Update: Congress Knew About Waterboarding in 2002
More proof that Democrats continue to exploit issues of national security for political gain. This from Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post:
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of “all aspects of the detention and interrogation program.”
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Read more: Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002.
How to turn a non-scandal, into a scandal in order to get legislation passed…
The mainstream media reports:
December 6th, the New York Times runs this story:
C.I.A. Destroyed 2 Tapes Showing Interrogations
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.
In a statement to employees on Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made “within the C.I.A.” and that they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value.
With the media template established, CNN runs this story on the 7th:
CIA director: Tapes of interrogations destroyed
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of al Qaeda suspects because they no longer had “intelligence value” and they posed a security risk, CIA director Michael Hayden said Thursday.
The tapes were made in 2002 and destroyed in 2005, Hayden said in a letter to CIA employees obtained by CNN.
They were made as “an internal check” on the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation techniques, believed to include waterboarding, a technique that involves restraining a suspect and pouring water on them to simulate drowning.
The agency made the decision to destroy the tapes “only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries,” Hayden said.
The two paragraphs at the end of this story are the most revealing about what this incident is REALLY about:
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said news the CIA destroyed the videotapes “is troubling, and it fits a pattern we have seen repeatedly during this administration.”
“When an administration abandons the moral high ground to take the low road, they are mortgaging the historic commitment to human rights that is part of the legacy of every American. The damage is compounded when such actions are hidden away from accountability,” Leahy said in a statement.
Senator Patrick Leahy. Why is this significant? Over the years, Senator Leahy has coordinated leaks within the CIA and other intelligence agencies to embarrass Presidents or worse. A good round-up of “Leaky” Leahy’s legacy can be found on Jim Kouri’s web site. So I’m not surprised to see his name turn up in the midst of this story.
On the 8th CNN runs the headline on it’s web site establishing a direct connection to the President:
Bush: ‘No recollection’ of tapes
WASHINGTON (CNN) — U.S. President George W. Bush “has no recollection” of videotapes of CIA interrogations of some al Qaeda suspects or of plans to destroy the tapes, a White House spokeswoman said.
Then publishes poll results designed to bolster the story:
Poll results: Waterboarding is torture
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A majority of Americans consider waterboarding a form of torture, but some of those say it’s OK for the U.S. government to use the technique, according to a poll released Tuesday.
Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no.
Asked whether they think the U.S. government should be allowed to use the procedure to try to get information from suspected terrorists, 58 percent said no; 40 percent said yes.
The NYT ran the following stories on the 8th. The first one designed to establish the premise that the C.I.A. disobeyed the better judgment of (Democrats) congress:
C.I.A. Was Urged to Keep Interrogation Videotapes
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.
The chief of the agency’s clandestine service nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.’s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.
And then the “money shot” piece from the NYT:
Lawmakers Back Limits on Interrogation Tactics
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — In a sharp rebuke to White House counterterrorism policy, a Congressional conference committee has voted to outlaw the harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency against suspected high-level terrorists.
The vote to require all American interrogators to abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive methods, came during negotiations of the Senate and House intelligence committees over the annual intelligence authorization bill. It will not be the last word on the subject; the full House and Senate must still pass the bill, and it would likely face a veto by President Bush.
But passage of the interrogation restriction — by one vote in a tense, three-hour meeting on Wednesday behind closed doors — reflected Congress’s growing disenchantment with the harsh tactics authorized by the White House after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It was the latest setback for the administration’s insistence that what it calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques are a critical part of gathering intelligence to thwart future terrorist attacks.
The Left jumped all over this incident as more evidence that Bush – Cheney Incorporated are lying, evil neo cons who need to be impeached. That aside, what we have here is Democrats, in a well-coordinated PR campaign (vis-a-vis the mainstream press) manipulating the political “system” in Washington.
Democrats have been attempting to shut down efforts to fight al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups as early as 2001. Their attempts have largely failed. Many have taken particular aim at America’s use of interrogation techniques. So what you have here is a perfect example of Democrats coordinating with their Allies in the media, to achieve a political goal that they otherwise could not achieve at the ballot box.
The “plot” also includes several perks: they’ll probably be able to take down one or more Bush administration officials (or appointees); and they’ll embarrass the President in the process.
