Transcript: President Bush explains how CIA secret prison program 'saved lives'
RAW STORYPublished: Wednesday September 6, 2006
In a White House speech today, President Bush acknowledged the existence of CIA secret prisons and explained how the program had "saved lives."
"In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency," said Bush.
"This group includes individuals believed to be the key architects of the September the 11th attacks and attacks on the USS Cole, an operative involved in the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and individuals involved in other attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians across the world," Bush continued.
"I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks here in the United Stats and across the world," said Bush.
Transcript of Bush's remarks:
#
PRESIDENT BUSH: (Applause.) Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the White House. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Gonzales, Ambassador Negroponte, General Hayden, members of the United States Congress, families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on our nation, my fellow citizens, thanks for coming.
On the morning of September the 11th, 2001, our nation awoke to a nightmare attack. Nineteen men, armed with box cutters, took control of airplanes and turned them into missiles. They used them to kill nearly 3,000 innocent people. We watched the twin towers collapse before our eyes. And it became instantly clear that we'd entered a new world and a dangerous new war.
The attacks of September the 11th horrified our nation. And amid the grief came new fears and urgent questions: Who had attacked us? What did they want? And what else were they planning?
Americans saw the destruction the terrorists had caused in New York, and Washington, and Pennsylvania, and they wondered if there were other terror cells in our midst poised to strike. They wondered if there was a second wave of attacks still to come.
With the twin towers and the Pentagon still smoldering, our country on edge, and a stream of intelligence coming in about potential new attacks, my administration faced immediate challenges. We had to respond to the attack on our country. We had to wage an unprecedented war against an enemy unlike any we had fought before. We had to find the terrorists hiding in America and across the world before they were able to strike our country again. So in the early days and weeks after 9/11, I directed our government's senior national security officials to do everything in their power, within our laws, to prevent another attack.
Nearly five years have passed since these -- the -- those initial days of shock and sadness, and we are thankful that the terrorists have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil. This is not for the lack of desire or determination on the part of the enemy. As the recently foiled plot in London shows, the terrorists are still active, and they're still trying to strike America, and they're still -- still trying to kill our people.
One reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because of the hard work of thousands of dedicated men and women in our government who have toiled day and night, along with our allies, to stop the enemy from carrying out their plans. And we are grateful for these hardworking citizens of ours.
Another reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because our government has changed its policies and given our military, intelligence and law enforcement personnel the tools they need to fight this enemy and protect our people and preserve our freedoms.
The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation, they defend no territory, and they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society. They send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations. They live quietly among their victims. They conspire in secret, and then they strike without warning.
In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where the operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are under way. This intelligence -- this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place, and our security depends on getting this kind of information. To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world.
After the 9/11 attacks, our coalition launched operations across the world to remove terrorist safe havens and capture or kill terrorist operatives and leaders. Working with our allies, we've captured and detained thousands of terrorists and enemy fighters in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other fronts of this war on terror. These enemy -- these are enemy combatants who are waging war on our nation. We have a right under the laws of war, and we have an obligation to the American people to detain these enemies and stop them from rejoining the battle. Most of the enemy combatants we capture are held in Afghanistan or in Iraq, where they're questioned by our military personnel.
Many are released after questioning or turned over to local authorities if we determine that they do not pose a continuing threat and no longer have significant intelligence value. Others remain in American custody near the battlefield to ensure that they don't return to the fight.
In some cases we determine that individuals we have captured pose a significant threat or may have intelligence that we and our allies need to --- need to have to prevent new attacks. Many are al Qaeda operatives or Taliban fighters trying to conceal their identities, and they withhold information that could save American lives. In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts and, when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts.
Some of these individuals are taken to the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo. These aren't common criminals or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield. We have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo. Those held at Guantanamo include suspected bomb makers, terrorist trainers, recruiters and facilitators, and potential suicide bombers.
They are in our custody so they cannot murder our people. One detainee held at Guantanamo told a questioner (at ?) questioning -- he said this: "I'll never forget your face. I will kill you, your brothers, your mother and your sisters."
In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.
This group includes individuals believed to be the key architects of the September the 11th attacks and attacks on the USS Cole, an operative involved in the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and individuals involved in other attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians across the world.
These are dangerous men with unparalleled knowledge about terrorist networks and their plans of new attacks. The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know.
Many specifics of this program, including where the detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged. Doing so would provide our enemies with information they could use to take retribution against our allies and harm our country. I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks here in the United Stats and across the world.
Today I'm going to share with you some of the examples provided by our intelligence community of how this program has saved lives, why it remains vital to the security of the United States and our friends and allies, and why it deserves the support of the United States Congress and the American people.
Within months of September the 11th, 2001, we captured a man named Abu Zubaydah. We believed that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained and that he helped smuggle al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country.
Zubaydah was severely wounded during the firefight that brought him into custody, and he survived only because of the medical care arranged by the CIA. After he recovered, Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. He declared his hatred of America. During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information, and then stopped all cooperation.
Well, in fact the nominal information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or KSM, was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and used the alias Moqtar (sp).
This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM.
Zubaydah also provided information to help stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States, an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the U.S., and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained, one while traveling to the United States.
We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why. If I did, it would help the terrorist learn how to resist questioning and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.
Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks, a terrorist named Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al-Shibh. And together, these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody, a terrorist named Majeen Khan (sp). KSM revealed that Khan (sp) had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asia's affiliate known as JI. CIA officers confronted Khan (sp) with this information. Khan (sp) confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zuber (sp) and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.
Based on that information, Zuber (sp) was captured in June of 2003, and he soon provided information that helped lead to the capture of Hambali. After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a JI cell and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda.
Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and in turn led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian JI operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States, probably using airplanes.
During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans.
For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows. KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent, and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazeed. KSM apparently believed we already had this information because Yazeed had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest.
In fact, we did not know about Yazid's role in al Qaeda's anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.
These are some of the plots that have been stopped because of the information of this vital program.
Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop the planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. They were going to use an explosive-laden water tanker. They've helped stop a planned attack on U.S. -- on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs. And they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.
We're getting vital information necessary to do our jobs, and that's protect the American people and our allies.
Information from the terrorists in this program has helped us to identify individuals that al Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations, many of whom we had never heard about before. They include terrorists who were sent to case targets inside the United States, including financial buildings in major cities on the East Coast. Information from terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al Qaeda member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies since this program began.
By providing everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding, this program has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they were able to kill.
This program has also played a critical role in helping us understand the enemy we face in this war. Terrorists in this program have painted a picture of al Qaeda's structure and financing and communications and logistics.
They have identified al Qaeda's travel routes and safe havens, and explained how al Qaeda's senior leadership communications with its operatives in places like Iraq. They provide information that allows us -- that has allowed us to make sense of documents and computer records that we have seized in terrorist raids.
They've identified voices in recordings of intercepted calls and helped us understand the meaning of potentially critical terrorist communications.
The information we get from these detainees is corroborated by intelligence, and we receive -- that we have received from other sources. And together this intelligence has helped us connect the dots and stop attacks before they occur.
Information from the terrorists questioned in this program helped unravel plots in terrorist cells in Europe and in other places. It's helped our allies protect their people from deadly enemies.
This program has been and remains one of the most vital tools in our war against the terrorists. It is invaluable to America and to our allies.
Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By giving us information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives.
This program has been subject to multiple legal reviews by the Department of Justice and CIA lawyers. They've determined it complied with our laws. This program has received strict oversight by the CIA's inspector general. A small number of key leaders from both political parties on Capitol Hill were briefed about this program. All those involved in the questioning of the terrorists are carefully chosen, and they're screened from a pool of experienced CIA officers. Those selected to conduct the most sensitive questioning had to complete more than 250 additional hours of specialized training before they are allowed to have contact with a -- captured terrorists.
I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world. The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it.
Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standards for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.
The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorist at any given time. And once we have determined that the terrorists held by the CIA have little or no additional intelligence value, many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments. Others have been accused of terrible crimes against the American people, and we have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice. So we intend to prosecute these men, as appropriate, for their crimes.
Soon after the war on terror began, I authorized a system of military commissions to try foreign terrorists accused of war crimes. Military commissions have been used by presidents from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt to prosecute war criminals because the rules for trying enemy combatants in a time of conflict must be different from those for trying common criminals or members of our own military.
One of the first suspected terrorists to be put on trial by military commission was one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, a man named Hamdan. His lawyers challenged the legality of the military commission system. It took more than two years for this case to make its way through the courts. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the military commissions we had designed, but this past June, the Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Supreme Court determined that military commissions are an appropriate venue for trying terrorists, but ruled that military commissions needed to be explicitly authorized by the United States Congress.
So today I'm sending Congress legislation to specifically authorize the creation of military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes. My administration has been working with members of both parties in the House and Senate on this legislation. We've put forward a bill that ensures these commissions are established in a way that protects our national security and ensures a full and fair trial for those accused. The procedures in the bill I am sending to Congress today reflect the reality that we are a nation at war and that it is essential for us to use all reliable evidence to bring these people to justice.
We're now approaching the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and the families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice. Some of the families are with us today. They should have to wait no longer.
So I'm announcing today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) They are being held in the custody of the Department of Defense.
As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice. (Cheers, applause.)
We will also seek to prosecute those believed to be responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, and an operative believed to be involved in the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
With these prosecutions, we will send a clear message to those who kill Americans: No longer (sic\matter) how long it takes, we will find you and we will bring you to justice. (Applause.)
These men will be held in a high-security facility at Guantanamo. The International Committee of the Red Cross is being advised of their detention and will have the opportunity to meet with them.
