Iraqis plan to build trenches around Baghdad

Iraqi soldiers patrolled Baghdad Friday during a driving ban. The Iraqi government is planning to increase security in and around Baghdad by circling the city with trenches and setting up more checkpoints. Hadi Mizban/Associated Press

I found this story off Americablog, so I thought I'd go to the New York Times to read about it. It is just incredible. This is from The New York Times:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 15 — The Iraqi government plans to seal off Baghdad within weeks by ringing it with a series of trenches and setting up dozens of traffic checkpoints to control movement in and out of the violent city of seven million people, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Friday.

The effort is one of the most ambitious security projects this year, with cars expected to be funneled through 28 checkpoints along the main arteries snaking out from the capital. Smaller roads would be closed. The trenches would run across farmland or other open areas to prevent cars from evading checkpoints, said the ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf.

“We’re going to build a trench around Baghdad so we can control the exits and entrances so people will be searched properly,” he said in a telephone interview. “The idea is to get the cars to go through the 28 checkpoints that we set up.”

There has been a surge in the number of Iraqis killed execution-style in the last few days, with scores of bodies found across the city despite an aggressive security plan begun last month. The Baghdad morgue has reported that at least 1,535 Iraqi civilians died violently in the capital in August, a 17 percent drop from July but still much higher than virtually all other months.

Are we going back to the 10th century here? Trenches being built around Baghdad to keep the supposed bad guys out, and the rest of the population in? What's next--burning oil and putrid water to fill these trenches?

In one sense, this story tells me that the government of Iraq no longer has control of either the country, or its population. This is a siege mentality here. The government cannot trust its own citizens. So now this same government is building fortifications--trenches--to protect itself from its own citizens.

This war is lost.

Bush defends terror program from GOP revolt

President Bush pauses during a Rose Garden news conference, Friday, Sept. 15, 2006,where he confronted a Republican rebellion in the Senate over tough anti-terror legislation led by Sen. John Warner (R-Va), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

Well, this is the BIG story of today. I'm going to start off with The Washington Post here:

Warning that "time's running out" for Congress to act, President Bush urged lawmakers today to pass legislation that would create special military tribunals to try terrorist suspects and allow the CIA to continue a program in which captured al-Qaeda leaders have been held and interrogated in clandestine prisons abroad.

In a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, Bush also emphatically rejected a statement by his former secretary of state, retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Bush said it was "unacceptable" to compare the actions of America with those of Islamic extremists who commit mass murder to achieve their goals.

Bush said legislation creating military tribunals must clarify in U.S. law what he called the "very vague" prohibitions in Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, so that U.S. interrogators will have full legal backing in their work to extract information from terrorist suspects.

He insisted that the bill he proposed must prevail over an alternative promoted by three key Republican senators if the CIA program is to continue. U.S. intelligence professionals "will not step up unless there's clarity in the law," he said.

In a move that openly defied the White House and raised the prospect of a split in GOP ranks over how to conduct the war on terrorism, four Republican senators joined 11 Democrats yesterday in approving the alternative military tribunals bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee. The bill was put forward by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the committee chairman; Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and was tortured by his captors; and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a reserve judge in the U.S. Air Force. They and other lawmakers have argued that the United States must not attempt to "redefine" prohibitions in the Geneva Conventions against inhumane treatment of detainees, a position that has received backing from Powell and a number of other retired senior military officers.

The alternative bill also grants defendants greater rights than the White House version, including the right of the defense to have access to classified evidence being used against the suspect.

What we've got here is an open revolt by GOP congressmen in the Senate Armed Services Committee by supporting an alternative military tribunals bill that is completely opposite of what the Bush White House wants. I can't even recall a time when Congress has revolted against the Bush administration on legislation regarding either Iraq, or Bush's GWOT program. This revolt challenges Bush's power as "the War President." President Bush wants to be the one who decides what constitutes torture of prisoners--not the Geneva Conventions. President Bush wants to be the one who decides the legal standards of the military tribunals--what rights the defense has to access classified information being used as "evidence" against their suspects. What is so ironic is that President Bush is willing to shut down the terror program, rather than having to abide by an alternative program submitted by Congress. Here are some interesting details in The New York Times story:

Mr. Bush did not threaten to veto a bill if it embodies the provisions that the Senate Armed Services Committee endorsed on Thursday, provisions involving the trial and questioning of suspects that the White House has termed unacceptable.

“That’s like saying, can you work with a Democratic Congress, when I don’t think a Democratic Congress will be elected,” Mr. Bush said, twice declining to answer directly when asked if he would exercise his veto power.

But while he said he would be happy to work with the legislators, Mr. Bush made it clear that he is not abandoning the main pillars of his anti-terrorism agenda. He insisted that Congress pass legislation providing for the trial of terrorist suspects by military commissions, that these trials not allow defendants access to secret intelligence and that Congress “clarify” the United States’ obligations regarding treatment of prisoners under the Geneva Conventions.