Of course, bloggers left and right are offering their own spin:
Blackfive blogger, good ol’ Uncle Jimbo, sums up the C.I.A.’s justification for destroying the tapes. I agree with the point about moving public opinion toward more restrictions. Restrictions legislated by our dear stuffed-shirt liberals in Washington:
There are two good reasons to destroy the tapes. Hayden put the first one front and center, our interrogators are shown on them. Keeping their identities secret is very important, and something Valerie Plame could have paid more heed to. Once the interrogations were completed and transcribed, there is no use to them other than the ghoulish watching of human suffering.
Which brings us to reason number two. They were almost certainly horrifying and awful and their viewing by many Americans would cause a reaction. It would likely move public opinion toward more restrictions on what methods may be employed. We have already put too many and the unpleasantness of the coercive techniques would be offensive to some who would otherwise approve of using all techniques short of torture.
Larisa Alexandrovna claims to know how the C.I.A. works:
Anyone who has studied anything about the agency and its operations, even the most illegal and violent ops undertaken, knows that the agency does not take a collective piss without permission from the White House. Someone gave the order for those tapes to be destroyed and it has nothing to do with covering up the torture, because, the CIA has done plenty worse that it continued to keep on file for ages.
Emptywheel provides a mind-boggling lefty-spin—except for the last sentence of the following paragraph:
It strikes me that there aren’t that many “former intelligence officials” who would have been present for both the initial Congressional briefing and within Porter Goss’ inner circle at CIA when the tapes were destroyed. Granted, Goss brought a bunch of his loyal flunkeys with him from Congress, but these former intelligence officials are really limited to Goss’ flunkeys and Goss himself. All of which makes me wonder whether Mazzetti’s sources for the larger story aren’t Goss’ flunkeys, which would really raise questions for me about their motivation. Almost as many questions as I’ve got about how Crazy Pete and Dick Durbin ended up on the same side of an issue. It’s enough to make you really be cautious about the politics involved in this story.
Macranger points out an important FACT (emphasis added):
Let the hand-ringing continue. Again, outside of the NY Times and their “anonymous” sources NO ONE knows what the tapes contained. Whether they contained waterboarding is non-statement of fact as NO ONE has seen the tapes except those within the agency and the - this is important - the CIA’s watchdog group who determined that the techniques - whatever they were - were legal.
Chuck Adkins tries not to blow a head gasket, but does anyway:
…One thing I will say, without putting a Political spin on it. There have been some Democrats who have said that they were aware of the tapes too. So, I believe much of this hyperventilating by the left is quite silly. Honestly, If there has been withholding of evidence and lying to investigators, people should go to jail, no matter if they are Democrat or Republican. If you lied,go to jail, just that simple. Justice should not be, with the emphases on should not be, based upon one’s political party.
Ed Morrissey adds much needed clarity to the discussion:
…Rodriguez decided for himself what his legal obligations required in terms of retention. Despite the expressed will of Congress, the White House, and the CIA’s own attorneys, Rodriguez destroyed the tapes — even though his own boss had gone on record as demanding their retention. Afterwards, the agency didn’t bother to inform anyone of the destruction for almost a year, and lied about the one-time existence of the tapes to federal prosecutors working on the Moussaoui case.
This clears the White House of responsibility for the decision and the cover-up. Mark Mazzetti reports that George Bush didn’t know about the destruction until Hayden announced it publicly on Thursday. Porter Goss found out about it at the same time as John Rizzo, and vented his anger at the destruction of the tapes, as did Rizzo. In this case, the destruction appears to have been a compartmentalized operation by Rodriguez. The CIA informed the intel committee leadership in 2006 that they had defied their wishes and destroyed the tapes.
Why? In November 2005, Congress began asking questions about aggressive interrogation techniques. The CIA hid the tapes abroad instead of securing them at Langley, hoping to avoid subpoenas. When that strategy looked weak, they simply destroyed the tapes.
James Oliphant opines about the political outcome for the Bush administration:
For the administration, the revelation comes at a particularly inopportune time, as Congress is considering whether to limit the authority of the CIA to employ aggressive interrogation techniques beyond those permitted for other government agents and the U.S. military. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), among others, called upon the Senate to pass the legislation in response to the CIA’s disclosures.
Of course, Bluto of Jawa Report, states what most of us think about the worst Congress in History (so far):
Unfortunately, operational security must take a back seat to congressional witch-hunts these days. That means the motivations for destroying the tapes are muddled. Was Rodriguez practicing some CYA, or were the operational security considerations foremost in his mind?
There’s also a good round-up on MemeOrandum.
Posted on:
December 8, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Domestic Politics, Intelligence . •
No Comments • .
