Pat Schroeder, D-CO; Neil Abercrombie, D-HI; and Marty Meehan,D-MA—also voted for every fund-cutting amendment that was offered during their tenures. Dave Obey, D-WI, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee that holds the House’s keys to the federal checkbook, voted seven out of eight times to reduce intelligence funding.

In 1994, Republican Porter Goss, a former CIA official and member of the House Intelligence Committee who later became CIA Director, warned that because of inflation, the cuts now proposed by Sanders-Owens amounted to 16 percent of the 1992 budget and were 20 percent below the 1990 budget. Yet this did not dissuade Dellums, Bonior, and roughly 100 Democrats from continuing to lay the budgetary axe to America’s first line of anti-terrorist defense. Ranking Committee Republican Larry Combest warned that the cuts endangered “critically important and fragile capabilities, such as in the area of human intelligence.” In 1998, Osama bin Laden and four radical Islamic groups connected to al-Qaeda issued a fatwa condemning every American man, woman, and child, civilian and military included. Sanders responded by enlisting Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio to author an amendment cutting the intelligence authorization again."
posted by konane  # 10:01 AM 4 comments

Sunday, September 10, 2006


6 Censored Clips links "Path to 9-11"

posted by konane  # 3:34 PM 2 comments

Sunday, September 10, 2006


Video clips Dems want removed "Path to 9/11"

Large clips, slow load. 

Saw on another site that it aired in full in Australia so we're seeing in the US that freedom of speech is upheld so long as the left is talking.

Sent by a friend who found the links.



"ABC's "Path to 9/11": The Video Democrats DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

Here's the link to a page that contains the clips Democrats want cut out of the movie:

Click on each picture on the page to view each individual QuickTime clip (6 total).




If you can't get all clips to load, here's the link to them all on one page (may take a while to load):


SECOND EDIT: Here's another source for the clips:


posted by konane  # 12:22 PM 0 comments

Saturday, September 9, 2006


Cartoon link ""The Path to 9-11"

"The Path to 9-11"
"Leak Plugged"

posted by konane  # 5:31 PM 0 comments

Friday, September 8, 2006


"Clinton aide says 9/11 film 'correct'

First this article and now another.  Dates, times, witnesses who were present to win.  Wow no wonder so much damage control.

"Dick Morris: Clinton Attack 'Outrageous'

"Clinton aide says
9/11 film 'correct'

Producer consulted with military attaché
who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden

Posted: September 8, 2006
3:33 p.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2006

Buzz Patterson with President Clinton
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.

Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.

Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.

The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.

As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.

Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (

During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics.

"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice."

Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.

An ABC executive who requested anonymity told the Washington Post the network has made "adjustments and refinements" to the drama that are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" by federal officials that left the U.S. vulnerable to attack, and "not any one individual."

Yesterday, the New York Post reported Clinton wrote to ABC officials, complaining the "content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, according to the Washington Post, has described a scene, in which she is depicted, as "false and defamatory."

Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.

Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a "conflation of events," but Berger, in a letter to Robert Iger – president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. – said "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.

The scene in "The Path to 9/11," as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children's toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

"Berger was very agitated, he couldn't get a decision from the president," Patterson said.

Patterson noted wasn't sure what Berger wanted to do – whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no – but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

In "Dereliction of Duty," Patterson recounts an event in the situation room of the White House in which Berger was told by a military watch officer "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike."

Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

Patterson writes: "We 'studied' the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed."

Harvey Keitel plays counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill in ABC's "The Path to 9/11

In another "missed opportunity," Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

As WND reported, Berger was the focus of a Justice Department investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.

FBI agents searched Berger's home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.

Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his clothing. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

Patterson said Berger's response to the "The Path to 9/11" is similar to his response to the accounts in "Dereliction of Duty," insisting the incidents attributed to him "never occurred."

Patterson said his book put him under intense pressure from Clinton officials – an aide even spoke of taking away his military retirement benefits – but when the title reached No. 1 on, "they shut up."

There are others who can corroborate his accounts, Patterson insisted, but they are still in military service and therefore legally bound not to come forward and make statements.

Three of the four other military aides who rotated being at the president's side were additional sources for his book, Patterson affirmed."

posted by konane  # 7:30 PM 16 comments

Friday, September 8, 2006


Events leading up to 9-11

Timeline of events leading up to 9-11, found on another site.  Let us not forget the wall built between the CIA and FBI where they couldn't communicate evidence comparison .... no doubt so they couldn't find him complicit for signing executive waivers to sell top secret dual technology .... against the advice of the Pentagon .... to China.  It's on the books and hit the news when it happened.



