9/11

That's what prosecutors are seeking for Guantanamo Bay detainees charged with connections to 9/11.

So here we are - the 6th anniversary of 9/11. All the television stations are replaying their coverage of the attacks and we will be reminded of it all day.

I think it is an insult to Americans to constantly remind them of the attacks. There isn't any other nation that goes through this kind of dramatics to remember such a horrible day. Imagine if Iraq held on to something like this for so long? Everyday would be a day of remembrance for them.

9/11 was a horrible event and one that shouldn't be forgotten, but it should also not become a public spectacle every year. Politicians have already trampled that day by politicizing the event. Now we have a yearly reminder trying to make us feel as though it just happened. If your loved one was gunned down on video tape, would you want to constantly watch it? I didn't think so. Perhaps the same courtesy should be extended to the families of the victims.

Something I have said numerous times is that 9/11 didn't change the world. Instead we joined the world on 9/11. A lot of people understand this basic concept. It's the people in charge who refuse to.

The only person that needs the reminder of what happened on 9/11 is George Bush. He is the one that let the masterminds of this horrible attack go unpunished. Now we see possible replacements for him wanting to extend the same luxury to Osama bin Laden.

The revenge against those who attack us was quickly dismissed. Instead George Bush decided to take revenge on a man who wanted to kill his father, Saddam Hussein.  He tried to tell the American people that Saddam was behind this horrible attack. That was a lie. He told us about the horrible things Saddam did to his people and that we needed to free them. That was a total insult to the people who died on 9/11. What about their vengeance Mr. Bush?

I have never been one of those 9/11 conspiracy theory people. I believe Osama was behind the attack that killed 3,000 American lives. George Bush is just as guilty as Osama though. George Bush has let Osama grow stronger and remain free. That is complicity.

There is almost 4,000 other lives George Bush is responsible for the death of. Those are the soldiers that have died in a war of lies that George Bush put us into. That crime makes him worse than Osama bin Laden. George Bush lied to the American people, let the man who caused 9/11 go free, and continues to lie to the American people.

Of course people on the right will go ape shit over Bush being called a criminal. They think people like me should be sent to Gitmo or charged with treason for saying such things. Of course these are the same people that constantly refer to Bill Clinton as a rapist, and did so while he was President. The Republicans are the party of double standards.

But let's remember what happened when the Republicans did their assault against Bill Clinton. In the hills of Afghanistan there was a man planning an attack of historic proportions against our nation. Bill Clinton was trying to get this man. His efforts were met with extreme criticism here at home. "Wagging the Dog" was the cliche commonly used. The man Clinton was trying to kill was Osama bin Laden and the criticisms were coming from the Republican party. Yes they are almost as guilty as George Bush in the attacks on 9/11. This is something Americans need to remember next year at the polls, because it is the truest insult to our nation.

Back when Bush and all the government officials talked about protecting our food and water supply? They tried to scare us with these scenarios that al Qaeda might put something in the supply.

Here we are 6 years later and is our supply any safer? In the past year we have had numerous food recalls and today we get a town in Massachusetts that has their water supply contaminated with a corrosive lye of all things.

So is Bush doing anything to protect our water and food, or was that just another one of his boogy men theories? This is a very serious issue, and I hope Congress looks into it. We seem to be getting far more cases of bad food and water than any other time in history. Oh wait - maybe that is "thinking post 9/11" like the Republicans do!

But we can hold off on Bush. John Dean said there could very well be grounds for Congress to impeach members of the administration. Bob Fertik at Democrats.com wants to start with Gonzales, but I have my eyes on someone else.

Last year Bob Woodward gave us a chilling look into the administration. In his book, State of Denial, Woodward talks about the months leading up to 9/11 and what wasn't done. I blogged about this back in September:

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. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

Condi quickly went into denial mode, but that didn't last long as this revelation came out a few weeks later:

I doubt it. Earlier I posted on this article:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said.