Just read this mind-boggling post from the Jawa Report:
“Even as Ethiopia has troops on the ground in Somalia fighting al Qaeda forces, the Democrats in Congress are preparing to end aid to that country. Ethiopia is fighting a proxy war on our behalf, and the Democrats want to cut off aid? Great timing.”
Democrats strong on national security? Yeah right. That’s like saying O.J. Simpson is an advocate of womens rights.
Update: There’s more posted over at HotAir.com…
There is a pattern to what the Democrats are doing, whether they acknowledge it or not. I griped a bit a week or so ago at Democrat calls to cut off the Pakistanis for similar reasons. Whatever problems we have with Musharraf’s imperfections, cutting military aid from him objectively helps al Qaeda. I also opposed the Armenia genocide resolution for similar reasons; spitting in the face of useful allies is no way to go about winning a war. The Democrats are now cutting off funding to the troops in Iraq, which will a) force lacerations in the way the DoD can operate in Iraq and Afghanistan and will b) help every enemy we have on the face of the earth by directly weakening our military’s readiness. Democrats routinely let the perfect become the enemy of the good, especially if the imperfect good happens to be a US ally.
And while this is going on, Democrats and their allies routinely prop up Hugo Chavez as a swell chap in spite of (or because of?) his over the top anti-American rants.
Good point indeed!
Posted on:
November 20, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Global Jihad, North Africa . •
No Comments • .
Personal disclaimer: I'm not posting this information to cause panic. But rather to highlight various press and blogger accounts of al-Qaeda's desire to use WMD as a weapon of terror inside the United States. In my opinion, if such a plot were to be carried out, the retaliatory strikes by the U.S. would be devastating to any hostile nation states harboring Islamic terrorist organizations. The plan would ultimately backfire on those who carried it out.
The Jawa Report has two posts pertaining to al-Qaeda's possible execution of a plot to attack using a nuclear weapon inside the United States. The attack is supposedly going to occur during Ramadan, the muslim holiday which begins this year on September 24th.
A Pakistani journalist says that his sources in al Qaeda and the Taliban are claiming that nuclear material has already been smuggled across the Mexican border into the U.S. and that an operation bigger than 9/11 will be carried out during Ramadan–which begins later this month.
Hamid Mir, who is the only journalist ever to interview both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, claims that he learned this information on a recent trip to Afghanistan last month.
Read more: Al Qaeda Will Nuke US in Late September.
Terrorist, Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, May be al-Qaeda's Trigger Man:
Many reports indicate that Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, the cell leader responsible for carrying out the plot, is already in the United States and has been for some time. Furthermore, there is speculation that Adnan smuggled a nuclear device into the U.S. across the Mexican border. He is wanted for questioning by the FBI: details here.
The other Jawa Report post details the account of a reader who may have come into contact with Adnan, in Austin, Texas, earlier this year.
A Jawa Report reader e-mailed us about a possible sighting of Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a man wanted by the FBI in connection with a plot to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States. A few days ago we ran a story about reports of an imminent attack by Adnan G. El Shukrijumah (aka, Adnan Al-Shukri Jumaa).
The reader, who some of you have met in the comments section before, also commented about it over at Ace of Spades HQ. Ace has those comments reprinted here. She has spoken with the FBI.
Read more: Al Qaeda Dirty Bomber Spotted in Austin, Texas?
Adnan Shukrijumah Past and Present:
Muslims Called to Leave the United States:
During a press interview in Pakistan on September 17th, a top al-Qaeda commander, Abu Dawood, based in Pakistan issued a call to all muslims, living in the United States, to leave. Specifically in the New York and Washington, D.C. area.
The new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. – particularly Washington and New York – in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11, according to an interview by a Pakistani journalist.
Abu Dawood told Hamid Mir, a reporter who has covered al-Qaida and met with Osama bin Laden, the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah and suggests it may involve some form of weapon of mass destruction smuggled across the Mexican border.
"Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again," he is quoted as saying. "There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time."
More at WorldNetDaily.
al-Qaeda Authorized to Use Nuclear Weapons Against the United States:
In August CNN's, Christiane Amanpour, wrote about the grave threat Osama bin Laden still posed to the United States:
LONDON, England (CNN) — Nearly five years have passed since the September 11 terrorist attacks, yet Osama bin Laden — the world's most-wanted terrorist — remains a dangerous fugitive, his words and actions inspiring jihadists across the globe.
It's hard to fathom that bin Laden would remain so relevant today, when in the days after the attacks, the Bush administration and much of the world was determined to get him.