The president took care to say that he wishes to have those obligations “clarified” rather than “reinterpreted.” In particular, he said, the Conventions’ ban on “outrages on human dignity” are so vague that they demand clarification.

Members of the Central Intelligence Agency who have been questioning terrorist suspects — and extracting vital information in the process — cannot be expected to continue their efforts without clarification, Mr. Bush argued during a question-answer session that lasted nearly an hour.

Is the president so willing to make America even less safe than it is now, or even if it would be with Congress' version of the anti-terror bill, by shutting down the terror program if he can't get his own way here? Or is the president making an angry, blustering bluff against Congress? It is certainly interesting to note that Bush refused to say he would veto Congress' version of the anti-terror bill with the Senate Armed Services Committee's provisions. In addition, Bush heightened his threat by warning that "time is running out" for Congress to pass his anti-terror bill. President Bush knows that this is the last time he could get any legislation passed through a possibly Republican-controlled Congress. Once Congress adjourns, it is election season. And the next time Congress convenes, it could be under a Democratic leadership. So the Bush White House is trying to get this anti-terror legislation, and possibly even the domestic spying legislation, passed and signed into law before a possible Democratically-controlled Congress starts its session.

More to come.

Rep. Bob Ney agrees to plead guilty on corruption charges

Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) addresses a campaign crowd in January 2006. Ney pleaded guilty to a wide conspiracy of fraud and influence peddling linked to the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, the US Justice Department said.(AFP/Getty Images/File/Jeff Swenson)

Well, we've got another exciting episode of The Jack Abramoff Show! This is off The Washington Post:

Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio) agreed today to plead guilty to conspiring to commit multiple official acts for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, meals and luxury travel, sports tickets and gambling chips. He became the first elected official to face charges in the ongoing influence-peddling investigation of former lobbying powerhouse Jack Abramoff.

After insisting for more than a year that he had broken no laws in his dealings with Abramoff, Ney signed a plea deal Wednesday that was entered into federal court today. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of 27 months in prison.

Ney admitted to offering legislation at the behest of Abramoff and his team of lobbyists, which included Ney's former chief of staff Neil Volz. He accepted a stream of things of value in exchange, including luxury vacation trips to Scotland, Lake George, N.Y, and New Orleans, as well as gambling chips, tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, free meals and tickets to sporting events. Prosecutors valued the trips alone at more than $170,000.

In 2002, Ney sought to insert four separate amendments into an election reform bill to benefit Abramoff's lobbying clients. He further admitted to helping another client win a multi-million-dollar contract to provide wireless communication service to the U.S. Capitol, and to inserting comments into the Congressional Record to help Abramoff purchase a casino cruise line in Florida.

Ney, 52, under legal and political pressure for months because of his connections to Abramoff, announced this summer that he would not seek reelection. In a statement released by his office today, Ney said, "I have made serious mistakes and am sorry for them. I am very sorry for the pain I have caused to my family, my constituents in Ohio and my colleagues." He said he recently recognized that "a dependence on alcohol has been a problem for me."

Ney was chairman of the House Administration Committee until revelations about his ties to Abramoff forced him to step down from his post earlier this year.

Of course, you know that Ney will also be talking to the Feds, providing more information regarding the corruption probe on the GOP congressmen. This probe is still not over yet.

Friday Fun Stuff--For all you Beatles fans out there....

I found this on CNN.Com:

LIVERPOOL, England (AP) -- A suburban basement where The Beatles played some of their earliest gigs was given protected heritage status by the British government Friday.

The Casbah Coffee Club, created in the home of original Beatles drummer Pete Best, was given Grade II Listed status on the recommendation of conservation body English Heritage. The designation means the venue, which still contains original artwork and musical equipment, is of "special architectural or historic interest" and cannot be demolished.

Dare I say it? LET IT BE!

Best's mother, Mona, created the club in the basement and coal cellar of her Victorian house on the edge of Liverpool after reading about the "beat" clubs popular with teenagers in London.

John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison -- then billed as The Quarrymen -- played at the club's opening in April 1959 as a last-minute replacement for scheduled headliners, the Les Stewart Quartet.

Best later joined the band, renamed The Silver Beatles and then The Beatles. The band played the Casbah many times until the club closed in 1962. The same year, Best was replaced as drummer by Ringo Starr and The Beatles released their first single, "Love Me Do."

The building, still owned by the Best family, features murals and paintings by members of the band and by Lennon's first wife, Cynthia.

Bob Hawkins of English Heritage said the club was "in a remarkably well-preserved condition ... with wall and ceiling paintings of spiders, dragons, rainbows and stars by original band members along with 1960s musical equipment, amplifiers and original chairs."

"We know of no other survival like it in Liverpool or indeed anywhere else," he said.

What policy choices do we have for fixing Iraq?

I was on MoxieGrrrl again, and it appears I have gotten involved in another debate there. The individual that I'm debating is certainly not the religious wing-nut that Kirk was in my previous debate posting, but he did ask me an interesting question to tickle my mind. This individual asked me a simple question here:

[a]nd why not take a look at the consequences of a us withdrawal, do you think there would be NONE? or will you instead harp on all the undefined lies of pres bush?