1993 WTC-Treated as a "crime" with no foreign terrorist involvement. However, Blind Islamic Radical Sheik is convicted for conspiracy. Bin Laden named as an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in 1996.The same year he is offered to the Clinton Administration by the Sudan and refused saying they don't have enough evidence to convict him. Bill Clinton never visits site.

1993-18 Soldiers killed in Somalia and 84 wounded in attack planned by bin Laden. Clinton pulls troops out of Somalia. bin Laden claims victory and gains status with his followers as one who is able to make the "Great Satan" run. Somalia falls into a chaos that remains to this day.

1993- the FBI identified three "charities” connected to the terrorist organization Hamas. Clinton ignored pleas that he create a "President’s List” of extremist and terrorist groups. He feared the political fallout of "profiling” Islamic charities. Money continues to flow freely to terrorist organizations for the next 8 years.

1993-The Srebrenica Report (Dutch) revealed in 1993 Clinton embarked on an Iran/Contra like affair with Islamic Terror groups in Bosnia. In both Afghanistan and the Gulf, the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia. a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft appeared and Mojahedin fighters
were also flown in. This report has just recently been made public.

1994- Algerian terrorists attempt to hijack French Airliner to fly into the Eiffel Tower. Plane is stormed by French police.

1994-"Terror 2000" was distributed to the Defense Department, State Department, FEMA, intelligence communities and members of Congress. "Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but because of their symbolic nature provide more bang for the buck. In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations with the aim of overtaxing a government's ability to respond, as well as to demonstrate their professionalism and reach." At the State Department's request, it was "scrubbed" of some details, including how to hit the Pentagon or White House by airplane using the Washington Monument as a landmark.

1995- Then-Rep. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., made secrets public at the behest of left-wing activist Bianca Jagger, his girlfriend at the time. The secrets suggested that the CIA had on its payroll one or more unsavory characters who had been involved in murder. He compromised American intelligence-gathering abilities around the world, adding that numerous CIA sources had decided to stop giving information for fear they would be outed by a congressman. Torricelli efforts paid off with the Clinton administration, which moved to ban the use of spies or the recruitment of spies that had any involvement with criminals or terrorists. Torricelli effectively blinded the CIA.

1995-5 U. S. soldiers killed in Saudi Arabia in bombing.

1995-Oklahoma City Bombing. 168 dead. Domestic terrorists blamed. Jayna Davis, Oklahoma investigative reporter attempts to turn over evidence she has in the form of security videos and witness testimony to the FBI, but after checking with his superior, the evidence is refused. A Justice Department inspector, one of Clinton's own, admitted that the Oklahoma City bombing investigation "offered one of the worst examples of de facto evidence tampering by the FBI crime labs."

1995-"Operation Bojinka" plot hatched by an al Qaeda cell with an eye toward blowing up 12 American airliners. Some would be booby-trapped with bombs, like Pan Am 103, others hijacked like the four U.S. jets commandeered on 9-11 and crashed into buildings.

1996-CIA and FBI warn Clinton they have uncovered plot of al Qaeda "Martyrdom Battalion" terrorists to hijack planes and use them as missiles. This apparently is never passed on to the Congress.

1996-Philippine authorities warn the FBI they have received credible information that al Qaeda is planning on hijacking planes and flying them into Federal Buildings. Again, this information apparently stops with Bill Clinton and is never passed on to the proper Congressional Intelligence Committees.

1996-The downing of TWA Flight 800. 230 dead. Mechanical Failure blamed. Hundreds of eyewitnesses ignored as they claim they saw a surface to air missile launch and destroy the plane. Bill Clinton issues Executive Order 13039 to keep all involved in recovery process silent. Pilots Union claims FAA report on mechanical failure "bogus". FBI tells witnesses what they saw was a single "fireworks" display. Read "Oklahoma City Bombing and TWA Flight 800" for more on these

1996-Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 military personnel.

1996-Sudan offers to turn over bin Laden to US through negotiator and Clinton supporter Mr. Mansoor Ijaz. He warns them not to slight the Intelligence Officer in the Sudan by sending an aide to the Sec. of State. They ignore him and send an underling. Insulted by the slight, the Sudan refuses to speak to him. Clinton blows off offer saying they don't have enough evidence to indict bin Laden.

1996-bin Laden leaves Sudan and goes to Afghanistan as a "guest" of Mullah Omar, head of the

1997-UNOCAL brought members of the Taliban here to the States to wine and dine them, take them to beach, show them their U.S. offices and take them to Washington to meet with the Clinton State Department. The fact they are harboring a wanted terrorist, bin Laden, is ignored.