In the report, Amanpour quotes Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit. He had this to say:
Michael Scheuer, who once headed the CIA's bin Laden unit, says bin Laden has been given permission by a young cleric in Saudi Arabia authorizing al Qaeda to "use nuclear weapons against the United States … capping the casualties at 10 million."
"He's had an approval, a religious approval for 10 million deaths?" I asked him.
"Yes," Scheuer responded.
Full text: Amanpour: Bin Laden still deadly relevant.
From Drudge Report via Jihad Watch (November 12th, 2004):
Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist. The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Nov. 14 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network….
Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn't have used it for a lack of proper religious authority - authority he has now. "[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik…a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," says Scheuer. "[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans," Scheuer tells Kroft.
Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by some Muslims for the 9/11 attack because he killed so many people without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam. But now bin Laden has addressed the American people and given fair warning. "They're intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region….If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it's chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon," says Scheuer.
More: Saudi cleric blesses Bin Laden's use of nuke against U.S.A.
Posted on:
September 18, 2006 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Global Jihad, Homeland Security, Intelligence, International, al-Qaeda . •
1 Comment • .
The real headline in Wednesday's edition of the Star Bulletin is "Web videos mock U.S. war deaths", but I thought I'd headline my own post with something more accurate.
Via starbulletin.com:
Posted on YouTube.com, the clips include insurgent slogans and have been viewed thousands of times
The wildly popular video-sharing Web site YouTube.com has dozens of videos purporting to show individual American soldiers being killed in Iraq, in what amounts to snuff films, overlaid with music and insurgent slogans.
Some of the videos, including ones of American soldiers purportedly being picked off by snipers or being blown up by improvised explosive devices, have been viewed tens of thousands of times each in the past few months. Some are posted in YouTube's "news and blogs" category, but others are listed under "entertainment" and even "comedy."
One shows what appears to be three U.S. soldiers in desert fatigues questioning Iraqi men in a street or alley as young boys mingle around. Suddenly, one soldier slumps to the ground, felled by a single bullet, as the children scatter. In another, a U.S. soldier is standing through the top hatch of a Humvee, then slumps over as the sniper strikes.
Their presence on YouTube shows that insurgent propaganda — including genuine footage — already available on more obscure Web sites has seeped in the mainstream of American popular culture, said Eben Kaplan, assistant editor of CFR.org, the Web site of the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank headquartered in New York.
Read more: Web videos mock U.S. war deaths.
Posted on:
September 13, 2006 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Global Jihad, Iraqi Freedom, Miscellaneous . •
No Comments • .
From the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA):
Damascus, Sep. 12 (SANA),
Syrian Anti-Terror Forces Thwart Terrorist Operation that Targeted the American Embassy in Damascus
Syrian anti-terror forces on Tuesday morning thwarted a terrorist operation by a terrorist Takfiri group of four gunmen who tried to storm the American embassy in Damascus using hand grenades and machines guns.
The guards assigned to protect the American embassy clashed with the terrorists, killing three of them and wounding the fourth.
The terrorists used in their terrorist operation a car they were in and another booby-trapped car that parked in front of the embassy door to detonate it. Competent experts from anti-terror forces dismantled the explosive charge and the timing devices inside the car.
Investigations are still underway into this terrorist incident.
Read the rest here, but there's more:
Damascus, Sep. 12 (SANA),
Interior Minister: The Terrorist Operation Failed to Achieve its Aims
Syrian Minister of Interior General Bassam Abdul Majid stressed that the terrorist operation that targeted the American embassy in Damascus Tuesday morning has failed to achieve any of the aims or premeditated dimensions plotted by the criminal sides that stood behind it.
The Minister, in statements at the scene of the terrorist incident, praised the role of anti-terror forces in thwarting this terrorist operation and their alertness to protect the nation and citizens.
He said that the preliminary investigations revealed that the two cars used in this incidents were stolen, adding that investigations area underway to divulge those who are behind this terrorist operation.
The Interior Minister indicated that the scene of the terrorist operation is a public street that any car can use and stop for moments, a thing exploited by the terrorist group.
A Syrian guard assigned to protect the American Embassy was killed, and another wounded in the clash:
Damascus, Sep. 12 (SANA),
One of Anti-Terror Forces was Martyred, Others Wounded in the Terrorist Operation That Targeted US Embassy in Damascus
Following to preliminary information on the terrorist operation that targeted the American embassy in Damascus Tuesday morning, one Syrian security guard assigned for the protection of the American embassy in Damascus was martyred in the clash between anti-terror forces and the terrorist Takfiri group, another was wounded along with a policeman of the embassy guards and a security employee in the embassy.