(emphasis mine)

Well here we go yet again. This is from tomorrow's New York Times:

A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

Again she has lied to the American people about their safety. For someone who is claimed as being so intelligent, she sure does get caught lying to us alot.

This sure isn't a way to defend the claims in Woodward's new book:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said.

Rice was President Bush's national security adviser in 2001, when Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" outlines a July 10 meeting among Rice, Tenet and the CIA's top counterterror officer.

"I don't know that this meeting took place, but what I really don't know, what I'm quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told there was an impending attack and I refused to respond," Rice said.

Way to try and spin it there Condi. The problem is the American people already know you are a liar (mushroom clouds ring a bell?). I am sure that she remembers damn good and well what happened. This is just her defense (ie. Scooter Libby defense).

From Yesterday's NYTimes:

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. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

Tomorrow's WaPo:

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.

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. 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.

I wonder if Condi feels the urgency now?

Raw Story has much more.

This time he raises the question no other journalist has had the balls to - what did Bush do to prevent 9/11? A vital question if there is any.

<!--video-->

We have the full transcript up at Crooks and Liars.

The most interesting part (and there were plenty) was when Olbermann finally calls bullshit on the whole "Clinton was distracted by Lewinsky" claim. He brings up the $100,000 question of "Who started that witch hunt?" Exactly.

Clinton was trying to get Osama and still the Republicans were obsessed with his penis. They even resorted to accusing the President of "wagging the dog" when he bombed Osama's hideouts in August of 1998. Now because the Republicans had this sick obsession, they want to turn the blame back to Clinton yet again. Perhaps if they could have focused on running our country and not who is on their knees in the Oval Office then 9/11 would have never happened.

This is a very sad "milestone" to reach:

Now the death toll is 9/11 times two.

U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.

The latest milestone for a country at war comes without commemoration. It also may well come without the precision of knowing who is the 2,973rd man or woman of arms to die in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just when it happens. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed.

Of course the greatest contribution to this tally comes from that war of choice -Iraq. We are just 2 short of 2,700 lives lost in that failed experiment of Bush's. Just remember - if you vote for Republican's this fall, you vote to have more of our brave young men and women killed. Their lives deserve justice and we need to honor them by having Bush answer to his lies that lead this country to war.

There has been a lot of coverage on the news networks today about the House's debate over the resolution to commemorate 9/11. The question is - why today? Should this not have been debated and enacted for the actual anniversary - 3 days ago? Oh wait - I got it. The House was on recess for all of August and god forbid they do actual work during that time. I mean they are putting in a hard 90 days of work this entire year.

 Here's a new rule - Members of the House and Senate must be paid hourly and punch a time clock from now on. Us taxpayers are tired of giving them a free ride.

I'm sure some high paid execs at ABC and Disney are not very happy about this:

(h/t ThinkProgress)

So the same amount of people turned to the true documentary of 9/11 that CBS ran as tuned into the ABC partisan hack of the tragedy, yet most Americans chose to stick with the tradition of football. I can't help but think that some of the low ratings came from us in the blogosphere, who worked hard to make sure the message got out about how horrible this was. ABC and Disney also needs to note that this is just the start of it. They attacked 9/11 and the truth and we will fight back against those who want to do us harm.

Here are a few things I am sure Bush won't mention during his speech tonight.

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

Rice stands by claims of Al-Qaeda-Saddam links

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq were developing weapons of mass destruction prior to the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

Rice, giving a series of interviews ahead of the fifth anniversary of the September 11 Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, brushed aside a recently released US intelligence report saying there was no evidence Saddam's regime was helping Al-Qaeda obtain such arms.

"There were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," she said on Fox News Sunday.

