Journaling on estrip is easy and free. sign up here

Dcoffee's Journal

dcoffee
My Podcast Link

10/01/2006 03:07 #21749

They were Warned
Category: politics
The Bush administration is incompotent. How come nobody has ever faulted them for not stopping the 911 attacks? They are treated as fearless leaders, whose opinions are as reliable as Jesus' ghospel. And for what? They're the ones who fucked up in the first place and let 911 happen. Now ABC and Fox 'News' blame Clinton? Yea right, you jackofs were the ones in office! We're supposed to forget.

Below in this news article we find out a few things.
Condoleezza Rice was directly warned by the Director of the FBI George Tenet that he was concerned about imminent danger of terrorist attacks inside the US. The meeting happened on July 10, 2001 Months before the attack. they "came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously."

The 911 commission had no knowledge of this meeting untill this week when Bob Woodward's new book came out "State of Denial" Commissioners are suggesting a coverup. A serious crime.

Also "Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden," That's a bad sign.

See the entire article at Raw Story
They keep updating the article at the end as news breaks about this.

a 911 Commissioner speaks out here at Think Progress


State of Denial: Two months before 9/11, Rice gave the 'brush-off' to 'impending terrorist attack' warning


(Update: Former Counsel to the 9/11 Commission suggests that "[v]ery possibly, someone committed a crime" by engaging in a "cover-up" of the warning)

According to a new book written by Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, two months before the September 11 attacks, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the "brush-off" to an "impending terrorist attack" warning by former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator.

An article in Friday's New York Times first mentioned the warning, and a front page book review of Woodward's State of Denial in Saturday's edition provides more details.

"On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack," David E. Sanger reported on Friday. "But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously."

Sanger also reported that Tenet told Woodward that before 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was "impeding" efforts to catch Osama bin Laden.

"Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden," wrote Sanger. "Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda."

Saturday's New York Times review claims that in Woodward's book, Rice "is depicted as a presidential enabler, ineffectual at her job of coordinating interagency strategy and planning."

"For instance, Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they'd been given 'the brush-off' - a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice's recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton's allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counterterrorism measures aggressively before 9/11," writes Michiko Kakutani.

Saturday's Washington Post has more details regarding the meeting.

"The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention," Peter Baker reports for the Post.

"Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported," the article continues. "Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review."


ajay - 10/01/06 12:17
Here's the full article (e:dcoffee) : :::link:::

The same people who will pooh-pooh this warning would be up in arms and frothing at the mouth if it had been Sandy Berger instead of Rice.

09/30/2006 00:54 #21748

9/28/2006 The day America was lost
Category: america
I'm being Blunt today, and I don't have time for a well reasoned and eloquent post, maybe in the next few days.

I'm totally distraught by what is happening in this country. It's getting bad, real fucking bad, real fucking quick. And I'm afraid 90% of America is totally ignorant of what is happening to us.

How many of you know that over the past week America lost it's soul?

No really it's that bad,

Some may think I'm being alarmist, but there are no checks against the executive's power to designate anyone they want as a enemy combatant and hold them forever without trial and torture them. And congress just said that's ok. Why? because the Republicans are foaming at the mouth to call Democrats "Soft on Terrorism" before the November elections.

I'm working on a more thoughtful article about this, here are some of my notes on the topic so far.

Themes of the argument:
War is the biggest test of a democracy.

Populations can be whipped into a fervor when they are in fear of an enemy.

Politicians are manipulating fear of terrorism to win elections.

Those in government are profiting from this war, what incentive do they have to stop it.

Rulers would love to spy on the public and put people in jail without asking for permission or just cause, that's why we are supposed to be ruled by laws, instead of the will of men.

Those in power wish to keep that power, and increase it, this is not good for the survival of the nation or the welfare of its people, that's why we have checks against the power of the government.

It is only logical for a ruler to want more power and more control, America was designed to guard against the lust for power.

The most basic foundation of a justice system is that the accused must be proven guilty.

September 28 2006, was the day that a person in detention has no right to know why they are there or attempt to prove their innocence.

Modern democracies grew out of opposition to Kings and Monarchs who arbitrarily detained anyone they didn't like. Rulers must have a reason to put someone in jail, and that person has a right to prove that they are innocent of that charge. Not in America.

Torture does not work, you get bad intelligence, and interrogators become demoralized, good people will leave, and interrogations are handled by hateful thugs.
______________________________

And Since I can't find the time or energy to be eloquent here are some people who Have.