Another 11 citizens were also injured in this terrorist operation, seven of them were workers of a technical workshop of the Syrian Telecommunication Establishment who were on a repair mission in the area, a man and a woman of Iraqi nationalities in addition to a Chinese citizen who was on the roof of his house in the area.
The wounded were taken to public hospitals for treatment.
Via CNN World:
DAMASCUS, Syria (CNN) — Syrian security forces killed four attackers Tuesday outside the U.S. Embassy in Damascus after a car exploded near the walls of the American compound, the Syrian Information Ministry said.
There was no claim of responsibility for the attack, but an al Qaeda offshoot group called Jund al-Sham — or Soldiers of Lebanon — is suspected, said Imad Moustapha, Syrian ambassador to the United States.
The radical fundamentalist group has been blamed for several attacks in Syria in recent years, Moustapha said.
One Syrian security guard protecting the embassy was killed in the attack, Syria's state-run news agency SANA reported.
Syrian authorities wounded and arrested another suspected attacker, the ministry said. No American diplomats were harmed.
SANA reported 13 others were wounded, including an embassy policeman, a security worker and 11 civilians, among them two Iraqis and a Chinese.
"The State Department confirms an attack by unknown assailants," U.S. State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said from Washington. "The event appears to be over and handled by local authorities … on the scene."
The Syrian Information Ministry said none of the staff was wounded and the embassy incurred no damage.
Video footage from the scene showed the burned-out wreckage of a car and blood-soaked streets near the embassy, which in a residential area of the Syrian capital.
The armed attackers apparently tried to storm the embassy with hand grenades and machine guns after detonating a car bomb near the compound walls, according to the ministry and the state-run news agency.
Read the entire CNN article here.
Posted on:
September 12, 2006 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Global Jihad, International, al-Qaeda . •
No Comments • .
Warning: Spoiler Ahead…
Last Segment, September 11th, 2006:
See below for commentary regarding yesterday's segment.
Impressions:
- The NSC, headed by "Sandy" Berger, clearly places the blame for failure to protect the country on the CIA.
- Politically correctness is a theme that prevents most FBI agents and counter-terrorism officials from acting in a meaningful way.
- The portrayal of Condoleeza Rice is awkward.
(Break: Presidential address.)
The rest of the series seems to be fairly accurate according to the 9/11 commission report as well as other accounts I've read. Aside from the original Lewinsky footage that was edited out I can't see what all the fuss by liberals was all about. Nothing in this docu-drama was new.
Perhaps our liberal friends just didn't want the American people to see that our enemies are really at war with us. Maybe they believe the war on terror is an invention by George Bush to conquer the world. Bush's administration may have invented the phrase "war on terror", but they certainly did not invent the war.
Perhaps the ex-Clinton cadre were simply trying to preserve a political legacy where there really isn't one. Who knows… But overall, The Path to 9/11 was indeed a good film. The cinematography was excellent. The scenes involving Ahmed Shah Massoud, the FBI and other public servants was inspiring. This movie also showed us who the enemy is and how committed they are to wage war against us.
First Segment, September 10th, 2006:
So far, I've seen the first hour and forty-five minutes of The Path to 9/11.
The movie opens with scenes from the early morning of 9/11, the hijackers boarding plane's and getting settled… Followed by the sequence of the 1993 WTC bombing.
First impressions:
- Historically glossed over in some respects but altogether not bad.
- The movie definitely depicts the Jihadist's as America's sworn enemy.
- There are many scenes that you would expect to see footage of former president Clinton (press conferences, speeches, etc.)
Strangely enough, Clinton isn't present in the movie at all so far. (With the exception of his image on a television set in the NYC FBI office.)
Update (10:00 PM EST):
Concerning the scene showing Osama bin Laden surrounded by field agents and Ahmed Shah Massoud's men…
- A shorter scene involving the meeting between Berger and the NSC was shown. The decision to scrub the operation was implied.
- Most of the footage showing bin Laden's camp being surrounded was edited out. Massoud's men approach Tarnak farms, FBI agents await orders and the scene cuts to the NSC meeting. Following that, the film cuts back to Massoud's quote "Aren't there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards."