1997- Final report of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety comes out. The DNC received at least $498,000 from the airline industry. There was no deadline by which those requirements would have to be implemented and 2) there was no funding mechanism for ensuring that they were enacted. This insured that none of the recommendations would ever be implemented. Boston Globe, a known liberal newspaper, says Gore, “failed conspicuously to address airline safety.” That failure was traced directly to a series of campaign contributions from the airlines to the DNC.

1997- Warren Christopher resigns as Sec. of State over a conflict with Clinton over the removal of top secret defense technology from the realm of the State Department, with Congressional oversight, to the hands of Ron Brown and the Department of Commerce. He stated that that the president's actions were reckless and may jeopardized the military defense of this nation. Admonished Clinton for planning to hand over to the Communist Chinese, American missile guidance programming source codes embedded in commercial U.S. satellites. Christopher, is said to have told Clinton, the Brown deal could jeopardize "...significant military and intelligence
interests..." of the United States missile guidance system. Clinton quietly put out a post dated Executive order protecting the two companies under Congressional investigation from any criminal prosecution.

1997-The Northern Alliance threatens to overrun the Taliban and is poised to remove them from power. The Clinton Administration imposes a cease fire that both sides agree to. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan use this opportunity to re-arm the Taliban army. Clinton knows this is happening, but withholds that information from the Northern Alliance and Congress. This action assures that the Taliban will solidify their power and push back the Northern Alliance.

1997-Madeleine Albright becomes Sec. Of State. She later states, after the attacks, in her defense of Bill Clinton: "This is hard to say and I haven't found a way to say it that doesn't sound crass, but it is the truth that those {attacks before Sept. 11} were happening overseas and while there were Americans who died, there were not thousands and it did not happen on U. S. soil."

1998-Bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000.

1998- bin Laden issued his fatwa urging his followers to target the U. S. and all Americans.

1998- Sudan offered to extradite Sayyid Iskandar Suliman and Sayyid Nazir Abbass to the U.S. for trial. They were wanted by the US for being directly involved in the bombings of its embassy in Kenya and they had intimate knowledge of the operations of the alleged guerrilla chief Osama bin Laden. The State Department, in blocking the FBI from pursuing the lead, noted that Sudan has been listed for over a decade as a state sponsor of terrorism. Yet Sudan, the official said, had asked only for a “dialogue” with the United States toward restoring a more normal diplomatic relationship. Their offer was completely ignored and Clinton instead bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum.

1998- UNOCAL gave up all hope of a pipeline across Afghanistan and pulled out. Not because of Afghanistan harboring a terrorist, but from pressure from the Women's Rights groups over the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan.

1998-Missile strike against bin Laden's Khost, Afghanistan training camp and a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory to take Monica off the front pages is a total failure. Clinton lobs over $70 million dollars worth of Cruise Missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan hitting nothing but tents, camels and the only pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Done without consulting his Joint Chiefs. He informs them of his plans one half hour prior to the attack. Their pleas for him to stop the attack due to inadequate intelligence, are ignored. They later distance themselves from the attack by admitting they were not consulted. The Military Commander in that area said it "would have been a million to one shot."

1999-Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian, is arrested trying to cross the Canadian Border with explosives.

1999-Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, (R-Cal), who has spent time in Afghanistan fighting with the Northern Alliance, received credible information as to the whereabouts of bin Laden in Afghanistan. He immediately contacted the CIA with this information. The Information was never acted on. During the Clinton Administration the Voice of America became known, within Afghanistan, as the Voice of the Taliban. “People go berserk when I say that Clinton supported the Taliban, but that is the truth.” says Rohrabacher.

1999-Gen. Pervez Musharraf overthrows Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Oct. 12 in a military coup. Clinton later claims his plans to obtain bin Laden through millions in pay-offs to the Sharif Government collapse with the coup, which is very odd story since the Sharif Government was a supporter of the Taliban and bin Laden. Indeed, even the Musharraf Government supports the Taliban until after the 9/11 attacks when it becomes healthier to deal with the Taliban than an angry and hostile American military. He sees this as a chance to rid his country of the Islamic radicals that he says are the 1% of the population holding the other 99% hostage.

1999-Clinton’s own secretary of defense, William Cohen, in a July 1999 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, predicted a terrorist attack on America’s mainland.

1999-"Project Megiddo" goes public on FBI website. It is a directive, given in 1995 to FBI from Bill Clinton to direct their investigative efforts towards only domestic terrorism such as the Christian Right and militias. In short, foreign involvement is to be ignored which now explains why no evidence of foreign terrorists involvement was accepted in the Oklahoma City Bombing and downing of TWA Flight 800.