Those charged with crimes will be given access to attorneys who will help them prepare their defense, and they will be presumed innocent.
While at Guantanamo, they will have access to the same food, clothing, medical care and opportunities for worship as other detainees. They will be questioned subject to the new U.S. Army Field Manual, which the Department of Defense is issuing today. And they will continue to be treated with the humanity that they denied others.
As we move forward with the prosecutions, we will continue to urge nations across the world to take back their nationals at Guantanamo, who will not be prosecuted by our military commissions. America has no interest in being the world's jailer.
But one of the reasons we have not been able to close Guantanamo is that many countries have refused to take back their nationals held at the facility. Other countries have not provided adequate assurances that their nationals will not be mistreated or they will not return to the battlefield, as more than a dozen people released from Guantanamo already have.
We will continue working to transfer individuals held at Guantanamo and ask other countries to work with us in this process. And we will move toward the day when we can eventually close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
I know Americans have heard conflicting information about Guantanamo. Let me give you some facts. Of the thousands of terrorists captured across the world, only about 770 have ever been sent to Guantanamo. Of these, about 315 have been returned to other countries so far, and about 455 remain in our custody. They are provided the same quality of medical care as the American service members who guard them. The International Committee of the Red Cross has the opportunity to meet privately with all who are held there.
The facility has been visited by government officials from more than 30 countries, and delegations from international or organizations, as well. After the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe came to visit, one of its delegation members called Guantanamo a model prison, where people are treated better than in prisons in his own country.
Our troops can take great pride in the work they do at Guantanamo Bay, and so can the American people.
As we prosecute suspected terrorist leaders and operatives who have now been transferred to Guantanamo, we'll continue searching for those who have stepped forward to take their places. This nation's going to stay on the offense to protect the American people. We will continue to bring the world's most dangerous terrorists to justice, and we will continue working to collect the vital intelligence we need to protect our country.
The current transfers mean that there are now no terrorists in the CIA program. But as more high-ranking terrorists are captured, the need to obtain intelligence from them will remain critical, and having a CIA program for questioning terrorists will continue to be crucial to getting lifesaving information.
Some ask, why are you acknowledging this program now? There are two reasons why I'm making these limited disclosures today.
First, we have largely completed our questioning of the men, and to start the process for bringing them to trial, we must bring them into the open.
Second, the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3 applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit outrageous upon personal dignity and humiliating and degrading treatment. The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article 3 are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by an American or foreign judges.
And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.
This is unacceptable. Our military and intelligence personnel go face to face with the world's most dangerous men every day. They have risked their lives to capture some of the most brutal terrorists on earth, and they have worked day and night to find out what the terrorists know so we can stop new attacks. America owes our brave men and women some things in return; we owe them their (sic) thanks for saving lives and keeping America safe, and we owe them clear rules so they can continue to do their jobs and protect our people.
So I'm -- today I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I am asking Congress to list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.
Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.
The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives.
My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted, but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority. (Applause.)
As we work with Congress to pass a good bill, we will also consult with congressional leaders on how to ensure that the CIA program goes forward in a way that follows the law, that meets the national security needs of our country, and protects the brave men and women we ask to obtain information that will save innocent lives.
For the sake of our security, Congress needs to act and update our laws to meet the threats of this new era, and I know they will.
We're engaged in a global struggle, and the entire civilized world has a stake in its outcome. America is a nation of law, and as I work with Congress to strengthen and clarify our laws here at home, I will continue to work with members of the international community who have been our partners in this struggle. I've spoken with leaders of foreign governments and worked with them to address their concerns about Guantanamo and our detention policies. I'll continue to work with the international community to construct a common foundation to defend our nations and protect our freedoms.
Free nations have faced new enemies and adjusted to new threats before, and we have prevailed. Like the struggles of the last century, today's war on terror is, above all, a struggle for freedom and liberty. The adversaries are different, but the stakes in this war are the same. We're fighting for our way of life and our ability to live in freedom. We're fighting for the cause of humanity against those who seek to impose the darkness of tyranny and terror upon the entire world. And we're fighting for a peaceful future for our children and our grandchildren.
May God bless you all. (Applause.)
#
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Orthodox Jew forced off plane for praying
Canada: Orthodox Jew forced off planeBy JPOST.COM STAFFReport: Flight attendant says praying was making other passengers nervous.
Israeli firms take part in defense expo at site of WW II massacreBy YAAKOV KATZIsraeli defense delegation: Participation at the expo demonstrates the "might and strength" of Israel and Jewish nation.
UK MPs find leap in anti-SemitismBy GEORGE CONGERCriticism of Israel used as 'pretext' to foment hatred.
Jewish-Anglican pact upsets Arab clericsBy GEORGE CONGERBishop Riah Abu al-Assal of Jerusalem: Arab Christian leaders had not been properly consulted.
AJC mission hosts debate on warBy CHANAN WEISSMANThe 120-member delegation met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who welcomed the committee by stating the positive outcomes of the war.
3 French Arabs get 9 months in jail for anti-Semitic assaultBy MICHEL ZLOTOWSKIThe defense lawyer denied any anti-Semitic intent, saying the three didn't intend to go on a Jew-beating rampage but were simply drunk.
AJC: Egypt, Israel share concern on IranBy HERB KEINONOfficial: Egyptian sentiments likely discussed in private with diplomats.
Jewish groups angry at US over Khatami visitBy NATHAN GUTTMANEx-president will be top Iranian let in since '79.
'Arab propaganda outdoes Nazis'By RYAN NADELADL head Foxman notes ironic motif of Israeli control over UN in Mideast press.
Chief rabbis to visit ArchbishopBy JOHNNY PAULMeeting is "important symbol" that the church's ear is open to the Jewish voice.
WJC warns PM of rise in anti-SemitismBy MATTHEW WAGNERSinger: Lebanon war undermined idea that Israel was impervious and all-powerful.
Israeli firms take part in defense expo at site of WW II massacreBy YAAKOV KATZIsraeli defense delegation: Participation at the expo demonstrates the "might and strength" of Israel and Jewish nation.
UK MPs find leap in anti-SemitismBy GEORGE CONGERCriticism of Israel used as 'pretext' to foment hatred.
Jewish-Anglican pact upsets Arab clericsBy GEORGE CONGERBishop Riah Abu al-Assal of Jerusalem: Arab Christian leaders had not been properly consulted.
AJC mission hosts debate on warBy CHANAN WEISSMANThe 120-member delegation met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who welcomed the committee by stating the positive outcomes of the war.
3 French Arabs get 9 months in jail for anti-Semitic assaultBy MICHEL ZLOTOWSKIThe defense lawyer denied any anti-Semitic intent, saying the three didn't intend to go on a Jew-beating rampage but were simply drunk.
AJC: Egypt, Israel share concern on IranBy HERB KEINONOfficial: Egyptian sentiments likely discussed in private with diplomats.
Jewish groups angry at US over Khatami visitBy NATHAN GUTTMANEx-president will be top Iranian let in since '79.
'Arab propaganda outdoes Nazis'By RYAN NADELADL head Foxman notes ironic motif of Israeli control over UN in Mideast press.
Chief rabbis to visit ArchbishopBy JOHNNY PAULMeeting is "important symbol" that the church's ear is open to the Jewish voice.
WJC warns PM of rise in anti-SemitismBy MATTHEW WAGNERSinger: Lebanon war undermined idea that Israel was impervious and all-powerful.
Raw
Feds probe reports that DeLay's wife had 'no-show' job
Rove 'tried to get Abramoff, gay stepdad removed from book'
Book set to reveal Bush inner sanctum in lead-up to war: A President's seeming personal vendetta; Cheney aides mistook grazing hole for WMD hiding place...
ABC refuses to give 'Path to 9/11' tapes to Clinton, Albright
Rove 'tried to get Abramoff, gay stepdad removed from book'
Book set to reveal Bush inner sanctum in lead-up to war: A President's seeming personal vendetta; Cheney aides mistook grazing hole for WMD hiding place...
ABC refuses to give 'Path to 9/11' tapes to Clinton, Albright
War Backfiring on U.S., Khatami Says
War Backfiring on U.S., Khatami SaysEx-Iranian President Also Calls Strikes Against His Country Unlikely
By Robin WrightWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, September 6, 2006; A04
NEW YORK -- On the eve of his first trip to Washington, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami warned that U.S. military action in the Middle East has backfired, producing greater terrorism, imperiling the future of Iraq and damaging America's long-term interests.
But the danger of even greater instability in the region will ultimately prevent the United States from launching military strikes against Iran over disputes about its nuclear intentions, he predicted. Although an attack on Iran would create "great damage," Khatami said, "prudence and wisdom" are likely to prevail because of the incalculable "detriment and damage" it would cause to both the region and the United States.
"America will not make the mistake of attacking Iran," he said, adding: "Iran is not Iraq."
In a wide-ranging interview Monday night, Khatami said Iran is not intent on eliminating Israel and accepts a two-state solution that includes both Israel and a new Palestine -- on terms acceptable to the Palestinians. He basically contradicted the recent angry rhetoric of his hard-line successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
"The practical policy of the Islamic republic has never been to eliminate or wipe Israel off the map. And I don't believe that this policy has changed with the change of president," Khatami said in an interview in New York, where he is attending a United Nations conference. "You've never heard me reject the right of anyone to exist," added Khatami, who is scheduled to speak at the University of Virginia and the Washington National Cathedral on Thursday.
Khatami ran for office as a reformer and served the two-term presidential limit from 1997 until 2005. Many of his proposed domestic reforms -- from press freedoms to limiting the 12-member Council of Guardians' veto powers -- were blocked by hard-liners now in ascendance. Much of Iran's foreign policy, however, is formulated by consensus after intense debate among its disparate political factions.