This caught me for a moment because it appears that every time I check into Kos, or any other blogsite, I certainly see a lot of criticism against the Bush administration's policies on Iraq. I see a lot of anger against the Bush White House--especially regarding the Iraq war. But I don't think I've seen any real honest debate--either here on Kos, or any other blogsite--what policies or actions we can do to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Is that true? Or are we keeping our plans secret from Republican spies?

I will admit that I'm not a policy analyst here. But I thought I would share my comments here on the choices we have regarding Iraq, and some of the positive and negative aspects for each option. Maybe this is something that we need to start talking about, considering the midterm election is coming up with the Democratic chances of taking one or both houses in Congress. Maybe we need to start talking about this so that we can have a policy option to sell to the American people for 2008--rather than listening to the Bush administration's "stay-the-course" message. Because this mess in Iraq is going to be with us in 2008 and beyond—we had better start thinking about what we can do to clean this mess up.

So you ask me what to do about Iraq? I see four choices that the U.S. can take regarding Iraq. The first choice is the Bush administration's choice--stay the course! Maintain the current situation, with the current troop levels--don't increase troops and don't withdrawal troops. This is pretty much a meat grinder approach of men and money for the administration, as they can wait it out for two years until 2008. Then hand off the entire mess to the next President--whether that president is a Democrat or Republican.

The second choice is to pull out immediately. Establish a one-year timetable to pull the troops out. The positive aspect on this is that we stem the bleeding from Iraq, and free up resources to commit towards fighting terrorism in other theaters--Afghanistan for one. The negative aspect is that once we pull out, Iraq goes into a full-blown civil war between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. Then again, Iraq is in a full-blown civil war anyways. We might see Turkey invade northern Iraq to take control of the Kurdish region, so that the Kurds will not have their own country. We might see Iran invade in the southeastern part of Iraq to take control of the Shiite region. An immediate pullout would also mean that both the Bush Doctrine and the PNAC Doctrine was a complete failure. I'll admit that this is another lousy choice.

A third choice is a combination choice of creating a U.S. timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, while allowing United Nation's peacekeepers to take control of the country. I will say I'm certainly open to this idea. We're able to get out and stem the blood-letting, and a true international coalition is brought into Iraq to keep the peace. The problem is will the U.N. and Bush White House go along with this? Any nation that is willing to commit troops, will also want something in return--such as reconstruction aid, and possibly oil exploration and drilling contracts to go to their own respected companies. Say goodbye to the no-bid Halliburton, Exxon, and KBR contracts that were handed out like Christmas presents from the Bush administration--President Bush would never accept this. And I'm talking all the contracts here. This is going to be a hard pill for the Bush White House to swallow. The UN can afford to wait on sending peacekeepers into Iraq until they extract serious concessions from the U.S. regarding reconstruction aid, and the rebuilding of Iraq’s oil infrastructure. We are just going to continue bleeding men and material during this insurgency.

The last option is a very hard pill for the American people to swallow. And that is to send more troops into Iraq--and I'm talking 500,000 or more. In order to get this troop level, we may have to institute a draft. Our budget may not be able to handle this increase of spending on manpower and the military equipment that will be needed for this troop increase, which means that taxes may have to be increased, across the board, among all incomes. President Bush is not going to raise taxes--he pretty much subscribes to the discredited supply-sided theory of economics. If we pay for this increase in troops and military hardware by printing more money, we're going to see inflation spike. If we institute the draft, the American public will probably oppose it--say hello to the new anti-war protests of Iraq that we remember watching during the Vietnam War. Our current military and National Guard forces have been used up, with some members serving their fourth or even fifth tours in Iraq. Volunteer recruitment has dropped. The only way to get 500,000 American troops in Iraq is a draft.

Of course, I'm not going to say that putting 500,000 American troops in Iraq will effectively pacify the country. I really don't know at this stage of the war--it may take more troops. At this point, the current troop level of 135,000 really can't do anything in Iraq. We no longer have control of the Anbar province and the surrounding countryside--where the Sunni Triangle is located. More American troops in Iraq would mean more fighting between American soldiers and the insurgents, which also will result in more casualties. I don't know if that is going to be acceptable for the American public.

Those are the choices that I can see for now. They are all ROTTEN! President Bush is choosing the "stay the course" option so he can hand off this mess to the next administration in 2008. And even if we get to 2008, we're still going to be left with these lousy choices--only difference will be that we spent more money we don't have on this war, and more young Americans have died as a result of this war. I don't believe in the fantasy of the Iraqi government and US-trained military will take effective control of the country, thus resulting in a subsiding of the insurgency. If that were to happen, then I'm more than happy to eat my words here. But I don't believe it. The three factions are in control of their own territories, with their own militias. Iraq is split into three countries--the Sunnis, the Shiites, and Kurds. Each country will fight to get whatever power and resources they can from the other. That is the nature of this civil war which is currently raging in Iraq.