- The scene showing Clinton giving the press interview about his Lewinsky testimony was completely cut. Instead there were at least two "we'll get 'em…" type speeches, one after the NSC meeting and the other five or so minutes later during the Nairobi embassy bombing sequence.
Other Impressions:
- Scenes involving FBI agents investigating or arresting a suspect, or suspects, are pretty cool. There's almost a CSI feel to the movie.
- FBI agents, notably Agent John O'Neil, come across as heroes frustrated by the bureaucracy and the Clinton administration.
The first part of the mini-series wraps up by revisiting the scenes of the 9/11 hijackers preparing for their takeover of the first plane…
Posted on:
September 11, 2006 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Domestic Politics . •
No Comments • .
Update (September 9th, 2006):
- Clinton's lawyer pressures ABC to "yank the film". Strangely enough there's also speculation that the letter may be a fake.
- Peggy Noonan recalls the sounds of 9/11.
- Redstate has the video clips from the film that democrats don't want you to see.
Update: Blackfive weighs in with 9/11 Truthers & Clintonistas in the Crosshairs.
Uncle Jimbo says:
On top of this ABC has a miniseries that follows the completely feckless response of Clinton’s national security team to 8 years of provocation by bin Laden and AQ. The Clintonistas are predictably appalled at having the inherent weakness of the current Democrat party on national defense so brutally exposed. They have been coasting on nostalgic feel good memories of peace and prosperity when the stock market soared, there was a Hummer in every driveway, and people worldwide loved us. Except the internet bubble burst draining away all that faux-prosperity, as it turned out we weren’t actually at peace we were just failing to act as our enemies continued to attack us, and trust me nobody loved us then either.
Update: Another e-mail from the executive director of the Democratic National Committee
Note: I'm not a registered democrat and I actually wrote a letter via their website encouraging ABC to air the film as scheduled. They obviously didn't read my letter.
It would seem that the entire demcratic party machine is rallying against this movie. Which begs the question, what are they so worried about, and why are they trying to shield the public from seeing it?
Dear Fellow Democrat,
This is it: crunch time for getting the slanderous ABC television docudrama "The Path to 9/11" yanked off the air. The network schedule has this slanderous attack on Democrats slated to start on Sunday night, September 10, at 8 o'clock — and as long as it stays on the schedule, we have work to do.
http://www.democrats.org/pathto911/send
Here's the good news: the suits at ABC and the Walt Disney Company have started panicking under pressure, thanks to your ferocious response to the outrageous decision to put this irresponsible miniseries on the air. But until Disney quits defending its plan to broadcast conservative propaganda — fraudulently presented to Americans as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" — the company should plan to keep taking every bit of heat we dish out.
Here's a quick catch-up on developments over the last 48 hours:
- President Clinton, through his attorney, rebuked ABC for producing a "factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate" miniseries — and walked the network through three make-believe scenes in the "the Path to 9/11" that defame people and misrepresent events during his administration.
- Clinton's spokesman later stepped up the pressure, condemning Disney as "despicable" for "airing a fictional version of what is a serious and emotional event for our country. No reputable organization," he said, "should dramatize 9-11 for a profit at the expense of the truth."
- The families of September 11 victims have weighed in on the controversy, telling "entertainers" not to "promote misleading or incorrect information as fact to the public."
- House and Senate Democratic leaders hammered Disney president and CEO Robert Iger, in letters that questioned the company's commitment to its "reputation … as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress."
- Scholastic has pulled teaching materials off its website and has scrambled to adopt a plan to help teachers show students "the differences between factual reporting and a dramatization," but is still encouraging teachers to show their students this propaganda.
Thanks for helping to make all this happen by joining over 150,000 Americans who told Disney president Robert Iger to keep this cheap right-wing miniseries off our airwaves. But our work isn't done. Before we deliver your letter today, tell your family, friends, neighbors and colleagues to insist that Disney and ABC live up to its duty to tell the truth:
http://www.democrats.org/pathto911/send
Thank you,
Tom
Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee
Update (Sept. 8th):
Democratic efforts to censor
FREE SPEECH (again)
Below is a copy of an e-mail that is being circulated by the democratic party.
Hi,
The ABC television network — a cog in the Walt Disney empire — unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11". ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, "based on the 9/11 Commission Report".
That's false. "The Path to 9/11" is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.
The miniseries, which was put together by right-wing conservative writers, relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans. "The Path to 9/11" mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.
Join me in telling Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger to keep this propaganda off the air.
http://www.democrats.org/page/
petition/pathto911/ftvala
Thanks!