Khatami called concern about nuclear proliferation generally "very justified" and insisted that Tehran has not rejected U.S.-backed incentives to end uranium enrichment for its nuclear energy program, a process that can be subverted to develop a nuclear weapon. A U.N. resolution called for Iran to suspend enrichment by Aug. 31 or face punitive action.
"The package has not been rejected," he said, adding that Iran does not yet trust guarantees from the international community that it will have long-term access to fuel for energy, given past failed promises. "The situation can best be resolved by not going toward action that could exacerbate the situation," he said.
On Iraq's future, he said all countries should "seriously and steadfastly" strive to prevent a civil war. He blamed the violence on terrorists who claim to act in the name of religion but instead undermine it.
He warned, however, that Iraq reflects the failure of U.S. policy. "So far, whenever the United States has tried to solve its disputes through military means, it has not achieved its objectives -- and also not solved the problem it meant to solve," he said.
A Shiite cleric who wears the black turban of a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, Khatami expressed regret that he and President Bill Clinton could not do more after both took tentative steps to heal relations severed by the 1979 U.S. Embassy seizure, when 52 Americans were held for 444 days.
"The misunderstanding and mistrust between the two sides was so deep that it could not be solved with these simple minor steps," he said. "The pressure that existed on both sides also meant that we had to proceed with caution." Khatami had publicly called for both sides to bring down the wall of mistrust and encouraged cultural exchanges, and Clinton lifted sanctions on carpets, pistachios and caviar from Iran.
The Bush administration's policies have since deepened tensions between Tehran and Washington, said Khatami, who now heads the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, which is based in Tehran and Geneva. Although Iran favored the Taliban's ouster from Afghanistan and an Iranian-backed Afghan movement worked with U.S. Special Forces to topple it in 2001, Khatami complained that President Bush turned around three months later and labeled Iran a member of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea.
In Iraq, Khatami said Tehran had also recognized the U.S.-orchestrated transition governments and elections, while not insisting that the Shiite majority inherit power. "Why is it that Iran is still under so much pressure and is attacked so often by the U.S. administration, even though it cooperated in this manner?" he said. "Unfortunately, with these policies, more bricks will only be added to the wall of mistrust."
The Bush administration has repeatedly charged that Iran has undermined the political transitions in both neighboring countries while also arming and funding some of Iraq's illegal militias. Iran has long been on the State Department's list as the leading state sponsor of extremist groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
Khatami said Hezbollah's 34-day war with Israel has produced a surge of popularity throughout the Islamic world for Lebanon's Shiite movement. Most of Hezbollah's weaponry is provided by Iran.
Khatami's trip has become increasingly controversial since his arrival last Thursday. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday ordered state agencies to refuse any form of support, including police escort, for Khatami's speech at Harvard on Sunday.
"State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney said in a statement released by his office. Romney, a potential Republican presidential candidate, called Harvard's decision to invite Khatami a "disgrace."
As it does with current and former heads of state visiting the United States, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security is providing protection for Khatami's 13-member entourage, which includes two of his children, during his tour of New York, Chicago, Washington, Boston and Charlottesville.
In the most unusual stop of his visit, Khatami is scheduled to tour Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home in Charlottesville. Khatami has called Jefferson a "character dear to us all." The third president is particularly popular among Middle Eastern reformers because he wrote extensively about religion and democracy.
By Robin WrightWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, September 6, 2006; A04
NEW YORK -- On the eve of his first trip to Washington, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami warned that U.S. military action in the Middle East has backfired, producing greater terrorism, imperiling the future of Iraq and damaging America's long-term interests.
But the danger of even greater instability in the region will ultimately prevent the United States from launching military strikes against Iran over disputes about its nuclear intentions, he predicted. Although an attack on Iran would create "great damage," Khatami said, "prudence and wisdom" are likely to prevail because of the incalculable "detriment and damage" it would cause to both the region and the United States.
"America will not make the mistake of attacking Iran," he said, adding: "Iran is not Iraq."
In a wide-ranging interview Monday night, Khatami said Iran is not intent on eliminating Israel and accepts a two-state solution that includes both Israel and a new Palestine -- on terms acceptable to the Palestinians. He basically contradicted the recent angry rhetoric of his hard-line successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
"The practical policy of the Islamic republic has never been to eliminate or wipe Israel off the map. And I don't believe that this policy has changed with the change of president," Khatami said in an interview in New York, where he is attending a United Nations conference. "You've never heard me reject the right of anyone to exist," added Khatami, who is scheduled to speak at the University of Virginia and the Washington National Cathedral on Thursday.
Khatami ran for office as a reformer and served the two-term presidential limit from 1997 until 2005. Many of his proposed domestic reforms -- from press freedoms to limiting the 12-member Council of Guardians' veto powers -- were blocked by hard-liners now in ascendance. Much of Iran's foreign policy, however, is formulated by consensus after intense debate among its disparate political factions.
Khatami called concern about nuclear proliferation generally "very justified" and insisted that Tehran has not rejected U.S.-backed incentives to end uranium enrichment for its nuclear energy program, a process that can be subverted to develop a nuclear weapon. A U.N. resolution called for Iran to suspend enrichment by Aug. 31 or face punitive action.
"The package has not been rejected," he said, adding that Iran does not yet trust guarantees from the international community that it will have long-term access to fuel for energy, given past failed promises. "The situation can best be resolved by not going toward action that could exacerbate the situation," he said.
On Iraq's future, he said all countries should "seriously and steadfastly" strive to prevent a civil war. He blamed the violence on terrorists who claim to act in the name of religion but instead undermine it.
He warned, however, that Iraq reflects the failure of U.S. policy. "So far, whenever the United States has tried to solve its disputes through military means, it has not achieved its objectives -- and also not solved the problem it meant to solve," he said.
A Shiite cleric who wears the black turban of a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, Khatami expressed regret that he and President Bill Clinton could not do more after both took tentative steps to heal relations severed by the 1979 U.S. Embassy seizure, when 52 Americans were held for 444 days.
"The misunderstanding and mistrust between the two sides was so deep that it could not be solved with these simple minor steps," he said. "The pressure that existed on both sides also meant that we had to proceed with caution." Khatami had publicly called for both sides to bring down the wall of mistrust and encouraged cultural exchanges, and Clinton lifted sanctions on carpets, pistachios and caviar from Iran.
The Bush administration's policies have since deepened tensions between Tehran and Washington, said Khatami, who now heads the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, which is based in Tehran and Geneva. Although Iran favored the Taliban's ouster from Afghanistan and an Iranian-backed Afghan movement worked with U.S. Special Forces to topple it in 2001, Khatami complained that President Bush turned around three months later and labeled Iran a member of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea.
In Iraq, Khatami said Tehran had also recognized the U.S.-orchestrated transition governments and elections, while not insisting that the Shiite majority inherit power. "Why is it that Iran is still under so much pressure and is attacked so often by the U.S. administration, even though it cooperated in this manner?" he said. "Unfortunately, with these policies, more bricks will only be added to the wall of mistrust."
The Bush administration has repeatedly charged that Iran has undermined the political transitions in both neighboring countries while also arming and funding some of Iraq's illegal militias. Iran has long been on the State Department's list as the leading state sponsor of extremist groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
Khatami said Hezbollah's 34-day war with Israel has produced a surge of popularity throughout the Islamic world for Lebanon's Shiite movement. Most of Hezbollah's weaponry is provided by Iran.
Khatami's trip has become increasingly controversial since his arrival last Thursday. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday ordered state agencies to refuse any form of support, including police escort, for Khatami's speech at Harvard on Sunday.
"State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney said in a statement released by his office. Romney, a potential Republican presidential candidate, called Harvard's decision to invite Khatami a "disgrace."
As it does with current and former heads of state visiting the United States, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security is providing protection for Khatami's 13-member entourage, which includes two of his children, during his tour of New York, Chicago, Washington, Boston and Charlottesville.
In the most unusual stop of his visit, Khatami is scheduled to tour Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home in Charlottesville. Khatami has called Jefferson a "character dear to us all." The third president is particularly popular among Middle Eastern reformers because he wrote extensively about religion and democracy.
An Hour With Pete Seeger
Monday, September 4th, 2006We Shall Overcome: An Hour With Legendary Folk Singer & Activist Pete SeegerListen to Segment Download Show mp3 Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript Help Printer-friendly version
Bush: Terrorists Are Not Nice People
 | Arianna Huffington |
09.05.2006
Bush Speech
Shocker: Terrorists Are Not Nice People!
President Bush made another stop on his Fall of Fear Tour Monday, delivering a thunderingly obvious speech in which he repeatedly, strenuously, and desperately tried to convince us of something we're already convinced of -- that terrorists are not nice people.
"The terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, 2001 are men without conscience, but they're not madmen.
They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane." (Interesting diagnosis. So the killers of al Qaeda are "not madmen," but Saddam Hussein was, as Bush insisted here, here, here, here, and here? Hmmm. Since we went after Saddam and not the terrorists, does this mean that, in Bush's moral hierarchy, insane trumps evil?).
Thanks for the heads up, Mr. President. What's next, a compelling argument that fire is hot? That the night is dark? That K-Fed can't sing?
Memo to the White House: we haven't forgotten 9/11. We've seen the beheading videos. We remember Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, suicide bombers
blowing up weddings, the horrors of London, Bali, and Madrid. We understand why we have to take off our shoes at the airport and can't have hair gel in our carry-ons.
blowing up weddings, the horrors of London, Bali, and Madrid. We understand why we have to take off our shoes at the airport and can't have hair gel in our carry-ons.