1999-A report, titled "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," cautioned that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network might seek revenge for the 1998 U.S. air strike on bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. It is ignored as merely a psychological report, with no credible sources.

1999- the U.N. imposes sanctions to cut off funds for Taliban arms.

1999-the U.S. finally added bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization to its list of “foreign terrorist organizations”. Still, they did not single out Afghanistan or the Taliban nor add Afghanistan to the list of countries that harbor terrorists, despite the fact bin Laden is harbored there.

1999-Mullah Khaksar, then the Taliban regime's deputy interior minister, met with U.S. diplomats Gregory Marchese and J. Peter McIllwain in Peshawar, Pakistan, in April 1999 and told them he wanted to oust Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar because of his support for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror network. The offer was ignored by Bill Clinton. Bill told him, through his people, that "he didn't want to get involved in internal Afghani matters".

1999 - The Transportation Security Administration altered a terrorist report to exclude any and all references to foreign terrorists. David Holmes, head of the Commerce Department zeroed in on white militia groups in a 1999 threat analysis. Commerce officials who worked on the case say Holmes' exclusion of every threat group that wasn't white was in keeping with what they say was a broader Clinton administration policy of focusing on domestic threats from white militia groups, rather than Islamic groups, in combating terrorism. "Holmes made us take out every group that wasn't white – no minority groups allowed," "He was toeing the liberal line" of the Clinton administration.

July 2000 – three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen another plausible offer to deal for bin Laden. The offer required only that Clinton make a state visit there (Yemen) to personally request bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer.

2000-Bombing of the USS Cole. 17 sailors killed, 39 injured. Millions will be spent repairing the ship. bin Laden and the al Qaeda are the foremost suspects.

2000-Clinton orders the remains of TWA Flight 800 destroyed thus ending any possible further investigation into the downing.

2000-Bill Clinton has successfully cut the military in half over his eight years in office and blinded and effectively neutered our intelligence gathering ability.
2000-The Intelligence community around the world reports an "increase in traffic", which means more than usual interaction between terror cells which usually is a precursor of an attack somewhere in the world.

2001-Bill Clinton leaves office. Does he brief Bush on all the foreign terror information he has? Only they know.

2001-George W. Bush has 8 months in office before bin Laden launches his next attack on the US.

2002- Many Democrats start asking "What did the President know and when did he know it" ala Watergate, implying that GW knew the attacks were imminent and did nothing...ignoring all the attacks and warning signs that occurred under Bill Clinton.

2002- Bill Clinton continues to try and re-write history. Claiming he was "obsessed" with bin Laden. His aides and those that know him, say differently.

posted by konane  # 8:31 AM 8 comments

Thursday, September 7, 2006


Clintonistas assail ABC's "The Path to 9/11"

Wow, the Clintonistas are having a cow over airing of a docudrama about what lead up to 9-11 and want it censored.  Bet they had a party when they watched Fahren-hype 9-11 which is a compilation of conspiracy theories, the majority of which have been debunked especially how a plane hitting each of the twin towers brought them down.  There's even been a documentary on PBS which explains the physics of why.

Anyway back to the howling......  Seems what's fair for a seated President should be just fine for a has-been bunch of residents whose actions clearly precipitated 9-11. 

Just perhaps the ABC docudrama strikes too close to the heart of the truth damage control has been done to bury.  Big Grin

Next section in Clinton's own voice AND TRANSCRIPT OF HIS WORDS .... has been voice printed and verified and there exists a video of the speech too ... he explains not extraditing bin Laden when offered by the Sudan.  If he took bin Laden into custody 9-11 wouldn't have happened on American soil and history would be on a different track right now.


Clinton admitted that he turned down the Sudanese offer during a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association. The address was audiotaped by and videotaped by the LIA.
However, the LIA had declined to make a copy of their video available until the 9/11 Commission requested it last month. Meanwhile, the Clinton audio soundfile
has been available on since August 2002.


Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden
Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon
Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY
Feb. 15, 2002

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.

So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.

But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.

But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)

"Clinton Administration Officials Assail ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A09


Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."
posted by konane  # 10:20 AM 9 comments

Tuesday, September 5, 2006


Photo link Ground Zero 9-13-01

"These photos were taken at Ground Zero, the World Trade Center site in New York, on September 13, 2001.

They were taken by someone named "Ed" who was allowed into the area by a member of the emergency response crew, at a time when all civilians -- including most journalists -- were forbidden to enter the area. As a result, these photos are just about the only close-ups ever taken of the World Trade Center site so soon after the 9/11 attacks."

posted by konane  # 6:54 PM 1 comments

Tuesday, September 5, 2006


....Sets Aside Work on Immigration

If this is correct it is probably one of their smartest moves this year.  They also need to realize the momentum is NOT going to go quietly away after elections either.  Polls show around 67% of Americans want the border sealed and something done about immigration so it's far from over.... way too many grassroots organizations busy which likely explains their "change of heart."