Ny Times:


Democracy Now:

Aziz Huq:


metalpeter - 09/30/06 14:53
It sounds like a preaty much agree with what you are saying. People who feal as if they are unsafe often give up their own rights to feal safer. Notice I said feal safer not actually be safer. I once read an interesting article about countries or states that go from free to totolotorain and the united states had allready gone through a few of the steps. That dosn't mean that the us will go to that point. But if you are a conspiracry theroist you can figure out that all it might take is for the government to let another terrorist action take place or better yet let a couple take place. If they where people living here that did it you would have the excuse for Martial law. Then you could go to war. If the congress supported the president I'm sure ellections could be suspend and those old war powers from the old day inacted. I'm not saying it is going to happen but it isn't as hard for it to happen as people think.

09/15/2006 20:57 #21747

Bush, international law, and Torture
Category: war
image
Bush lobbies Congress on terror suspects

Ok, I need to know, Where does president Bush get off claiming that he alone knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? He has never been in Combat, neither have any of his close advisers. But now he truly believes, with all the passion he's shown in press conferences, that his way and only his way, will make us safer. With a track record like Bush's? I'd rather trust American Law, International law, and Colon Powell.

Colon Powell was the Secretary of State when 911 happened, he knows everything the president knows, he's been in combat and commanded troops on the battlefield. Unlike the President, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and everyone else who avoided the Vietnam Draft.

Powell has spoken strongly against this proposal, so has John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Grahm, all republican senators on the Armed Services Committee.
Powell's letter to McCain:
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

If our troops are tortured we will have no basis to demand their torturers be punished. We will be breaking the verry law that protects our soldiers.

Bush wants to allow things like "waterboarding" that's where you drown someone until they inhale water and pass out, then they are resuscitated. From testimony, it is excruciating to inhale water into your lungs and sinuses, you pass out from the pain above all else.

That's torture, the United States does not stand for such things, these are evil and sinister acts. just because Bush happens to be president for 6 years doesn't mean he can soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that make America a proud nation.

Bush's proposal aims to 'clarify' the Geneva conventions. Ooooooh, ok. But the Geneva Conventions were signed by 47 other countries. We agreed upon them at that time, and it has been the bedrock or international legitimacy. Now the US is going to be the first to chip away at it.

Offering our own interpretations of the laws of war. That sounds like a terrible thing for any country to do, offer their own interpretation of the laws of war. Especially during a time of war. Isn't that the whole point of laws in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of checks and balances? This is not a nation ruled by the passions of men, we are ruled by time tested Laws. That's the whole point of the constitution. And it's what makes a democracy last.

International law is the only way that peace can exist today. Without law your only option is violence and war. I do not want to leave my children with a world that has no trust in international standards of law. There will be no peace in such a world.

We follow the law, that's what makes us the good guys and them the bad guys.




jason - 09/17/06 18:59
Oh, I should make it very clear that my paragraph concerning support for McCain/Powell wasn't aimed at you personally. I've just been doing a lot of reading and once again people who typically have not had such kind things to say about these folks are all of a sudden in their corner telling us how great they are.

One thing to be said for McCain, he survived torture, far worse than dogs barking or sleep deprivation. It is popular in conservative circles to say that he's just being an opportunistic SOB, and that isn't fair. I think it takes quite a guy to suffer like that and to be consistent about it.
dcoffee - 09/17/06 17:50
Yea Ajay, we know Bush wore the Uniform, we saw him in it after he landed on the aircraft Carrier in a fighter jet. :-)
jason - 09/17/06 17:20
"If our troops are tortured we will have no basis to demand their torturers be punished. We will be breaking the verry law that protects our soldiers."

Do I have to start posting links to videos to show how the GC is protecting our troops against terrorists? The argument that we are anything like them is bull, plain and simple, and everyone understands. This is about protecting those who want to do us the most harm. This talk about maintaining moral authority has less to do with how we treat these people, in my opinion, than large scale operations which kill innocents along the way.

Now, I don't understand all of this sudden support for McCain and Powell - Is Powell the main liar on behalf of Bush in terms of Iraq, or is he a champion of human rights? Is McCain a right wing hack when he talks about his support for the Iraq war, or is he a champion when he starts saying things that lefties agree with? The way people treat these two figures changes weekly.

Who are they? They are Republicans, and former military men, and useful to Democrats because it means they still do not have to offer up solutions (although I give you tons of credit David because you speak openly about the issues unlike our politicians). More than that, they are moderate, which means they enjoy support from nobody other than the media, and myself.

Torture as a policy is wrong. Going straight for the waterboard is wrong. Everyone knows this, or should know it. However, I don't think the Clinton policy of absorbing attacks is workable anymore. I would be a lot happier focusing on prevention, including law enforcement, intelligence services doing their thing, and some military strikes, instead of reactionary military operations that end up killing Americans and innocent foreigners.
ajay - 09/17/06 03:17
"Powell has spoken strongly against this proposal, so has John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham..."