We all stipulate to your assertion. Indeed, is there anyone in America not currently taking heavy-duty meds or living in a padded room who believes that terrorists are anything other than bloodthirsty mass murderers?
But there was Bush, in the words of the AP, "quoting extensively from letters, Web site statements, audio recordings and videotapes purportedly from terrorists, as well as documents found in various raids" in an effort to make his case.
And he pulled out all the rhetorical stops. We got mention of a recently captured al Qaeda document describing the group's plans to take over Iraq's Anbar province and create what
Bush called "an elaborate al Qaeda governing structure for the region that includes an Education Department, a Social Services Department, a Justice Department, and an 'Execution Unit' responsible for 'Sorting out, Arrest, Murder, and Destruction.'" (It's hard to say which would make the right-wing madder, the Execution Unit or the Education Dept.! Leave No Terrorist Behind). We got a blast-from-the-past citation of "a grisly al Qaeda manual" found in 2000 in London "that includes chapters with titles such as 'Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages.'" We even got the now-obligatory Nazi comparison with a bonus association to Communism tossed in for good measure.
Bush called "an elaborate al Qaeda governing structure for the region that includes an Education Department, a Social Services Department, a Justice Department, and an 'Execution Unit' responsible for 'Sorting out, Arrest, Murder, and Destruction.'" (It's hard to say which would make the right-wing madder, the Execution Unit or the Education Dept.! Leave No Terrorist Behind). We got a blast-from-the-past citation of "a grisly al Qaeda manual" found in 2000 in London "that includes chapters with titles such as 'Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages.'" We even got the now-obligatory Nazi comparison with a bonus association to Communism tossed in for good measure.
"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," said Bush. "The question is 'Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?'"
Actually, Mr. President that isn't the question (the answer to that one is a no-brainer; we've been listening and paying attention for coming up on 5 years now). The real question at hand in 2006 is, what is the most effective way to fight what we all agree is the threat of terrorism, a threat as grave as Nazism and Communism were?
As much as Republican candidates would like us to forget it, the White House made Iraq the centerpiece of our war on terror -- a strategy with tragic consequences. It has left our military depleted, our first responders underfunded, our ports and railways vulnerable, and has
diverted our resources from pursuing the real enemy.
diverted our resources from pursuing the real enemy.
The administration's attempts to fight off the public's anger over Iraq have become increasingly anxious and defensive -- not surprising giving the Pentagon's latest assessment of Iraq, and the fact that 52% of Americans have now seen through the administration's smoke and mirrors, and recognize that the war in Iraq has been a distraction in the fight against terrorists.
Just listen to the tone of the administration's terrorism strategy update, released before Bush's
speech. It has all the earmarks of a guilty 5-year-old trying to prove that the broken lamp was not really his fault. Terrorism, insists the report, "is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq. The United States was attacked on September 11 and many years earlier, well before we toppled the Saddam Hussein regime. Moreover, countries that did not participate in coalition efforts in Iraq have not been spared from terror attacks." So there! I have no doubt that if the 23-page document could have stuck out its tongue, it would have.
speech. It has all the earmarks of a guilty 5-year-old trying to prove that the broken lamp was not really his fault. Terrorism, insists the report, "is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq. The United States was attacked on September 11 and many years earlier, well before we toppled the Saddam Hussein regime. Moreover, countries that did not participate in coalition efforts in Iraq have not been spared from terror attacks." So there! I have no doubt that if the 23-page document could have stuck out its tongue, it would have.
We know that Iraq didn't create terrorism (although it has created a lot of new terrorists), just as we know that terrorists are evil men who want to do us harm. But we also know that George Bush doesn't have a clue about how to deal either with Iraq or the
war on terror.
war on terror.
So he's going to keep trying to frighten us, and convince us that staying the course -- and crossing our fingers -- will allow us to "win the war on terror."
Sadly, as ludicrous as the president's "newsflash: terrorists want to kill us" speech was, if the Democrats don't step up and vociferously and consistently counter it with a compelling "we will keep you safer" argument, the Bush scare strategy will once again prove effective.
Trust me, Execution Units, Nazis, and grisly al Qaeda manuals (even 6-year-old editions) always trump a fuzzy message.
Disney/ABC sending its 9/11 revisionist tale to every American schoolkid
Disney/ABC sending its 9/11 revisionist tale to every American schoolkid by John in DC - 9/05/2006 03:22:00 PM
Good God, and they're sending a copy of the film and a letter to 100,000 American high school teachers written by - who? - the REPUBLICAN chair of the 9/11 Commission. Not the Democrat and the Republican, just the Republican. And a Republican whose son is running for the US Senate seat in New Jersey - oh yeah, no conflict there.This is entering serious legal territory here.Disney/ABC isn't just putting an incorrect, and politically partisan, version of the events leading up to September 11 on television a scant 8 weeks before national elections. They're now planning on using this partisan mockumentary to propagandize to American schoolchildren.That goes too far.It's one thing for Disney/ABC to take advantage of the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans in order to curry political favor with the Republicans - sickening as that is - but it's quite another when Disney/ABC try to jam this Disneyfied version of 9/11 political propaganda down the throats of our children. And they don't even try to hide the fact that they're using Republicans exclusively to push the propaganda.Now is the time for Congress to step in. Disney/ABC has gone too far. They owe every American schoolkid the responsibility to present them with the facts about September 11, not some Mickey Mouse fantasy written by, directed by, and pushed by Republican party hacks.
Good God, and they're sending a copy of the film and a letter to 100,000 American high school teachers written by - who? - the REPUBLICAN chair of the 9/11 Commission. Not the Democrat and the Republican, just the Republican. And a Republican whose son is running for the US Senate seat in New Jersey - oh yeah, no conflict there.This is entering serious legal territory here.Disney/ABC isn't just putting an incorrect, and politically partisan, version of the events leading up to September 11 on television a scant 8 weeks before national elections. They're now planning on using this partisan mockumentary to propagandize to American schoolchildren.That goes too far.It's one thing for Disney/ABC to take advantage of the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans in order to curry political favor with the Republicans - sickening as that is - but it's quite another when Disney/ABC try to jam this Disneyfied version of 9/11 political propaganda down the throats of our children. And they don't even try to hide the fact that they're using Republicans exclusively to push the propaganda.Now is the time for Congress to step in. Disney/ABC has gone too far. They owe every American schoolkid the responsibility to present them with the facts about September 11, not some Mickey Mouse fantasy written by, directed by, and pushed by Republican party hacks.
Disney/ABC's spokesman now admits that at least one key scene from its 9/11 "documentary" was simply made up.
9/11 Commission member says key scene in Disney/ABC fictional account of September 11 is "a total fabrication" by John in DC - 9/05/2006 09:30:00 PM
Disney/ABC's spokesman now admits that at least one key scene from its 9/11 "documentary" was simply made up.
Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.....So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”That is not likely to prevent the film from being embraced far and wide among Bush supporters. Even before its airdate, the show is being hailed as a breakthrough in the conservative blogosphere. One blogger marveled in an interview with scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh that “one unbelievable sequence shows how . . . Sandy Berger . . . actually hung up the phone on the CIA agent on the ground.”Ah yes, Disney/ABC's misinformation is already spreading. And now, it seems, the standard Disney/ABC is applying to their tv show is to strive for "reasonable accuracy" when educating American schoolkids about what happened on September 11 and how it happened.Reasonably accurate?Is that like saying Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11, and Iraq had WMD? Hasn't America had enough hedging about accuracy regarding September 11 and the war on terror?But hey, so what if Disney/ABC makes the after-school-special version of the largest mass murder of Americans in decades, if not ever? What counts to Disney/ABC isn't the truth, it's that the murder of 3,000 Americans be good entertainment.
Disney/ABC's spokesman now admits that at least one key scene from its 9/11 "documentary" was simply made up.
Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.....So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”That is not likely to prevent the film from being embraced far and wide among Bush supporters. Even before its airdate, the show is being hailed as a breakthrough in the conservative blogosphere. One blogger marveled in an interview with scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh that “one unbelievable sequence shows how . . . Sandy Berger . . . actually hung up the phone on the CIA agent on the ground.”Ah yes, Disney/ABC's misinformation is already spreading. And now, it seems, the standard Disney/ABC is applying to their tv show is to strive for "reasonable accuracy" when educating American schoolkids about what happened on September 11 and how it happened.Reasonably accurate?Is that like saying Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11, and Iraq had WMD? Hasn't America had enough hedging about accuracy regarding September 11 and the war on terror?But hey, so what if Disney/ABC makes the after-school-special version of the largest mass murder of Americans in decades, if not ever? What counts to Disney/ABC isn't the truth, it's that the murder of 3,000 Americans be good entertainment.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Major U.S. oil source is tapped
Major U.S. oil source is tapped
Successful test by Chevron partners in deep Gulf waters could rival Alaska in potential supply; U.S. reserves may swell 50 percent.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
September 5 2006: 3:34 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chevron and its partners have successfully extracted oil from a test well in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, an achievement that could be the biggest breakthrough in domestic oil supplies since the opening of the Alaskan pipeline.
The news sent oil prices lower, with U.S. light crude for October delivery sinking 69 cents to $68.50 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The announcement helped dampen fears that oil supplies would be swamped by growing global demand, a concern that helped lift oil to record highs this summer, unadjusted for inflation.
But experts cautioned that relief at the pump from the breakthrough is many years away.
"It sounds terrific, but this means nothing for the near-term period," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service, which surveys gasoline prices daily for AAA.