So now I ask you, what other options do we have to resolve this war in Iraq?

The violence just continues....

This is off The Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 13--Nearly 100 people were killed or found dead in a series of bloody incidents throughout the Iraqi capital over the past 24 hours, authorities said.

At least 62 unidentified bullet-riddled corpses--all bearing signs of torture--have been found throughout the city since Tuesday night, said Brig. Gen. Abdullah Mahmood of the Interior Ministry.

Some of the bodies had been beheaded. Attacks on police patrols killed an additional 27 people Wednesday morning, officials said.

The bloodiest scene unfolded at 9 a.m., when a car bomb exploded near an indoor stadium in Baghdad, killing 12 traffic policemen and wounded 13 others, authorities said. When a crowd gathered to help the wounded, another bomb detonated, killing seven civilians and wounding 47 others.

Three mortars fell on a police station in the Mashtal district of eastern Baghdad, killing five policemen and wounding 12 others. Two mortars fell also landed at a security forces recruiting center near the al-Muthana airfield in central Baghdad, killing two of the center's guards and wounding seven others, the Interior Ministry said.

The U.S. military Wednesday also announced the deaths of two soldiers, although their names were not released. One was killed Tuesday in Baghdad after a bomb struck his vehicle; the other died Monday after combat in Anbar province, a volatile stronghold of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

The civil war in Iraq just continues on.

And just to remind you of President Bush's speech last September 11th:

President Bush: I am often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

My administration, the Congress and the United Nations saw the threat.

And, after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.

The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

Do you really feel safe now?

Blast kills 7 in Turkey's Kurdish region

A civil security guard, right, reacts as he asks for help for the injured people after an explosion in Diyarbakir, southeastern Turkey, late Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006. An explosion in the southeastern Turkish city of Diyarbakir Tuesday evening killed at least seven people and injured more than 10 others. The cause of the explosion near a car park was not immediately known. (AP Photo/Nail Kadirhan/Anatolia)


It appears that today is a day of terror attacks. From CNN.Com:

(CNN) -- A bomb blast in the southeastern Turkish city of Diyarbakir has killed seven people and injured 17, two of them seriously, officials said.

Five of the seven killed were children, police said.

There has been no claim of responsibility for the blast, according to the press office of the city's governor.

Turkish authorities said blast was caused by a bomb made from powerful explosives and was set off by a cell phone timer, The Associated Press reports. (Watch chaos in the streets after the blast -- 1:02 )

The explosion in the city of Diyarbakir happened around 9 p.m.(6 p.m. GMT) and an investigation had begun, according to a statement from the provincial governor's office.

An explosion occurred in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir in Turkey on Tuesday, CNN-Turk reported. (ESRI)

A Kurdish news agency reported that the blast took place near an elementary school. Witnesses said the blast threw body parts over a wide area and left pools of blood from the killed and injured.

A hospital made an appeal for blood donations after the injured were brought in to be treated, Reuters reported.

Diyarbakir, a city of more than a half million people on the Tigris River, is Turkey's largest majority-Kurd city.

The region is also home to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has waged a 22-year war against Turkey in which more than 37,000 people have died, mainly Kurds. Turkey and the United States consider the PKK a terrorist group.

Kurdish rebels, who seek autonomy from the Turkish government, were blamed for a bombing that killed two people in the southeastern city of Catak on September 3.

The PKK claimed responsibility earlier this month for a series of bombings in Turkish tourist resorts and in Istanbul. Three people were killed in those attacks and dozens wounded.

Also on Tuesday, the Turkish military announced that authorities had defused a remote-controlled bomb planted by Kurdish guerrillas on a busy bridge near the southeastern city of Hatay, and a bomb believed placed by rebels exploded as a freight train carrying coal passed in the eastern province of Bingol, damaging three rail cars, according to the AP.

The United States and Turkey are taking measures to counter Kurdish militants who have training camps in northern Iraq and launch frequent raids into Turkey.

Four Killed in Attack Outside U.S. Embassy in Syria

A burnt car is seen outside the US embassy in Damascus. Gunmen have launched a brazen daylight assault on the US embassy in Damascus, using grenades, automatic weapons and an explosives-laden van in a foiled "terror" attack that has left four people dead.(AFP/Sana)

This is off The Washington Post:

DAMASCUS, Sept. 12--At least three armed assailants and a Syrian security guard were killed Tuesday outside the U.S. Embassy building here in what Syrian authorities said was a foiled plot to storm the compound. No Americans were injured.

An explosion was heard about 10 a.m. (3 a.m. EDT) on the street outside the embassy, officials said. Although the area was quickly cordoned off to journalists, the charred remains of a parked vehicle could be seen, along with pools of blood. At one point, a plume of smoke was visible from inside the embassy compound.