G.O.P. Sets Aside Work on Immigration

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 — As they prepare for a critical pre-election legislative stretch, Congressional Republican leaders have all but abandoned a broad overhaul of immigration laws and instead will concentrate on national security issues they believe play to their political strength.

With Congress reconvening Tuesday after an August break, Republicans in the House and Senate say they will focus on Pentagon and domestic security spending bills, port security legislation and measures that would authorize the administration’s terror surveillance program and create military tribunals to try terror suspects.

“We Republicans believe that we have no choice in the war against terror and the only way to do it is to continue to take them head-on whether it is in Iraq or elsewhere,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.

A final decision on what do about immigration policy awaits a meeting this week of senior Republicans. But key lawmakers and aides who set the Congressional agenda say they now believe it would be politically risky to try to advance an immigration measure that would showcase party divisions and need to be completed in the 19 days Congress is scheduled to meet before breaking for the election."...............

posted by konane  # 9:09 AM 0 comments

Monday, September 4, 2006


Great article ...

He makes a very valid point about the left press in the US, that they don't take Islamafascist demands seriously, so what if they demand we convert ... no big deal. 

However, once you convert to Islam you can never go back to your former status under penalty of death.   

Yes, our own leftie moonbats are making decisions for us without having a fragment of a clue as to the path they're committing us to by making nice-nice negotiating with Islamafascists. 

Would you want someone without a brain making life impacting decisions for your life?  I don't because they don't have enough information and don't take seriously obvious facts which have been in place since the 7th century .... convert, be enslaved or die.



"Why abduct us? We cede our values for free

September 3, 2006


Source Chicago Sun Times



Did you see that video of the two Fox journalists announcing they'd converted to Islam? The larger problem, it seems to me, is that much of the rest of the Western media have also converted to Islam, and there seems to be no way to get them to convert back to journalism.


Consider, for example, the bizarre behavior of Reuters, the once globally respected news agency now reduced to putting out laughably inept terrorist propaganda. A few days ago, it made a big hoo-ha about the Israelis intentionally firing a missile at its press vehicle and wounding its cameraman Fadel Shana. Shana was posed in an artful sprawl in a blood-spattered shirt. But it had ridden up and underneath his undershirt was spotlessly white, like a summer-stock Julius Caesar revealing the boxers under his toga. What's stunning is not that almost all Western media organizations reporting from the Middle East are reliant on local staff overwhelmingly sympathetic to one side in the conflict -- that's been known for some time -- but the amateurish level of fakery that head office is willing to go along with.

Down at the other end of the news business, meanwhile, one finds items like this snippet from the Sydney Morning Herald:

"A 16-year-old girl was tailed by a car full of men before being dragged inside and assaulted in Sydney's west last night, police say . . .

"The three men involved in the attack were described to police as having dark 'mullet-style' haircuts."

Three men with "mullet-style" hair, huh? Not much to go on there. Bit of a head scratcher. But, as it turned out, the indefatigable Sydney Morning Herald typist had faithfully copied out every salient detail of the police report except one. Here's the statement the coppers themselves issued:

"Police are seeking three men described as being of Middle Eastern/Mediterranean appearance, with dark 'mullet-style' hair cuts."

That additional detail narrows it down a bit, wouldn't you say? The only reason I know that is because the Aussie Internet maestro Tim Blair grew curious about the epidemic of incidents committed by men of no known appearance and decided to look into it. One can understand the agonies the politically correct multicultural journalist must go through, distressed at the thought that an infelicitous phrasing might perpetuate unfortunate stereotypes of young Muslim males. But, even so, it's quite a leap to omit the most pertinent fact and leave the impression the Sydney constabulary are combing the city for mullets. The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby wrote the other day about how American children's books are "sacrificing truth on the altar of political correctness." But there seems to be quite a lot of that in the grown-up comics, too. And, as I've said before, it's never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. There may come a time when you need it.

It's striking how, for all this alleged multiculti sensitivity, we're mostly entirely insensitive to other cultures: We find it all but impossible to imagine how differently they view the world. Go back to that video in which Fox's Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig announced their conversion to Islam. The moment the men were released, the Western media and their colleagues wrote off the scene as a stunt, a cunning ruse, of no more consequence than yelling "Behind you! He's got a gun!" and then kicking your distracted kidnapper in the teeth. Indeed, a few Web sites seemed to see the Islamic conversion routine as a useful get-out-of-jail-free card.