"But it should remind everyone that before they buy into the reckoning of $100 a barrel oil that all those estimates don't take into account tremendous amount of money can be spent on exploration when prices are at these levels."
Shares of the three partners in the test well known as "Jack 2" rose sharply in trading Tuesday. Chevron (up $1.80 to $66.63, Charts), which owns a 50 percent stake, jumped 3 percent, while Devon Energy (up $8.20 to $72.35, Charts) soared nearly 12 percent, and Norwegian oil company Statoil (up $0.56 to $28.07, Charts)'s U.S. shares added about 2 percent. Devon and Statoil each own 25 percent stakes.
Shares of other major oil companies with rights to this area of the Gulf, including Exxon Mobil (Charts), BP (Charts) and Royal Dutch Shell (Charts), rose modestly on the news.
Neither Chevron nor Devon would say how long it would take for oil from the well to reach market. Experts say it will take billions of dollars to build the deepwater oil platforms and pipelines needed to extract the oil and get it into world markets.
"At best we're not going to see a drop of oil for five years, maybe seven years," said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer. "It's great news for Chevron and even more so for Devon. But you can't hold your breath waiting for it."
A boon for the United States
Almost all the oil platforms in the Gulf are relatively close to the shore, on a shelf that puts them in less than 1,700 feet of water.
In recent years, oil has been found in the deeper waters of the Gulf known as the "lower tertiary" area, where the water is between 5,000 to 10,000 feet deep, but it had yet to be proved that oil could be extracted in enough volume to make such finds practical.
The Jack 2 well, which is 175 miles offshore, is in more than 7,000 feet of water and then drilled through more than 20,000 feet of rock below the sea floor, or about five miles below the surface of the Gulf. Chevron said the test had a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil a day.
Chevron would not estimate how much its reserves would be increased as a result of the test, nor would Devon. But Chevron said that it now believes the lower tertiary region of the Gulf could hold reserves of 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil. Total established U.S. reserves are estimated at less than 30 billion barrels.
"Until now no one was sure if the oil in this play would flow," said Zoe Sutherland, North American oil exploration analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a global oil research and consulting firm. "It doesn't matter how many large discoveries you have if you can't produce it. This is very exciting news."
Sutherland said it is fair to compare the breakthrough with the opening up of the North Slope of Alaska in terms of U.S. supply.
Ohio Northern University Professor A. F. Alhajji said the implications of this successful test could also help to open greater offshore supplies at other fields around the globe. He said that could mean even greater addition to worldwide reserves than those that now seem to be within reach in the Gulf.
"Whatever technology they used, I can tell you companies are scrambling right now to try to use it," said Alhajji.
Gheit said that it is only with oil at its current historically high prices that exploration at these depths really became economically practical.
"This is the silver lining of higher oil prices," he said. "If we didn't have higher oil prices, they wouldn't have dared to risk this much capital here."
Successful test by Chevron partners in deep Gulf waters could rival Alaska in potential supply; U.S. reserves may swell 50 percent.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
September 5 2006: 3:34 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chevron and its partners have successfully extracted oil from a test well in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, an achievement that could be the biggest breakthrough in domestic oil supplies since the opening of the Alaskan pipeline.
The news sent oil prices lower, with U.S. light crude for October delivery sinking 69 cents to $68.50 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The announcement helped dampen fears that oil supplies would be swamped by growing global demand, a concern that helped lift oil to record highs this summer, unadjusted for inflation.
But experts cautioned that relief at the pump from the breakthrough is many years away.
"It sounds terrific, but this means nothing for the near-term period," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service, which surveys gasoline prices daily for AAA.
"But it should remind everyone that before they buy into the reckoning of $100 a barrel oil that all those estimates don't take into account tremendous amount of money can be spent on exploration when prices are at these levels."
Shares of the three partners in the test well known as "Jack 2" rose sharply in trading Tuesday. Chevron (up $1.80 to $66.63, Charts), which owns a 50 percent stake, jumped 3 percent, while Devon Energy (up $8.20 to $72.35, Charts) soared nearly 12 percent, and Norwegian oil company Statoil (up $0.56 to $28.07, Charts)'s U.S. shares added about 2 percent. Devon and Statoil each own 25 percent stakes.
Shares of other major oil companies with rights to this area of the Gulf, including Exxon Mobil (Charts), BP (Charts) and Royal Dutch Shell (Charts), rose modestly on the news.
Neither Chevron nor Devon would say how long it would take for oil from the well to reach market. Experts say it will take billions of dollars to build the deepwater oil platforms and pipelines needed to extract the oil and get it into world markets.
"At best we're not going to see a drop of oil for five years, maybe seven years," said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer. "It's great news for Chevron and even more so for Devon. But you can't hold your breath waiting for it."
A boon for the United States
Almost all the oil platforms in the Gulf are relatively close to the shore, on a shelf that puts them in less than 1,700 feet of water.
In recent years, oil has been found in the deeper waters of the Gulf known as the "lower tertiary" area, where the water is between 5,000 to 10,000 feet deep, but it had yet to be proved that oil could be extracted in enough volume to make such finds practical.
The Jack 2 well, which is 175 miles offshore, is in more than 7,000 feet of water and then drilled through more than 20,000 feet of rock below the sea floor, or about five miles below the surface of the Gulf. Chevron said the test had a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil a day.
Chevron would not estimate how much its reserves would be increased as a result of the test, nor would Devon. But Chevron said that it now believes the lower tertiary region of the Gulf could hold reserves of 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil. Total established U.S. reserves are estimated at less than 30 billion barrels.
"Until now no one was sure if the oil in this play would flow," said Zoe Sutherland, North American oil exploration analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a global oil research and consulting firm. "It doesn't matter how many large discoveries you have if you can't produce it. This is very exciting news."
Sutherland said it is fair to compare the breakthrough with the opening up of the North Slope of Alaska in terms of U.S. supply.
Ohio Northern University Professor A. F. Alhajji said the implications of this successful test could also help to open greater offshore supplies at other fields around the globe. He said that could mean even greater addition to worldwide reserves than those that now seem to be within reach in the Gulf.
"Whatever technology they used, I can tell you companies are scrambling right now to try to use it," said Alhajji.
Gheit said that it is only with oil at its current historically high prices that exploration at these depths really became economically practical.
"This is the silver lining of higher oil prices," he said. "If we didn't have higher oil prices, they wouldn't have dared to risk this much capital here."
Tues
Bush Talked About Blowing Up Clinton Library: “A Submarine Could Take This Place Out”...
David Corn: Valerie Plame Working On Iraq WMD Intel Before She Was Outed…
New York Sun: Missile Fired At Sen. McCain's Helicopter...
Rep. Murtha: Bush Needs To “Either Change The Course In Iraq…Or Reinstitute The Draft”...
David Corn: Valerie Plame Working On Iraq WMD Intel Before She Was Outed…
New York Sun: Missile Fired At Sen. McCain's Helicopter...
Rep. Murtha: Bush Needs To “Either Change The Course In Iraq…Or Reinstitute The Draft”...
Tues
Bush Talked About Blowing Up Clinton Library: “A Submarine Could Take This Place Out”...
David Corn: Valerie Plame Working On Iraq WMD Intel Before She Was Outed…
New York Sun: Missile Fired At Sen. McCain's Helicopter...
Rep. Murtha: Bush Needs To “Either Change The Course In Iraq…Or Reinstitute The Draft”...
David Corn: Valerie Plame Working On Iraq WMD Intel Before She Was Outed…
New York Sun: Missile Fired At Sen. McCain's Helicopter...
Rep. Murtha: Bush Needs To “Either Change The Course In Iraq…Or Reinstitute The Draft”...
Monday, September 04, 2006
Russert Watch
 | Rachel Sklar |
09.04.2006 Greetings and welcome to another edition of RussertWatch, officially kicking off MTP's exciting season of debates between 2006 Senatorial candidates. Before launching in, apologies for our absence last week: I had started not one but two entries last week and both were lost in computer-related snafus (and, since I have spent the past week with my parents in Dwight, Ontario, Canada in what Canadians know and love as "cottage country" but which is also unfortunately "dial-up country," I took that as a sign.I had called the entry "RussertWatch: Nagin And Novak Flap Their Jaws" because I felt like New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin spent most of his (only one-quarter!) allotted time apologizing and backtracking over his brutal "hole in the ground" comment (and
RussertWatch: Santorum And Casey Take To The Airwaves
Greetings and welcome to another edition of RussertWatch, officially kicking off MTP's exciting season of debates between 2006 Senatorial candidates. Before launching in, apologies for our absence last week: I had started not one but two entries last week and both were lost in computer-related snafus (and, since I have spent the past week with my parents in Dwight, Ontario, Canada in what Canadians know and love as "cottage country" but which is also unfortunately "dial-up country," I took that as a sign.I had called the entry "RussertWatch: Nagin And Novak Flap Their Jaws" because I felt like New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin spent most of his (only one-quarter!) allotted time apologizing and backtracking over his brutal "hole in the ground" comment (and
anyway, I can't take him seriously after reading this excerpt from Douglas Brinkley's "The Great Deluge" in Vanity Fair). Rober Novak, meanwhile, seemed uncommonly cheerful, and was uncommonly pious, saying that he felt it was high time for his source (Richard Armitage, as we now know) to reveal himself. Well, la di da, look who's on a moral high horse! Let's not forget who published the damn Plame name in the first place. Anyhow, that's essentially what I would have said about last week. That transcript is here.