Syrian officials said one Syrian security guard was killed, and another critically injured, in the effort to stop the planned attack. They said the attackers appeared to be religious extremists, who shouted "Allahu Ahkbar! (God is Great) during the confrontation.

In addition to the three slain assailants, a fourth was seriously injured, officials said.

Syrian firefighters hose a burnt car and the bodies of gunmen near the U.S. embassy in Damascus which was the target of an attack September 12, 2006. Four gunmen attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus on Tuesday, but failed to harm any American diplomats before all four were killed, a Syrian official said. Syrian state television said the attackers had tried to detonate a car bomb in front of the embassy but had failed. REUTERS/SANA/Handout (SYRIA)

The embassy building is surrounded by high walls and located in a diplomatic neighborhood of Damascus, close to other foreign missions. Like U.S. government facilities elsewhere in the world, it is guarded by U.S. Marines inside the compound, and local security forces on the outside.

Witnesses said the explosions did not seem large enough to have come from a full-fledged car bomb; instead, some said, the attackers appeared to have detonated grenades or rockets before engaging in a gun battle with security forces.

Heavy automatic weapon fire could be heard for about 15 or 20 minutes at the start of the confrontation. Syrian officials later said a second vehicle, possibly a van, was rigged with explosives as part of the plot but had been disarmed.

Syria's ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, told CNN that a group called Jund al-Sham, an offshoot of al-Qaeda, was suspected in the attack, the Associated Press reported.

Map of Damascus locating the US embassy. Gunmen have launched a brazen daylight assault on the US embassy in Damascus, using grenades, automatic weapons and an explosives-laden van in a foiled "terror" attack that has left four people dead.(AFP/Graphic)

Just one day after the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we get some gunmen from an terror group, that is an off-shoot of al Qaeda, to launch their own attack against the U.S. Embassy in Syria. We've got terrorists in Iraq, we've got terrorists in Afghanistan, and now we've got terrorists in Syria--what are we going to have to do now? Invade Syria?

Terrorism certainly exists throughout this world--in every country. And since we're the sole superpower in this world, much of the terrorist's anger is going to be concentrated against us. There is not much we can do but to prepare for the unexpected.

But that is not all. Our current policies in the Middle East have been a disaster, perhaps inciting more terrorism against us. The U.S. war in Iraq has not reduced terrorism, but rather has incited it. Our endorsement of secret prisons in Eastern Europe, the use of torture by the CIA, the Hadifa killings, and the general bullying-type attitude we have projected throughout the world for the past five years has generated tremendous anger against the U.S. We have brought this anger and terror attacks upon us--and I say WE because we, the American people, have elected George Bush and his neoconservative extremists into the White House. We have allowed Bush to push these hard-line policies without any oversight, without questions. The seeds that we have sown with hatred, decisiveness, and fear is now producing the bitter fruit. There will be more violence against the United States.

There will be more terror attacks.

Jon Stewart's Post 9/11 Speech

This is Jon Stewart's speech on The Daily Show in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It is also incredible.

American Airlines protests ABC's Path to 9/11--Legal action may follow

This is off Editor and Publisher:

NEW YORK The controversial ABC film "The Path to 9/11," which concluded its two-day run on Monday night, has been hit for alleged political bias, and fictional or compressed events, but a major corporation has now denounced its treatment in the movie, as well.

The film in both its first part and second part appears to suggest that chief hijacker Atta was flagged as a security risk at Boston's Logan Airport by American Airlines personnel. According to the 9/11 Commission Report that incident occurred earlier that morning, in Maine, and the airline was US Airways.

Late Monday, American Airlines released the following statement: "The Disney/ABC television program, 'The Path to 9/11,' which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

"A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.

"This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11."

American said it will have no further comment beyond the statement at this time. But earlier in the day it had sent a letter to those who had contacted the company with the same complaint, inspired by liberal blogger John Aravosis of Americablog. He received a letter which read:

"I think it is important for you to know that ABC had factual errors in its dramatization, and we are looking at possible legal actions as a result. ...Please know this was a tragic incident in our company's history and we hope you will be
sympathetic to our employees and our airline on this day especially. Again, we are outraged by this situation, and we alerted ABC about its gross error. It is very unfortunate."

It was signed by Roger Frizzell, Vice President, Corporate Communications & Advertising, American Airlines.

I'm not sure what else I can say, except that American Airline's lawyers are probably looking very closely at the ABC mini-series, the 9/11 Report, and the libel and slander laws to consider the legal actions they can pursue against not only ABC, but also the parent company Disney. And it is not just American Airlines that may be considering legal actions--how about Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, and Bill Clinton?

This is a huge clusterfrack on ABC's part. They decided to take on this huge, five-plus hour political campaign commercial for the conservative establishment, without considering the political backlash such a venture may entail. ABC gave the project to an extreme right-wing conservative to write the screen-play, gave the director's chair to a conservative director, who was the son of the founder of Youth With A Mission YWAM--a right wing conservative Christian group. And now, the story is unfolding that The Path to 9/11 may have been both produced and financed by right wing conservatives and Christian evangelicals. It is like the people who were making this mini-series were more interesting in spinning their own political agenda here, rather than seriously checking the facts. And ABC was dumb enough to go through this entire project without not just checking the facts and details of the script, but also without considering the legal consequences of airing this mini-series.