Please allow me to translate the meaning of the langauge used in the e-mail:
The ABC television network — a cog in the Walt Disney empire — unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11". ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production…
Translation: We're VICTIMS of "big business" again.
…and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, "based on the 9/11 Commission Report".
That's false. "The Path to 9/11" is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.
Translation: Only WE are allowed to revise history, and only WE are allowed provide a public service.
The miniseries, which was put together by right-wing conservative writers, relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans.
Translation: We're being VICTIMIZED by the vast right-wing conspiracy again. And since we're not strong on national security, we'll resort to accusing republicans of scaring the public instead of drawing up an effective plan of our own.
"The Path to 9/11" mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.
Translation: We think Fahrenheit 9/11 was a much more accurate and honorable portrayal of the failures that led to the September 11th. So much so, we invited its producer to sit with us at our 2004 national convention.
Also on the story:
Good commentary:
Update (Sept. 8th):
Stephen of MediaBlog over at NRO is reporting that senate democrats may have issued a veiled threat regarding Disney's broadcast license if they don't cancel the mini-series.
This is simply outrageous. I guess free speech is only good enough for liberals and terrorist statesmen that agree with their cause. The democrats are making complete jackasses of themselves. You can't revoke a television network's broadcast license because they air a film containing views you don't agree with.
Update (Sept. 7th):
LGF has links showing the democratic party is officially trying to censor ABC network programming.
Update (Sept. 6th):
Hugh Hewitt may have evidence that ABC may have edited the film under pressure from liberals.
I had to interrupt a busy workday to post this example of utter hypocrisy from democrats.
This party has been campaigning as the vanguard of free speech in its opposition to NSA wiretaps, its defense of the New York Times after the paper revealed classified information about counter-terror programs that help to keep us safe, and its opposition to the renewal of the USA Patriot Act.
From UPI :
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) — An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism.
"The Path to 9/11," a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, will be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack next week by ABC Television.
The movie is billed as a dramatization based on the report of the U.S. commission that investigated the events of Sept. 11 and circumstances leading up to it. According to a disclaimer shown at the beginning of each episode, it "has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes."
But a portion of the film showing an aborted effort to capture al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa has aroused the ire of some of the officials portrayed.
Here's where the hypocrisy begins:
And Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called on ABC to show disclaimers throughout each episode, not just at the beginning. "ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks," she said.
I don't recall democrats calling for disclaimers throughout Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11? Furthermore, the Clinton liberals are doing everything they can to prevent ABC from airing the film "as-is." That in and of itself should tell you this is going to be one good film.
The mini-series is actually an accurate portrayal, albeit re-enacted, of what really happened in the years leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It's time the country learned the truth about what happened instead of buying into the liberal myth that it was all George W. Bush's fault.
In one scene, CIA operatives working with Ahmed Shah Masud (sic), the charismatic Afghan mujahedin leader who fought al-Qaida and their Taliban sponsors, are assembled on a hillside above bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms. "It's perfect for us," says "Kirk," a composite character representing several of the CIA operatives and analysts involved in the hunt for the terrorist leader.But the team is forced to abort the mission when Berger hangs up on them in the middle of a conference call, after telling them he cannot give the go ahead for the action."I don't have that authority," he says."Are there any men in Washington," Masud asks Kirk afterwards in the film, "or are they all cowards?"
Former national security advisor to President Clinton, Sandy Berger, had this to say:
"The incidents depicted did not happen," said Berger in the statement. "They are not contained in the Sept. 11 Commission report, which is the most authoritative review of the events before and after the attack."
This coming from a man who plead guilty to stealing classified documents from the National Archive. (I wonder what he was trying to hide…)
Read the entire UPI article: Analysis: Sept. 11 miniseries under fire.
Other commentaries: Blackfive, Hugh Hewitt, Little Green Footballs, HotAir, JunkyardBlog, Sticky Notes.
Posted on:
September 9, 2006 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Domestic Politics, Elections 2006, Media Bias, al-Qaeda . •
5 Comments • .
A blogger from The Dis Brimstone Daily (Clark Clifford), wrote a post in response to a Washington Post article about the President's policy in Iraq, and also featured a list of questions I wrote as part of the post entitled "They Voted Against Victory" back in June, in response to the house vote on Resolution 861. The questions I wrote were directed at Democrats who ascribe to the party's cut and run strategy in Iraq and elsewhere. The blogger at Dis Brimstone provided answers to those questions based on his own world view.