But that was then; this is now, and Tim Russert has moved into safe-ish territory by having a nice roster of debates to rely on for the next few weeks:
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, and Maryland. Summer recess is over for that hard-working Congress and everyone's all agog about midterms (so agog that Russert felt that Katrina only merited half of last week's show, having a roundtable of talking heads to prognosticate about midterms for the second half). Yesterday's debate featured Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum squaring off against his Democratic challenger, State Treasurer Bob Casey. I have to say that Russert was refreshingly non-partisan as moderator, which, all political sympathies aside, makes for a far more interesting debate than regurgitated Republican talking points (cough Mehlman cough). Sadly, there's little reference to man-on-dog love, but if you're still interested read it here, or watch it here.
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, and Maryland. Summer recess is over for that hard-working Congress and everyone's all agog about midterms (so agog that Russert felt that Katrina only merited half of last week's show, having a roundtable of talking heads to prognosticate about midterms for the second half). Yesterday's debate featured Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum squaring off against his Democratic challenger, State Treasurer Bob Casey. I have to say that Russert was refreshingly non-partisan as moderator, which, all political sympathies aside, makes for a far more interesting debate than regurgitated Republican talking points (cough Mehlman cough). Sadly, there's little reference to man-on-dog love, but if you're still interested read it here, or watch it here.
Front and center in today's debate: Iraq. Predictably but surprisingly effectively, Russert puts the stock paint-'em-in-a-corner question to Casey: "Knowing what you know today, would you still have voted for the war?" No doubt bearing Kerry's vivid example of the consequences of see-sawing on the initial vote for war, Casey is smart to dodge the question, and Tim tries to pin him on a yes or a no, and Casey points out, smartly, that any information underscoring a 'yes' vote would have been flawed, anyway: "Based upon the information that we have now, I think that, that a lot of
Americans would have serious doubts. I'm not sure there would have even been a vote on Iraq..."
Americans would have serious doubts. I'm not sure there would have even been a vote on Iraq..."
Looking to the future, however, Casey deviates from some of his Democratic brethren: Asked whether he would vote to cut off funding for the war effort, he says no: "I don't think we can, Tim. I'm not ready to abandon this mission; I think a lot of Americans are not, either." He is, however, more than ready to abandon Rumsfeld: "We don't need a deadline, a timeline; we need new leadership... Accountability, I think, means replacing Donald Rumsfeld -- Rick and I disagree on that."
Casey's tack is surprisingly effective: it manages to criticize the Administration for its failings abroad, without actually offering any concrete alternative other than a few key personnel changes. Even so, Casey's talking points don't add up to much of an alternative in terms of dealing with the problems America is facing on the ground in
Iraq. Casey emphasizes the need for "clear benchmarks", in addition to putting greater numbers of Iraqi troops at the forefront of the effort to stabilize the country (though the U.S. miitary is already doing its best to increase Iraqi military participation). Cassey concludes with a call to rebuild the American military (something that Rumsfeld himself has been advocating as early as 2000). On the whole, then, it's not clear from Casey how, exactly, a Democratic foreign policy would differ from that of the Republicans in terms of dealing with the immediate problem of winning the war in Iraq, though, like many frustrated Democrats, it sounds like he's pretty sure he couldn't do worse than the Republicans at this point.
Iraq. Casey emphasizes the need for "clear benchmarks", in addition to putting greater numbers of Iraqi troops at the forefront of the effort to stabilize the country (though the U.S. miitary is already doing its best to increase Iraqi military participation). Cassey concludes with a call to rebuild the American military (something that Rumsfeld himself has been advocating as early as 2000). On the whole, then, it's not clear from Casey how, exactly, a Democratic foreign policy would differ from that of the Republicans in terms of dealing with the immediate problem of winning the war in Iraq, though, like many frustrated Democrats, it sounds like he's pretty sure he couldn't do worse than the Republicans at this point.
Well, that's because we have a devious ever-shifting amorphous enemy that we're fighting
on many fronts! says Santorum, picking up the fun new new Republican talking point du jour: "We need to go out there and continue to fight this war on Islamic fascism. Not just, as my opponent likes to focus on, just the war in Iraq. That's a front of a multi-front war in which we're fighting against an enemy that's a very dangerous enemy." Santorum is warmed to this topic, having already used it earlier in the week at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon when drawing parallels to America's struggle against German fascism and Japanese imperialism during World War II (sound familiar?). At the forefront of this struggle, says Santorum, is Iran. But Russert won't let him hide behind alarmist terminology. Granted, Iran is a principal instigator of
violence against Israel. Iran may also be responsible for much of the sectarian violence in Iraq (though Tehran's reasons for agitating in Iraq stem less from its distaste for democratic rule than from a complex admixture of centuries of religious enmity, an unshakeable sense of entitlement to regional hegemony, and a decade-long war in which the United States supplied Saddam with munitions and material (though that's a story better left to Frank Rich). But what this all means, Russsert reminds us, is that the principal beneficiary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was clearly Iran. Aha - a genuine Russert gotcha moment! It's interesting to see Santorum recognize that he just played into the hands of his Democratic opponent:
on many fronts! says Santorum, picking up the fun new new Republican talking point du jour: "We need to go out there and continue to fight this war on Islamic fascism. Not just, as my opponent likes to focus on, just the war in Iraq. That's a front of a multi-front war in which we're fighting against an enemy that's a very dangerous enemy." Santorum is warmed to this topic, having already used it earlier in the week at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon when drawing parallels to America's struggle against German fascism and Japanese imperialism during World War II (sound familiar?). At the forefront of this struggle, says Santorum, is Iran. But Russert won't let him hide behind alarmist terminology. Granted, Iran is a principal instigator of
violence against Israel. Iran may also be responsible for much of the sectarian violence in Iraq (though Tehran's reasons for agitating in Iraq stem less from its distaste for democratic rule than from a complex admixture of centuries of religious enmity, an unshakeable sense of entitlement to regional hegemony, and a decade-long war in which the United States supplied Saddam with munitions and material (though that's a story better left to Frank Rich). But what this all means, Russsert reminds us, is that the principal beneficiary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was clearly Iran. Aha - a genuine Russert gotcha moment! It's interesting to see Santorum recognize that he just played into the hands of his Democratic opponent:
MR. RUSSERT: So Iran now has more influence in Iraq than they did before Saddam
Hussein?SEN. SANTORUM: Just understand.MR. RUSSERT: Is that true?SEN. SANTORUM: I would say that they have influence in, in, in a free country where you have an opportunity to express yourself, if you will. Yes. You can probably do more...
In other words, anyone who insists that we helped Iran come closer to regional hegemony by invading Iraq is arguing that we shouldn't have removed a totalitarian regime. Well done, Tim, you just got Santorum to admit that invading Iraq totally benefitted Iran. Maybe he'll do better on WMD's. Or not:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Santorum, leading up to the war. In October of 2002, this is what Rick Santorum said, "Saddam Hussein's regime, is a serious and grave danger to the safety of the American people." "Given the threat posed to he world by his weapons of mass destruction programs..." Would you now acknowledge that that was not correct?SEN. SANTORUM: What I would say is that we have found weapons of mass destruction, they were older weapons, but we have found chemical weapons. The report was just released not too long ago that, that said that there were over 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq.MR. RUSSERT: Senator, the president has accepted the report of his two task force and said, "That the chief weapons inspector has issued his report. Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there."
and
SEN. SANTORUM: Well, based on the fact that they were working--and we have certainly lots of information about the fact that they were working with other terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, and that they were, in fact--had camps that they were--while they were training Baathists, they were also training terrorists to be used. The...MR. RUSSERT: President Bush said that Iraq had "nothing to do with September 11th." Do you agree with that?SEN. SANTORUM: As far as we know, that's, that's the case.
Nice one, Tim. Too bad you couldn't have remembered this when Newt Gingrich was on.
Santorum then tries to get traction with Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, but at this point, Russert has him in a twist:
MR. RUSSERT: But knowing what you know now about the weapons of mass destruction, the primary rationale for the war, would you believe that the Iraq war was a war of choice or a war of necessity?SEN. SANTORUM: I believe that it was a war of necessity because it--they are a--they were a threat. It is important that we are in the, the Middle East right now and, and confronting this
broad war that we are involved in against Islamic fascism.
Having been forced to concede that there was nothing to the Administration's WMD claims, or its claims that Iraq had ties to terrorist organizations targeting the United States, Santorum can do little except make assertions — and take it back to the broader war against Islamic fascism, and specifically Iran. It's a tricky position to be in, because by admitting that the Administration's primary rationale for invading Iraq is faulty, he is allowing that Iran's ability to act as the "central destabilizer of the Middle East" is, in large part, a problem of America's own making.
Russert doesn't let up, though, pulling a move typically reserved both his more liberal guests and holding his subject accountable for an old quotation that runs contrary to current assertions:
MR. RUSSERT: When President Clinton took troops into Kosovo, this is what you
said. "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill defined objective and no exit strategy. He is yet to tell Congress how much this operation will cost. And, he has not informed our nation's Armed Forces about how long they will be away from home."Do you believe you should have the same standard for President Bush? He should give a defined objective, he should give an exit strategy, he should give a cost, and he should give a timeline for Iraq, just as you were demanding President Clinton give for Kosovo?SEN. SANTORUM: No. Because, because Kosovo and, and Slobodan Milosevic were never a security threat to the United State of America. No way. There--I mean, it wasn't even close.MR. RUSSERT: But these are men and women at war.