Now the question is, when will ABC actually be sued for this PR mess?

Keith Olberman slams President Bush on his 9/11 political spin

WOW! Keith Olberman just slammed President Bush again on MSNBC. I'm posting Olberman's commentary in full here.

Crooks and Liars has got the video right here.

Here is the transcript. It is just incredible:

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

I don't think I can say anything more, except Olberman just hit another one out of the park.

RI senator Lincoln Chafee targeted in Tuesday primary

This is off Yahoo News:

Moderate GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record) of Rhode Island faces a serious challenge Tuesday as the last big flurry of primary elections provides another test of the depth of anti-incumbent sentiment and the erosion of the political middle ground.

In all, nine states and Washington, D.C., hold primary elections. Maryland Democrats choose a Senate candidate to go up against Republican Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor. An open House seat in Arizona has drawn a contentious crowd of GOP candidates, as well as several hopefuls on the Democratic side. Minnesota Democrats will pick a candidate for a House seat left open by retiring 14-term Democratic Rep. Martin Sabo.

Many races won't be close, but will set up important November contests that include Senate seats in Arizona and Minnesota, and the race for governor in Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Other states holding primaries are Delaware, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont, while the District of Columbia will select mayoral candidates.

Chafee's bid for a second term is the latest race with a moderate targeted by his own party's hard-line critics. Connecticut's Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman was beaten by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, though the incumbent is still running as an independent, and Michigan Rep. Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican targeted by the anti-tax Club for Growth, also was defeated.

Chafee has also been targeted by the Club for Growth, a Washington-based group that has tried, not always successfully, to force candidates to vote against taxes. The group is backing Steve Laffey, a former investment banker and mayor of Cranston, R.I.

Chafee has drawn a remarkable amount of support from national Republicans, especially for a senator who has often been at odds with the party, bucking the administration on tax cuts, civil liberties and the Iraq war. He has the distinction of being the only Republican to vote against the use of military force in Iraq.

Polls a month before the primary showed the two Republicans running even.

Chafee himself acknowledged that the race could hinge on turnout in heavily Democratic Rhode Island, saying a low turnout could mean his defeat. His campaign has encouraged Democrats to drop their party registration so they could vote for him.

Now while this race isn't going to be as big as the Ned Lamont/Joe Lieberman race, it will be interesting to see whether a moderate Republican can hold on to his seat in an increasingly polarized electorate, and government. In fact, Chafee could be considered the Republican opposite of the Democratic Party's own Joe Lieberman. Lieberman was forced out of his Senate seat by an angry Democratic Party with his own loss to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary--although Lieberman is currently running for the U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut as an independent. Will Chafee be able to hold on to his own Senate seat--especially since Chafee faces a strong Republican challenger, and the needed support from Rhode Island Democrats, who may already be angered and disgusted by the Republican Party's leadership in Congress?

There is a bit of irony here. Joe Lieberman was pretty much a conservative Democrat who sided with the Bush administration on the war in Iraq, and many terrorism-related issues. It was Lieberman's cozying up with the Bush White House that caused him to lose the Connecticut Democratic primary. Now we come to Chafee--a moderate Republican who has not just opposed the Bush administration's war in Iraq, but a number of other issues. Chafee is fighting a tough, close race against a more conservative Steve Laffey. Just as Lieberman's cozying up to the Bush administration has angered liberal Democrats, Chafee's distancing himself from the Bush administration may also be angering conservative Republicans. The polarization of this country is not only splitting Congress, but it is also splitting the two political parties--destroying the moderate center that was so useful in bringing compromised legislation. We're going to see more confrontations by Democrats and Republicans in Congress for the next two years than we may have ever seen.

Stay tuned.

Clinton, most Americans, skip ABC's 9/11 miniseries

Talk about an ABC Path to 9/11 ratings flop. This is off CNN.Com:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Editing changes made by ABC to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" were cosmetic and didn't change the meaning of scenes that had angered several former Clinton administration officials, a spokesman for the former president said Monday.

As for Clinton, he didn't bother watching the movie that angered so many people who once worked for him.

"He made the choice that most Americans made," said Jay Carson, Clinton Foundation spokesman. "Of a fictionalized drama version of September 11 or the Manning brothers playing football against one another, he chose the latter."

The movie was flattened in the ratings by the debut of NBC's Sunday night football, matching Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts against his younger brother Eli of the New York Giants. The football game had an estimated 20.7 million viewers, while "The Path to 9/11" had 13 million, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The ABC movie did, however, beat CBS' third airing of its "9/11" documentary, which was seen by an estimated 10.6 million people, Nielsen said.