Don't bet on it. In my forthcoming book, I devote a few pages to a thriller I read as a boy -- an old potboiler by Sherlock Holmes' creator, Arthur Conan Doyle. In 1895 Sir Arthur had taken his sick wife to Egypt for her health, and, not wishing to waste the local color, produced a slim novel called The Tragedy of the Korosko, about a party of Anglo-American-French tourists taken hostage by the Mahdists, the jihadi of the day. Much of the story finds the characters in the same predicament as Centanni and Wiig: The kidnappers are offering them a choice between Islam or death. Conan Doyle's Britons and Americans and Europeans were men and women of the modern world even then:

"None of them, except perhaps Miss Adams and Mrs. Belmont, had any deep religious convictions. All of them were children of this world, and some of them disagreed with everything which that symbol upon the earth represented."

"That symbol" is the cross. Yet in the end, even as men with no religious convictions, they cannot bring themselves to submit to Islam, for they understand it to be not just a denial of Christ but in some sense a denial of themselves, too. So they stall and delay and bog down the imam in a lot of technical questions until eventually he wises up and they're condemned to death.

One hundred ten years later, for the Fox journalists and the Western media who reported their release, what's the big deal? Wear robes, change your name to Khaled, go on camera and drop Allah's name hither and yon: If that's your ticket out, seize it. Everyone'll know it's just a sham.

But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade. In his new book The Conservative Soul, attempting to reconcile his sexual temperament and his alleged political one, Time magazine's gay Tory Andrew Sullivan enthuses, "By letting go, we become. By giving up, we gain. And we learn how to live -- now, which is the only time that matters." That's almost a literal restatement of Faust's bargain with the devil:

"When to the moment I shall say
'Linger awhile! so fair thou art!'
Then mayst thou fetter me straightway
Then to the abyss will I depart!"

In other words, if Faust becomes so enthralled by "the moment" that he wants to live in it forever, the devil will have him for all eternity. In the Muslim world, they watch the Centanni/Wiig video and see men so in love with the present, the now, that they will do or say anything to live in the moment. And they draw their own conclusions -- that these men are easier to force into the car than that 16-year-old girl in Sydney was. It doesn't matter how "understandable" Centanni and Wiig's actions are to us, what the target audience understands is quite different: that there is nothing we're willing to die for. And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead.

© Mark Steyn, 2006

posted by konane  # 11:11 AM 0 comments

Sunday, September 3, 2006


Convert or Else

Found this on Powerline.  Hey at least Nazi-spawn-Islamafascists are telling the truth for a change .... Islam ruling the entire world.

"Al Qaeda Says: Convert or Else!


Al Qaeda has released a new video, with an introduction by Zawahiri, that stars an American formerly known as Adam Yehiye Gadahn. Gadahn, who has been featured in al Qaeda videos before, urges all Americans to avoid the wrath of al Qaeda by converting to Islam.


Al Qaeda's public relations efforts have always been a little clumsy, in part, I think, because the terrorists follow Western media so closely. Their videos tend to echo Democratic Party talking points--the famous bin Laden effort just before the 2002 Presidential election was straight out of Michael Moore--and it's understandable that, based on what they see in American media, they expect the American people to be persuaded.

This time, Gadahn's message is conversion: "..................

posted by konane  # 3:06 PM 3 comments

Saturday, September 2, 2006


Miller Beer Funding Illegals Marches

From email

Miller Beer Phone Numbers


Milwaukee: 414.931.2000
Miller corporate headquarters) [takes you to a recording; callers should press "0" to talk to operator>

Eden, NC: 336.627.2100
(Miller regional brewery)

Trenton, OH: 513.896.9200
(regional brewery) [get recorded list of departments {e.g., plant mgr., brewing, etc.}

Albany, GA: 229.420.5000
(regional brewery) [takes you to a recording; callers should press "0" to talk to operator>

Ft. Worth, TX: 817.551.3300
(regional brewery) [press "1" to get list of departments>

Irwindale, CA: 626.969.6811
(regional brewery) [get recorded list of departments>

Chippewa Falls, WI: 715.723.5558/888.534.6437
(LEINIES) (Leinenkugel brewery ["Leinie's Lodge">)


The Chicago Tribune seems to have broken the story this morning.

The background is that the illegal-alien marchers last spring discovered that Miller had given a small campaign contribution to a fellow Wisconsin resident, Rep. Sensenbrenner, who was the father of the H.R. 4437 enforcement bill that the marchers were protesting.

The marchers called for a nationwide Hispanic boycott of Miller beer.