But honestly, (e:dcoffee) , what do these clowns know? Obviously our own (e:chickenhawks) know more about this than McCain and co. I mean, what did John McCain do in his life? Was he ever a POW or in combat, ever? And Colin Powell? He's a quitter. He quit his job soon after 9/11 because he's soft on terrorists. He probably never wore a uniform in his life (ok, maybe he worked in McDonalds). Who are these people, anyways?





:-)
metalpeter - 09/16/06 13:57
In the begging of the post it sounds like "Powell For President" I think he could be a good one if ellected. Is it just me or is Bush Going to try to be a totolarian leader. It wouldn't surprise me if he tried to bring back the war powers and suspend elections till the war is over. Some people may say pete you are way out of line. But am I once they make tourture legal over there then guess what they will try to do that over here. They will say it is for national security so there isn't another 911. People who don't feal safe will surender anything to feal safe and slowly over time we lose one freedom after another. Hopefully the American People are wise enough not to let that happen.

09/14/2006 23:14 #21746

News, Torture, lies, and Nuclear Bombs
Category: politics
I updated this post a bit since yesterday, I posted it in a hurry.

Couple things in the news today, if you're wondering how I find out about all this stuff, you only need to know one website
The Huffington Post
When you can'd read the news, listen to WHLD 1270am

(1)
George Bush is on Capital Hill today with Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove Lobbying congress to pass his plan to deal with terror suspects after his whole Enemy Combatant - Military Tribunal system was shot down by the Supreme Court.
The Militaty Tribunal system was invented by the Bush administration for the War on Terrorism. (the executive branch cannot invent a new judicial branch that doesn't comply with American law and the Constitution).

So today Bush is working to get his new system "legalized" by congress (funny, he didn't ask them in the first place).

But Bush's system still doesn't comply with the Constitution. I guess that Bush forgot that his job was to protect and uphold our constitution. Colon Powell and John McCain are opposed to the bill because of how it deals with military detainees. But Bush on the other hand, is stomping around Capital Hill screaming "Subvert the Constitution! This is an American Fascist Revolution!" ok, there I said it. The Bush Agenda is un-American.

(2)
That leads me to my point on Torture, because the president is lobbying in support of a law his administration wrote that allows people that they capture to be tortured, furthermore, any 'evidence' obtained under torture should be used in court against them.

The problem is torture doesn't work. You get bad intelligence, you end up with a lot of wild goose chases, and a lot of innocent victims disappeared and tortured, maybe killed for no reason. People will say anything if you torture them enough, whether it's true or not.
any interrogation manual will say you need to develop rapport, a relationship based on trust, so that they will give you credible information

(3)
Lastly A house report about Iran's Nuclear Program is filled with fabrication and lies. "U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel"
That's right "Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring."
The intelligence community says 3.5% and Rumsfeld hears 90% ?!?!?!? no wonder we are in the mess we are today.



09/12/2006 21:29 #21745

Politicizing Tragedy -links-
Category: politics
ok, the anniversary of 911 is to heavy for me to get into. so I'm going to summarize things in a couple of links.

Kieth Olberman gives a great summary. He noted those moments of unity after 911 when everyone followed the presidents lead, and compared that to now. Where has this tragic administration lead us? There isn't even a memorial at ground zero five years later. And we ignited a civil war in Iraq for no reason, and lost international respect.
Here's the video and transcript:

The Path to 9/11 - ABC television's "Docu Drama"?? I call it "intentional propaganda" to put it nicely, or a flagrant manipulation of the truth with some occasions of portraying the exact opposite of what happened. Yea, it's true sorry to say
You can watch clips on Youtube. Here are 9 clips from the user p911sux
More Stuff Here


And the president interrupts our lives for a prime time speech to make excuses for the Iraq War. Good idea Mr President, exploit it like a photo op to advance your failed agenda in the middle east. How moving. . . asshole



Enjoy your dose of News Video.


Update:
Read Ajay's post too
Good reflection.
jason - 09/13/06 09:58
NEWSFLASH: FICTIONALIZED MOVIE IS ACTUALLY FICTIONAL!

Hehe, just having some fun with you there. I'm not sure that "Media Matters" is the most reliable place for information, so be careful. Is it any surprise that the movie had fictionalized pieces though? They said it over and over again between segments. Did you watch it?

Anyhow, what is the truth of the Clinton Administration's role in this if the movie is absolutely wrong? Nobody remembers them as tough terror fighters. They passed the buck. The rest of it is just fluff for pundits to argue over.