I didn't even bother watching the mini-series myself, actually flipping between Animal Planet's Evolution Gone Wild, and ABC Family Channel's movie Count of Monte Crisco (Okay, so I didn't totally boycott ABC here). I really didn't feel like watching any more 9/11 shows, having been inundated with 9/11 specials, documentaries, and who-knows-what for the past week. And it looks like most of America tuned out of the mini-series as well.

I'm curious to see if The Path to 9/11 can keep its 13 million viewers for tonight's episode?

San Francisco-Bound Flight Diverted

It's time for your 9/11 Terror Scare on 9/11! This is from The Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Federal authorities diverted a San Francisco-bound United Airlines jet to Dallas as a precautionary security measure on Monday after finding an unclaimed BlackBerry on board.

Officials had also found and removed an unidentified backpack from the jet before it left Atlanta, said Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Yolanda Clark. She described the jet, United flight 351, as secure and said it was diverted to Dallas "out of an abundance of caution."

"The aircraft is secure," Clark said. She said there was no indication that the hand-held computer was being used as an explosive device or trigger.

The flight was diverted on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Authorities decided not to send military fighter aircraft to escort the jet, as is routine during an emergency, said Lt. Col. John Cornelio, a spokesman for U.S. Northern Command.

United spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said 50 people were aboard the Airbus 319. The passengers were being rescreened after getting off the plane in Dallas.

The backpack belonged to a woman who had been a passenger on an earlier flight on the same jet, Urbanski said.

What? No military fighters were sent up to escort the United Airline's jet? We're not doing enough to make this country more safe from misplaced Blackberries and backpacks! We know the real truth--those were terror weapons! The terrorists left them there to scare us! The American people demand the truth as to why the fighter jets were not sent up to escort the United flight, why the DHS Homeland Security warning was not raised up another level, and why are we getting so worked up in fear over some misplaced items on an airline flight? I wouldn't be afraid if I lost my Blackberry on a flight--I'd be pissed at myself for losing my Blackberry!

We better get those Gitmo cells ready for the "terrorist" passengers who have lost their Blackberries and backpacks on the airline flights.

Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11

Well, here is a little 9/11 remembrance poll to ponder on. From CNN.Com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks.

That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.

Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

The poll was carried out August 30 through September 2 by Opinion Research Corp. with 1,004 American adults questioned by telephone. The sampling error for the questions was 3 percentage points.

Ironically, the percentage of Americans who blame Clinton has actually dropped slightly from 45 percent to 41 percent, while Bush's negative results have shot up by over a third in that time.

Let's fact it. President Bush's negative poll results have gone up because Bush has linked his presidency to the war in Iraq by using the 9/11 terror attacks. We've heard this Bush-spin talking point for five years--Iraq is connected to September 11th. Iraq is connected to al Qaeda. Saddam is an evil terrorist. It was the main argument to market Bush's war in Iraq. Well, the war has gone sour for the U.S. Americans are now opposing this war, and the Bush poll numbers have been dropping because of the war. And since Bush wrapped his presidency within 9/11, is it no wonder that the poll numbers showing Bush to be blamed for the 9/11 attacks to also increase?

Iraq Recruiting Center Blast Kills 16

An Iraqi police officer stands guard at the site of a car bomb explosion, in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday Sept. 11, 2006. Four people were killed and three were wounded after a car bomber was used in a botched attack against a U.S. military convoy in eastern Baghdad. There were no reports of any injuries to U.S. personnel in the attack, police said.(AP Photo/Karim Kadim)

Just another average day in the Not-So-Civil-War-In-Iraq. This is also from The Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A mini bus carrying a bomb exploded outside an army recruiting center in Baghdad and killed 16 people Monday, the deadliest of a string of attacks that left 29 Iraqis dead. A U.S. soldier also died over the weekend.

The mini bus exploded near the northern gate of the al-Muthana recruiting center in central Baghdad, said defense ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Ibrahim al-Obeidi. Seven people were also wounded.

A botched car bombing against a U.S. military convoy in eastern Baghdad killed four Iraqis and wounded three, but injured no Americans, said police Maj. Hamid Mousa.

A U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire Sunday after his patrol came under attack north of Baghdad, the U.S. military command said Monday.

Gunmen killed at least nine people in separate attacks overnight and Monday morning in northern Iraq and in the capital, authorities said.

Assailants opened fire at a telephone exchange center in a commercial Baghdad area early Monday employees started work, killing a man and a woman, said police.

Late Sunday night, two policemen died in clashes with gunmen in southern Baghdad, police said.

In northern Iraq, gunmen in two cars ambushed a bus carrying oil employees from Beiji, the country's largest refinery, killing four people and wounding one, police said.

Now back to your regularly-scheduled, fear-mongering, 9/11 anniversary programming.

Situation Called Dire in West Iraq

Anbar province in Iraq. WaPost graphic

I found this off The Washington Post:

The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."