A valid point indeed, Mr. Russert. What's more, by Santorum's own admission, Iraq did not have the WMDs originally ascribe to
it, or connections to terrorist organizations threatening the United States, and therefore did not satisfy the the Administration's own standards for threats to national security. Accordingly, Santorum falls afoul of his own admonishments to Clinton over Kosovo. But who cares; he already explicitly stated his support for pre-emptive military action against a "threat." Santorum has his talking points and he's sticking to them (whether or not they're hitting home at home). It's almost a surprise, then (though unquestionably a relief), to hear him say that we shouldn't attack Iran, though he does insist that the military option on the table. Sigh. Whenever is it not?
it, or connections to terrorist organizations threatening the United States, and therefore did not satisfy the the Administration's own standards for threats to national security. Accordingly, Santorum falls afoul of his own admonishments to Clinton over Kosovo. But who cares; he already explicitly stated his support for pre-emptive military action against a "threat." Santorum has his talking points and he's sticking to them (whether or not they're hitting home at home). It's almost a surprise, then (though unquestionably a relief), to hear him say that we shouldn't attack Iran, though he does insist that the military option on the table. Sigh. Whenever is it not?
Santorum and Casey also discussed the morning-after pill, where Santorum charmingly chided Casey for his support of the emergency contraception, saying of Casey that "I think his father would be very upset
if, if he were alive today and, and heard him be supportive of something like this." Wow. Because, you know, as between Santorum and Casey, Santorum would totally be the authority on that point.
if, if he were alive today and, and heard him be supportive of something like this." Wow. Because, you know, as between Santorum and Casey, Santorum would totally be the authority on that point.
Read more about how Casey and Santorum performed with respect to other issues in John Dickerson's take at Slate; though Casey ain't winning any charisma prizes, he says Santorum's in trouble and he can't afford a draw. Here's what we think: An hour is a very long time to watch these two chatter. It's also a lot to write about, so I'm sure we missed plenty — elucidate & enlighten in the comments; something tells me you have plenty of opinions about Rick Santorum. See you next week, because if its' the day after Sunday on a Holiday Weekend when hopefully you're all out doing something fun, it's RussertWatch.
Study: Terror cases now at pre-9/11 rate
Study: Terror cases now at pre-9/11 rateUS declined to prosecute more than 90% of terror cases sent by fed agencies.
ABC yanks 9/11 'docudrama' blog after accuracy questioned
GOP in Congress blocked Clinton pre-9/11 terror push
Book: Bush told reporter Jews damned
Alleges secret Abramoff meetings, Rove stepfather gay
World snapshots after 5 years of 'war on terror'
GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM
Before September 11, all the way back in 1996 in fact, the Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess."We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?
ABC yanks 9/11 'docudrama' blog after accuracy questioned
GOP in Congress blocked Clinton pre-9/11 terror push
Book: Bush told reporter Jews damned
Alleges secret Abramoff meetings, Rove stepfather gay
World snapshots after 5 years of 'war on terror'
GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM
Before September 11, all the way back in 1996 in fact, the Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess."We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?
Expect more Al Qaeda videotapes
Expect more Al Qaeda videotapes as the election approaches by John in DC - 9/02/2006 09:33:00 PM
Al Qaeda wants hardliners (i.e., Republicans) to win the US elections so they can empower Bush and keep the US making a bigger and bigger mess out of Iraq and the Middle East.I'm serious.Ron Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine" had a fascinating tidbit about how several senior CIA officials have speculated that Osama wanted Bush to win in 2004 and that's why he released a tape only four days before the US elections. Osama likes the Republicans. The GOP is screwing up US foreign policy royally, they're not making America safer, and their screw ups are helping Osama recruit more terrorists. Osama likely wants nothing better than to have the Republicans stay in office and stay the course.Mark my words. More Al Qaeda tapes, like this one, are coming.
Al Qaeda wants hardliners (i.e., Republicans) to win the US elections so they can empower Bush and keep the US making a bigger and bigger mess out of Iraq and the Middle East.I'm serious.Ron Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine" had a fascinating tidbit about how several senior CIA officials have speculated that Osama wanted Bush to win in 2004 and that's why he released a tape only four days before the US elections. Osama likes the Republicans. The GOP is screwing up US foreign policy royally, they're not making America safer, and their screw ups are helping Osama recruit more terrorists. Osama likely wants nothing better than to have the Republicans stay in office and stay the course.Mark my words. More Al Qaeda tapes, like this one, are coming.
GOP hoping for an "outside event" to boost electoral chances
GOP hoping for an "outside event" to boost electoral chances by Joe in DC - 9/03/2006 01:24:00 PM
(Note from John: What is terrorism, Alex?)Today's Washington Post has an article by Dan Balz and David Broder on how the GOP is facing major challenges to keeping control of the House this fall:
Over the summer, the political battlefield has expanded well beyond the roughly 20 GOP House seats originally thought to be vulnerable. Now some Republicans concede there may be almost twice as many districts from which Democrats could wrest the 15 additional seats they need to take control.The GOP is getting desperate. They don't want to lose power. Bush and Rove don't want them to lose control of the House. They've been running the government unchallenged for six years now. Last night, John wrote that we can expect to hear more from Al Qaeda over the next couple months. The GOP are counting on something like that to help them:
As the campaign season begins, Democrats are trying to guard against premature celebration, even as their prospects are brighter than most ever imagined. Republicans are hoping for some outside event that would show the president and their party in a better light -- a spate of good news from Iraq, a foiled terrorist plot or an unlikely break in the deadlock over immigration on Capitol Hill.If the GOP needs an "outside event," count on the ruthless tactics of Karl Rove to provide it.
(Note from John: What is terrorism, Alex?)Today's Washington Post has an article by Dan Balz and David Broder on how the GOP is facing major challenges to keeping control of the House this fall:
Over the summer, the political battlefield has expanded well beyond the roughly 20 GOP House seats originally thought to be vulnerable. Now some Republicans concede there may be almost twice as many districts from which Democrats could wrest the 15 additional seats they need to take control.The GOP is getting desperate. They don't want to lose power. Bush and Rove don't want them to lose control of the House. They've been running the government unchallenged for six years now. Last night, John wrote that we can expect to hear more from Al Qaeda over the next couple months. The GOP are counting on something like that to help them:
As the campaign season begins, Democrats are trying to guard against premature celebration, even as their prospects are brighter than most ever imagined. Republicans are hoping for some outside event that would show the president and their party in a better light -- a spate of good news from Iraq, a foiled terrorist plot or an unlikely break in the deadlock over immigration on Capitol Hill.If the GOP needs an "outside event," count on the ruthless tactics of Karl Rove to provide it.
More Lies
That #2 Al Qaeda leader in Iraq who was just captured? Apparently he doesn't quite rank #2
by John in DC - 9/03/2006 04:25:00 PM
Oh, gee, what a surprise. You mean the Bush administration orchestrated another bigger-than-life lie about Iraq and the war on terror? (And you know they orchestrated this entire thing - Iraq didn't capture the guy, we must have handed him to them to make it look like the Iraqi government is now all grown up.) And this bit of puffery only took a few hours to show through as much ado about perhaps-not-nothing, but not nearly as much as claimed. Just add it to the list of propaganda being fed to the American people by the Republicans instead of a coherent plan for victory. Though at this point, I'd just settle for the truth.Now from the NYT:
But an American military official was more cautious in describing Mr. Saeedi’s place in the Al Qaeda pecking order. While Mr. Saeedi was certainly a "top-tier guy" who supervised the insurgents who carried out the Samarra mosque bombing, "I’m not sure we are ready to put a number on him," the American official said. "It’s a very decentralized operation."
by John in DC - 9/03/2006 04:25:00 PM
Oh, gee, what a surprise. You mean the Bush administration orchestrated another bigger-than-life lie about Iraq and the war on terror? (And you know they orchestrated this entire thing - Iraq didn't capture the guy, we must have handed him to them to make it look like the Iraqi government is now all grown up.) And this bit of puffery only took a few hours to show through as much ado about perhaps-not-nothing, but not nearly as much as claimed. Just add it to the list of propaganda being fed to the American people by the Republicans instead of a coherent plan for victory. Though at this point, I'd just settle for the truth.Now from the NYT:
But an American military official was more cautious in describing Mr. Saeedi’s place in the Al Qaeda pecking order. While Mr. Saeedi was certainly a "top-tier guy" who supervised the insurgents who carried out the Samarra mosque bombing, "I’m not sure we are ready to put a number on him," the American official said. "It’s a very decentralized operation."
Sunday, September 03, 2006
What's A Fascist?
What's a Fascist?
By Erik Gunther
Fri, September 01, 2006, 9:00 am PDT
View Source
Fascism, (noun): "a political philosophy, movement, or regime...that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (Merriam-Webster)
When President Bush and his cohorts brought "fascism" into the daily discourse, searches on the potent term soared. Buzz on "fascist" jumped 112% yesterday as Republican talking points filtered down through the administration. Digging up this loaded chestnut and applying it to certain Islamic elements has done wonders for this word's renaissance.
But will the word resonate with voters in the upcoming elections? The use of "Islamic Fascism" to describe America's enemies may not be spot on, and it has raised eyebrows with political pundits and searchers alike. Curious folks went straight to the Search box to look up "definition of fascism," "what is fascism," and "islamofascism." With plenty more rhetoric and bluster on tap until November, will fascism hold sway as the popular buzzword among those in power? We'll be keeping an eye (and an ear) out...
Saturday, September 02, 2006
VIDEO: John Dean On Rumsfeld: “This Is Textbook Authoritarianism”...
VIDEO: John Dean On Rumsfeld: “This Is Textbook Authoritarianism”...
Rep. Murtha: Bush And Rumsfeld Are The Ones Ignoring History...
Mexican lawmakers block Fox's speech
Pentagon gives gloomy Iraq report
Hurricane John makes landfall in Mexico
U.S. missile hits target in test
EU says it's too early to punish Iran
Rep. Murtha: Bush And Rumsfeld Are The Ones Ignoring History...