TPM Cafe has obtained a letter written by Clinton's attorneys and sent to ABC regarding the 9/11 docu-drama. Here are a few key parts of it:

Despite several requests to view the miniseries, we have not been given the courtesy of seeing it. This is particularly troubling given the reputation of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the drama's writer/producer. Mr. Nowrasteh has been criticized for inaccurately portraying historical events in the past. In response to previous criticism, he has even said, "I made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the Administration because I didn't want them to stymie my efforts." Indeed, while we have not been given the courtesy of a viewing, based upon reports from people who have seen the drama you plan to air, we understand that there are at least three significant factual errors:

[SNIP]

As Clarke and others will corroborate, President Clinton did in fact approve of a standing plan to use Afghans who worked for the CIA to capture bin Laden. The CIA's Afghan operatives were never able to carry out the operation and the CIA recommended against inserting Agency personnel to do it. The Department of Defense, when asked by President Clinton to examine the use of US troops to capture bin Laden, also recommended against that option.

[SNIP]

Frankly, the bias of the ABC drama is not surprising given the background and political leanings of its writer/producer, Mr. Nowrasteh, which have been well-documented on numerous conservative blogs and talk shows in his promotion of this film. Mr. Nowrasteh's bias can be seen in an interview he gave to David Horowitz's conservative magazine Frontpage, during which he said:

"The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

The letter deserves a full reading. What is really disturbing is that our nation is already so divided and ABC not only wants to destroy the memories of all who perished on that dreadful day in 2001, as well as those who have perished fighting the war on terror, but they want to divide our nation even more. It sounds to me like ABC is aiding our enemies in a time of war.

ABC wants to turn into a right wing propaganda machine, then so be it. We will go after them where it hurts - their advertisers. They have fully shown their partisanship in the new 9/11 documentary, and Think Progress has uncovered more evidence of it:

ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico.

But ABC has refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied. Both Berger and Albright are harshly criticized in the film in scenes that, according to former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, are “180 degrees from what happened.”

So this is what they want to resort to? Fine. Every major advertiser for ABC better be on notice that they will feel the wrath of the progressive blogosphere.

Something else that I am wondering, and I hope campaign finance lawyers can look into this. The media is suppose to give equal time to candidates. Since this is purely a piece of partisan campaign material, what are they going to give the left? They say Fahrenheit 9/11 is fake, so then why not air that? I hope the FCC and FEC looks into ABC's actions.

To me there could have been no better way to remember those that died in the 9/11 attacks than to take the day seriously and figure out what went wrong in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. Some what how we hear military leaders say that we need to finish the mission in Iraq in order to honor the memory of those who gave their life fighting the war. So why don't our leaders feel the same way?

The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.

Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in "Without Precedent" that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani — and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.

Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.

In fact, the commission determined — after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events — that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.

Cheney was one of those people out there talking about how rough it was for him to have to be involved in deciding whether or not to shoot down flight 93. Now we find out that was a flat out lie. But why even lie about something so horrible? Could it be just for political gain or possibly to avoid an embarrassment of our failures that day? It was both. The Bush administration and the Republicans have been quick to raise 9/11 as a political tool for themselves. Now we find out it should in fact be the very reason not to vote for them.

Another interesting issue is how the commission backed down from witnesses because of editorials that were critical of the commission:

The questioning of Giuliani was considered by Kean and Hamilton "a low point" in the commission's examination of witnesses during public hearings. "We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record," they wrote.

Commission members backed off, Kean and Hamilton said, after drawing criticism in newspaper editorials for sharp questioning of New York fire and police officials at earlier hearings. The editorials said the commission was insensitive to the officials' bravery on the day of the attacks.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

"Sharp Questioning"? WTF? This commission demanded sharp questioning in order to get the right answers. Because of these editorials though, that was now overlooked and here we are 5 years later and could face the same failures that happened on that bloody day.

If there was ever an argument for an actual congressional investigation into 9/11, then right there is it. Of course we are now at five years after the fact and people will have forgotten key details.

We now have another failure in 9/11. That failure is the 9/11 commission. They failed America because they could not handle criticism from outside influences. Talk about pissing on the graves of all those people that died on that day. Congratulations - you guys just did it and because of your fragile egos, you have made America less safe.