I'm going to list the questions from my previous post along with his answers and rebut each one for the sake of clarity.
Question:
How they [the Democratic party] plan to protect American citizens around the World when the Islamo-fascists, emboldened by our defeat in Iraq, take the initiative and step up their efforts?
Clifford's answer:
With the same robust application of the CIA and FBI as is being done today.
My response:
The robust application of the CIA and FBI is currently being made possible by the USA Patriot Act. Neither agency was nearly robust enough prior to 9/11. Moreover, the effort to strike down the Patriot Act has been lead by the Democratic Party. One of the country's top ranking Democrats was even publicly quoted as saying "We killed the Patriot Act" during a Democrat-lead effort to filibuster a proposal to extend it.
Questions:
How they plan to protect American families when the terrorists in Iraq follow our troops home? How they plan to deal with a depressed economy that will surely follow a defeat in Iraq?
Clifford's answer:
I highly doubt if the democrats will disband ICE or open the US border to waves of undocumented immigrants that is unless they float to Florida from Cuba.
My Response:
I would agree with your assessment. However, what worries me is that both political parties, especially the democrats, view new immigrants (legal or illegal) as a future, or in some cases a current, voting block.
Having our soldiers engaging Jihadist's in their own neighborhood in the middle east and elsewhere instead of chasing them through the streets of New York City or Detroit seems to make strategic sense.
Question:
If the going gets tougher in Afghanistan, and by all indications it will, how quickly will they withdraw troops from that country?
Clifford's answer:
Afghanistan is only the city of kabul the rest is literally a vast amalgamation of territory held by warlords. The nation looks more like Somalia than Iraq.
My Response:
This has to be one of the most short-sighted explanations I've ever heard with regards to Afghanistan. The fact is, there are many populated cities with strategic military importance in Afghanistan. Ahmed Shah Massoud (a.k.a the Lion of Panjshir), the leader of the Afghan rebel fighters who played a significant role in driving the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980's, was able to do so from bases in cities and towns north of Kabul.
The other major problem the U.S. and it's allies will soon face is a major counter-attack by the Taliban and al-Qaeda allied fighters. These groups have largely retreated to neighboring Pakistan where they have been rearming and recruiting for the past several years.
Question:
How they plan to defend the country against a nuclear armed Iran once the Iranians realize America doesn't keep its promises?
Clifford's answer:
Simple, it cannot. And that is due to a stubborn willfulness on the part of the current administration. If America would talk to Iran directly through back channels much of this could be resolved. The current administration is perfectly happy not having dialogue with Iran or Syria for its own reasons.
My Response:
The current administration is probably communicating with Iran through various diplomatic channels. You and I may never know the extent to which these two countries communicate. However, the threat from Iran is very real. Ordinary people there are terrified of their leaders and very fearful that they may actually follow through on their threats to "wipe Israel off the map". So far, the democrats have criticized the current administration for not "talking" to Iranian leaders. But they have yet to reveal a real plan and their own track record in dealing with countries like Iran and North Korea simply stinks.
Question:
How they plan to deal with a re-armed Libya and the extremist takeover of the government in Pakistan?
Clifford's answer:
While Libya as long a Qadaffi is in power [sic] is little threat a fundamentalist Pakistan is a greater nightmare than a nuclear Iran. Fortunately, India is sitting right there as quite the deterrent.
My Response:
I would agree with this statement. A radicalized Pakistani government is a real threat. But to simply suggest that India would deter that threat is naïve at best. You can't rely on another nation to protect your own national security. India has an extremely large Muslim population so they have many other interests to balance.
Question:
How they’ll sleep at night knowing that Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered by anti–government Sunni Arabs in retaliation for cooperating with the coalition, as had happened to the Shia after the first Gulf war?
Clifford's answer:
I know this blogger wished he had never put this on his site. Because this is exactly what is happening on Bush's watch with control of Congress in the hands of the GOP. That question is better directed at Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Rice, and the POTUS.
My Response:
Clifford is correct, I was premature in writing that the Sunni Arabs would retaliate against the Shia as had happened after the first Gulf war. It would actually be the Shia that engages in mass-retaliation if U.S. troops left too soon. As for whether Bush et al are to blame? I disagree. The Iraqi's are not a bunch of simple-minded children. They will decide if and when, and to what extent they engage in violence against one another.
Posted on:
August 25, 2006 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Counter Terrorism, Domestic Politics, Homeland Security, Leftwing Watch . •
No Comments • .
More Posts »