Miller immediately caved and said their corporation is against H.R. 4437.

Now, it seems that Miller thinks it has more to gain from illegal alien supporters than from the majority of Americans who want illegal immigration ended (and unrewarded). Just read the Tribune story. You'll be amazed.

Why this immigrant rights march is brought to you by Miller

By Oscar Avila
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 1, 2006

Marchers had to duck into fast-food restaurants for water when they first took to Chicago's streets in support of illegal immigrants five months ago. At the next two marches, family-owned grocery stores offered free bottled water from trucks emblazoned with their names.

This time, as demonstrators march from Chinatown to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) Batavia office this weekend, they will have Miller Brewing Co., as a sponsor. The brewer has paid more than $30,000 for a planning convention, materials and newspaper ads publicizing the event.

The support of a major corporation for a controversial political cause shows how fierce the competition has become to woo the growing market of Latino consumers.

For Miller, the march offered a special chance to catch up. This spring the brewer drew the ire of pro-immigrant forces over contributions to U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who sponsored legislation that would crack down on illegal immigrants. That prompted a short-lived boycott by some Latino groups.

Now, march advertisements feature not just the organizing committee's trademark blue globe but Miller's logo and a Spanish translation of its "Live Responsibly" slogan, a company effort to build goodwill among Latinos.

But this march is no Cinco de Mayo parade. The politically charged event will promote a controversial plan to end deportations and offer legal status for all 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants. That creates potential pitfalls for any businesses lending support, experts say.

At the same time business sponsorships have forced activists to confront whispers that they are commercializing their movement when they accept much-needed donations.

"We would love to have 20 corporate logos. It doesn't mean we are selling the movement out," said Jorge Mujica, a member of the March 10 Committee. "The principles and demands remain the same. They are helping out this movement and we are happy with that."

Labor unions remain the movement's backbone with four major unions bringing at least 600 marchers on buses from throughout Chicago. Religious groups have been key too. Some marchers will bed down in churches and a mosque.

But businesses have become vital to this weekend's Immigrant Workers Justice Walk, which will cover 45 miles to Hastert's district office. Hundreds of marchers plan to cover the entire span from Friday through Monday, and organizers need food and water for them.

Sometimes political and commercial messages are mingled.

At a July march, Chicago-based food producer V&V Supremo printed signs with its logo that urged "Moratorium Now, Legalization Yes."

Jimenez Market, an area chain, had its sign on display as workers passed out more than 5,000 bottles of water and other supplies worth nearly $17,000. Co-owner Jose Perez acknowledged it is good publicity but stressed that "we are supporting our people. Without them, our business would go downhill."

This weekend, the Los Comales restaurant plans to donate 500 tortas, Mexican sandwiches filled with steak, ham and other toppings. The Laredo Bakery is donating bread while other restaurants are donating water, fruit and other supplies, organizers said.

Those businesses are natural allies--"part of the same brotherhood," as one marketer put it.

But the presence of Miller at a welcoming reception the day before the Aug. 12-13 planning convention raised eyebrows.

The convention brought together labor unions, anti-war groups, immigrant service organizations and even socialist political candidates.

Hours before bashing NAFTA and U.S. foreign policy, participants at the Aug. 11 reception mingled with the Miller Girls, the company's public relations ambassadors, amid a display of Miller logos.

That Miller was involved in the first place is one measure of the growing power of immigrants. After the boycott announcement, the company approached march organizers to try to find common ground, and agreed to back the march organizers' efforts.

Miller is also bankrolling informational ads in Voces Migrantes, or Migrant Voices, a community newspaper in Chicago, and has promised scholarships for area Latinos.

Mathew Romero, the company's local market development manager, said Miller felt it was important to speak out against Sensenbrenner's legislation, though his campaign was one of many the company supported.

Romero noted that company founder Frederick Miller was a German immigrant and many current executives are foreign nationals. Miller is now part of London-based SABMiller.

Romero said he wasn't worried that some opponents of illegal immigration would be upset at the company's support of "the free movement of people, labor, goods and services."

"As long as you are stacking facts against facts, they are free to make their own decisions. We will stand by our positions," he said.

George San Jose, president of the San Jose Group, a Chicago-based marketing company specializing in the Hispanic market, said he understands why companies chase Hispanic purchasing power, which tops $700 billion annually in the U.S. Brewers, he said, have been especially aggressive.

But San Jose would advise clients that there are better ways.

"A company sponsoring one of the two sides of the immigration debate is no different than a company sponsoring groups for or against abortion [rights>. It's one of those heated political debates that companies should stay clear of," he said.