Mexican lawmakers block Fox's speech
Pentagon gives gloomy Iraq report
Hurricane John makes landfall in Mexico
U.S. missile hits target in test
EU says it's too early to punish Iran
Federal agency releases 'rebuttal' to 9/11 theories on the destruction of WTC towers
Federal agency releases 'rebuttal' to 9/11 theories on the destruction of WTC towers
Ron BrynaertPublished: Friday September 1, 2006
In the face of polls which suggest that many Americans are skeptical about the government's official version of what happened on September 11, 2001, a federal agency has released a "rebuttal" to some prevalent "conspiracy theories" about the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.
A few days ago, as the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the National Institute of Standards and Technology posted a FAQ sheet on it's website entitled "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions", based upon its three-year building and fire safety investigation.
"We get a lot of calls from people who have heard these theories," NIST spokesman Michael Newman told Newsday. "But we conducted what was probably the most complex investigation of a building collapse in history."
"We based our conclusion on the talents of the world's best engineers and scientists, state of the art computer models and 236 pieces of steel recovered from the site," said Newman.
Earlier today, NIST sent out a press release about their FAQ sheet.
"When the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report in October 2005 from its technical investigation of the fires and collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001, many in the building design, construction, fire, rescue, safety and legislative communities praised the three-year effort as the authoritative accounting of the events that took place and began working with NIST to use the report's 30 recommendations to improve building codes, standards and practices," said the press release.
"However, there have been claims from 'alternative theory' groups that factors other than those described in the NIST report brought the towers down," the release said.
'Controlled demolition' theory
Much of the fact sheet deals with the "controlled demolition" theory, which the agency never actively investigated or pursued because they couldn't find any "corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses."
Brigham Young University physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones, a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11," believes that NIST is wrong to dismiss other theories about why three WTC buildings "completely collapsed" on September 11.
"In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges," Jones writes in the abstract of his paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
"I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings," Jones writes. "And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government."
"In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms," Jones concludes in his paper. "On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives."
"And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel," wrote Jones. "The controlled-demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as 'junk science' because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony."
One question from NIST's FAQ sheet asks "How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse."
"The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day," NIST's FAQ sheet says. "Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel."
"No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001," according to NIST.
However, at the conclusion of it's FAQ sheet, the federal agency claims that it is "considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse" of the 47-story office building, WTC 7, which hadn't been struck by either of the hijacked airplanes that day.
"While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements," the FAQ sheet says.
A point-by-point reply to the NIST FAQ sheet was written by Jim Hoffman, a software engineer with many published articles in scientific magazines and journals, who has been investigating the events of 9/11 since early 2003, questioning the "official story," as well as debunking some of the more "wild" theories about what may have happened.
"But steel-framed high-rise buildings have been felled by severe earthquakes, and in those cases, the buildings were not pulverized and shredded, as the World Trade Center was, but were toppled," Hoffman writes in response to the aforementioned question on "controlled demolition."
"The exact combination of impact-induced structural damage and fire damage was unprecedented, but in some of the examples of fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings the fires were much stronger and long-lasting than in the three WTC towers, and yet didn't even produce serious structural damage in the buildings," Hoffman continues. "Since NIST's theory of the demise of the Twin Towers is essentially a fire theory, the lack of a single example of fire-induced total collapse of a steel-framed building presents a problem for that theory."
Hoffman's full reply can be read at this link.
Ron BrynaertPublished: Friday September 1, 2006
In the face of polls which suggest that many Americans are skeptical about the government's official version of what happened on September 11, 2001, a federal agency has released a "rebuttal" to some prevalent "conspiracy theories" about the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.
A few days ago, as the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the National Institute of Standards and Technology posted a FAQ sheet on it's website entitled "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions", based upon its three-year building and fire safety investigation.
"We get a lot of calls from people who have heard these theories," NIST spokesman Michael Newman told Newsday. "But we conducted what was probably the most complex investigation of a building collapse in history."
"We based our conclusion on the talents of the world's best engineers and scientists, state of the art computer models and 236 pieces of steel recovered from the site," said Newman.
Earlier today, NIST sent out a press release about their FAQ sheet.
"When the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report in October 2005 from its technical investigation of the fires and collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001, many in the building design, construction, fire, rescue, safety and legislative communities praised the three-year effort as the authoritative accounting of the events that took place and began working with NIST to use the report's 30 recommendations to improve building codes, standards and practices," said the press release.
"However, there have been claims from 'alternative theory' groups that factors other than those described in the NIST report brought the towers down," the release said.
'Controlled demolition' theory
Much of the fact sheet deals with the "controlled demolition" theory, which the agency never actively investigated or pursued because they couldn't find any "corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses."
Brigham Young University physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones, a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11," believes that NIST is wrong to dismiss other theories about why three WTC buildings "completely collapsed" on September 11.
"In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges," Jones writes in the abstract of his paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
"I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings," Jones writes. "And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government."
"In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms," Jones concludes in his paper. "On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives."
"And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel," wrote Jones. "The controlled-demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as 'junk science' because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony."
One question from NIST's FAQ sheet asks "How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse."
"The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day," NIST's FAQ sheet says. "Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel."
"No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001," according to NIST.
However, at the conclusion of it's FAQ sheet, the federal agency claims that it is "considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse" of the 47-story office building, WTC 7, which hadn't been struck by either of the hijacked airplanes that day.
"While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements," the FAQ sheet says.
A point-by-point reply to the NIST FAQ sheet was written by Jim Hoffman, a software engineer with many published articles in scientific magazines and journals, who has been investigating the events of 9/11 since early 2003, questioning the "official story," as well as debunking some of the more "wild" theories about what may have happened.
"But steel-framed high-rise buildings have been felled by severe earthquakes, and in those cases, the buildings were not pulverized and shredded, as the World Trade Center was, but were toppled," Hoffman writes in response to the aforementioned question on "controlled demolition."
"The exact combination of impact-induced structural damage and fire damage was unprecedented, but in some of the examples of fires in steel-framed high-rise buildings the fires were much stronger and long-lasting than in the three WTC towers, and yet didn't even produce serious structural damage in the buildings," Hoffman continues. "Since NIST's theory of the demise of the Twin Towers is essentially a fire theory, the lack of a single example of fire-induced total collapse of a steel-framed building presents a problem for that theory."
Hoffman's full reply can be read at this link.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Philippines to dispatch more troops to hunt down Islamic militants
Philippines to dispatch more troops to hunt down Islamic militants
Deutsche Presse AgenturPublished: Friday September 1, 2006
Manila- More government troops will be dispatched to a southern Philippine island where the military is hunting down al-Qaeda-linked Islamic militants, an official said Friday. General Hermogenes Esperon, armed forces chief of staff, said a group of 92 elite army scout rangers has been assigned to augment security forces on Jolo island, 1,000 kilometres south of Manila. Eight marine and army battalions are currently involved in the hunt against Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebel chieftain Khadaffy Janjalani and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militants Dulmatin and Omar Patek. "Janjalani and his cohorts are still in Jolo," Esperon said. "It is hard to find a needle in a haystack. We will be inserting in Jolo scout rangers who are on test mission." He, however, did not say when exactly the additional troops would arrive in Jolo. The troops last encountered Janjalani's group on August 24 when scout rangers clashed with Abu Sayyaf fighters in the hinterlands of Patikul town. Three soldiers were killed and 31 others injured in the August 24 clash. The military said soldiers also killed 13 rebels and captured five others, while seven other guerrillas were injured during the fighting. The Abu Sayyaf rebel group has been held responsible for deadly terrorist attacks in the Philippines as well as high-profile kidnappings of foreign nationals. The military has been conducting an offensive against the Abu Sayyaf since the start of the month in a bid to flush out Dulmatin and Patek, who are allegedly under the protection of the rebels. Dulmatin and Patek are key suspects in the October 2002 bombings on the Indonesian resort island of Bali, which killed more than 200 people. The United States has included the Abu Sayyaf and JI on its blacklist of foreign terrorist organizations because of their alleged links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Deutsche Presse AgenturPublished: Friday September 1, 2006
Manila- More government troops will be dispatched to a southern Philippine island where the military is hunting down al-Qaeda-linked Islamic militants, an official said Friday. General Hermogenes Esperon, armed forces chief of staff, said a group of 92 elite army scout rangers has been assigned to augment security forces on Jolo island, 1,000 kilometres south of Manila. Eight marine and army battalions are currently involved in the hunt against Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebel chieftain Khadaffy Janjalani and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militants Dulmatin and Omar Patek. "Janjalani and his cohorts are still in Jolo," Esperon said. "It is hard to find a needle in a haystack. We will be inserting in Jolo scout rangers who are on test mission." He, however, did not say when exactly the additional troops would arrive in Jolo. The troops last encountered Janjalani's group on August 24 when scout rangers clashed with Abu Sayyaf fighters in the hinterlands of Patikul town. Three soldiers were killed and 31 others injured in the August 24 clash. The military said soldiers also killed 13 rebels and captured five others, while seven other guerrillas were injured during the fighting. The Abu Sayyaf rebel group has been held responsible for deadly terrorist attacks in the Philippines as well as high-profile kidnappings of foreign nationals. The military has been conducting an offensive against the Abu Sayyaf since the start of the month in a bid to flush out Dulmatin and Patek, who are allegedly under the protection of the rebels. Dulmatin and Patek are key suspects in the October 2002 bombings on the Indonesian resort island of Bali, which killed more than 200 people. The United States has included the Abu Sayyaf and JI on its blacklist of foreign terrorist organizations because of their alleged links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