At the request of march organizers, media executive Robert Armband sent e-mails to thousands of business contacts, asking if they would consider helping the March 10 Committee.

"It certainly is an opportunity to reach the masses, but it might not be the right vehicle to come out as a sponsor," said Armband, publisher and chief executive of La Raza, a Chicago newspaper.

March organizers say they have not made any full-fledged sales pitches to major corporations and are having internal discussions about whether they should make a real push. That can be a tough decision, according to march organizer Gabe Gonzalez.

Gonzalez said he represents those in the movement--maybe half the total, he thinks -- who don't even consider themselves capitalists. Many have been involved with labor campaigns targeting specific companies.

March organizers shot down a suggestion that they approach Coca-Cola, for example, because of what they perceive as the company's labor abuses in the developing world, a cause celebre among liberal activists.

Although immigrant activists see legalization as an issue of social justice, Gonzalez said corporations might back the idea as a way to protect their bottom line. Whatever the motivations, Gonzalez said he would cooperate with almost any company willing to back the cause.

"That's the nature of politics. You form coalitions based on mutual self-interest," Gonzalez said. "So will we work with corporations? We will work with anyone who will work with us."

posted by konane  # 12:59 PM 4 comments

Friday, September 1, 2006


Now it's "Migration Accord"

Interesting spin on terms .... shoving amnesty in every orifice is now being PC sanitized as ...."securing a migration accord with the U.S.  Notice the word migration.

Also interesting how that loving, benevolent, peaceful, socialist faction saying they're going to ignore election results and have plans to create a parallel government and rule from the streets."

Seems we've already had a flashing neon preview of that exact mindset during the immigration rallies last spring.

Washington is attempting to sell us a blivet all wrapped up with a pretty bow on top. 

"Mexican Lawmakers Block Fox's Speech

Associated Press Writer


MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Vicente Fox was forced to forego the last state-of-the-nation address of his presidency Friday after leftist lawmakers stormed the stage of Congress to protest disputed July 2 elections.".......

.........."The standoff came six days before the top electoral court must declare a president-elect or annul the July 2 vote and order a new election. So far, rulings have favored ruling party candidate Felipe Calderon, who was ahead by about 240,000 votes in the official count.

Lopez Obrador has already said he won't recognize the electoral court's decision, and he plans to create a parallel government and rule from the streets."..........


.........."Fox, a former Coca-Cola executive, ushered in economic stability and brought inflation to record lows, but he has been unable to secure a migration accord with the U.S. or significantly reduce poverty. "

posted by konane  # 11:42 PM 2 comments


May 2024   April 2024   March 2024   February 2024   January 2024   December 2023   November 2023   October 2023   September 2023   August 2023   July 2023   June 2023   May 2023   April 2023   March 2023   February 2023   January 2023   December 2022   November 2022   October 2022   September 2022   August 2022   July 2022   June 2022   May 2022   April 2022   March 2022   February 2022   January 2022   December 2021   November 2021   October 2021   September 2021   August 2021   July 2021   June 2021   May 2021   April 2021   March 2021   February 2021   January 2021   December 2020   November 2020   October 2020   September 2020   August 2020   July 2020   June 2020   May 2020   April 2020   March 2020   February 2020   January 2020   December 2019   November 2019   October 2019   September 2019   August 2019   July 2019   June 2019   May 2019   April 2019   March 2019   February 2019   January 2019   December 2018   November 2018   October 2018   September 2018   August 2018   July 2018   June 2018   May 2018   April 2018   March 2018   February 2018   January 2018   December 2017   November 2017   October 2017   September 2017   August 2017   July 2017   June 2017   May 2017   April 2017   March 2017   February 2017   January 2017   December 2016   November 2016   January 2013   October 2011   September 2011   August 2011   July 2011   June 2011   May 2011   March 2011   January 2011   December 2010   October 2010   September 2010   August 2010   July 2010   June 2010   May 2010   April 2010   March 2010   February 2010   January 2010   December 2009   November 2009   October 2009   September 2009   August 2009   July 2009   June 2009   May 2009   April 2009   March 2009   February 2009   January 2009   December 2008   November 2008   October 2008   September 2008   August 2008   July 2008   June 2008   May 2008   April 2008   March 2008   February 2008   January 2008   December 2007   November 2007   October 2007   April 2007   March 2007   February 2007   January 2007   December 2006   November 2006   October 2006   September 2006   August 2006   July 2006   June 2006   May 2006   April 2006   March 2006   February 2006   January 2006   December 2005   November 2005   October 2005   September 2005   August 2005   July 2005   June 2005   March 2005   November 2004   October 2004  

Powered by Lottery PostSyndicated RSS FeedSubscribe