We have been defeated politically! Do you understand what that means? It means we have lost whatever support the Iraqi people had for the U.S. occupation troops. This is no longer a war between U.S. troops and some foreign terrorists--this is a war between U.S. troops and the Iraqi civilian population in Anbar. And if the situation is so dire in Anbar, then how bad do you think it is in the rest of Iraq? Continuing with the Post story:

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

When Saddam Hussein was still in power, al Qaeda did not have a political presence in Iraq. The last thing Saddam would have wanted is to have a religious, fundamentalist terrorist group operating in Iraq--especially since Iraq is divided into three ethnic and religious groups. If al Qaeda was in Iraq, they could have destabilized Saddam's regime. The United States brought al Qaeda into Iraq with its invasion and toppling of Saddam. And now al Qaeda has become the most significant political force in Anbar.

There is just one final little detail of the Post story to share:

Anbar is a key province; it encompasses Ramadi and Fallujah, which with Baghdad pose the greatest challenge U.S. forces have faced in Iraq. It accounts for 30 percent of Iraq's land mass, encompassing the vast area from the capital to the borders of Syria and Jordan, including much of the area that has come to be known as the Sunni Triangle.

The insurgency arguably began there with fighting in Fallujah not long after U.S. troops arrived in April 2003, and fighting has since continued. Thirty-three U.S. military personnel died there in August -- 17 from the Marines, 13 from the Army and three from the Navy.

So do you still think we're winning in Iraq?

Some comments on The Path to 9/11

I've been watching, with a detached fascination, this entire controversy that has come out regarding ABC's miniseries The Path to 9/11. And I really don't know what to say about it. There has been so much written about this miniseries as being a free political campaign commercial for the conservatives, the historical inaccuracies that apparently shifts the blame of the 9/11 attacks solely on the Clinton administration, and the outrage generated through the liberal blogosphere, and the letters of protest written by former president Bill Clinton, former National Security Advisor Sany Berger, and even former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The liberal blogs of Think Progress, The Daily Kos, Americablog, and the hundreds--if not thousands--of medium and small-sized blogs that have been constantly writing about this story. This has become not just a slow-motion train wreck for ABC, but rather a slow-motion train wreck slamming into ABC's corporate headquarters just like the Silver Streak went smashing into Chicago's Union Station back in 1976.

Is this mini-series a 5 hour political campaign commercial for the Republican Party? I would say it is. The screenwriter for this mini-series, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is an avowed conservative. ABC assured conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt that "The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact." And now reports are coming out that Path to 9/11's director, David Cunningham, is the son of Loren Cunningham, who founded a right-wing Christian evangelical group Youth With A Mission YWAM. In fact, David Cunningham was involved in creating an auxiliary of YWAM called The Film Institute as a means to transform Hollywood's film-making to a more conservative view. The Path to 9/11 may have been The Film Institute's first project to transform Hollywood. In fact, The Path to 9/11 may be just the start of a major conservative and religious right campaign to shift the blame of 9/11 from President Bush to former president Clinton. A lot of these complex, sorid details are just now starting to come to light.

But I believe that ABC may have shot themselves in the foot for pushing this boon-doggle of a propaganda film. First, ABC continues to stand behind its mini-series, even as criticisms against the series grows within the Democratic Party, and as inaccuracies are continually revealed. ABC is going to show the series, no matter how much criticism is heaped upon the network, or how many petitions are sent to ABC, its affiliate stations, or even its parent company Walt Disney. The problem for ABC is that this series is not going to be remembered for the blaming of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Clinton administration, although the right wing-nuts will preach this series as God's truth, but rather this series will be remembered for the controversy it created and for ABC's caving into the conservative's demands for producing and showing this political commercial. If the Democrats do come to power in Congress this November, you can bet that ABC will have to answer for this series in congressional hearings. That is ABC's first shot in the foot. They have aligned themselves so far into the conservative camp, that they will be completely exposed to the Democratic Party's anger over this series, if the Democrats do take control of Congress.

The second of ABC's shot in the foot actually revolves around the timing of this series. Now I'm not talking about how ABC is showing this series on September 11th--two months away from the midterm elections, but instead about ABC showing this series in both a polarized political environment with the Republican Party sitting in hot, political water. The country is souring on six years of Republican and Bush administration foreign and domestic failures--Iraq, Katrina, the economy, high energy prices, lousy job market, illegal NSA spying program, secret CIA prisons. The country is not gripped by the fear of terrorism as it was back in 2004--although I will not discount another DHS terror threat or warning being raised just before the midterm elections. Too many scandals and lies have been tainted on both the Bush administration and Republican Party. The old election-year social issues are not working for the Republicans. The disaster in Iraq is dragging down the Republican Party's strong-on-defense, and Great-War-on-Terror arguments. In fact, The Washington Post is reporting that the GOP is reverting back to the old personal campaign smear tactics as a way to attack Democratic candidates. The Republican Party has no issues or legislative accomplishments to run on. They can only run on a platform of fear and hatred. The question now is how long will the American public start to grow tired of all this fear-mongering by the Republican Party, as their own lives steadily get worst? Will the American public succumb to this latest batch of fear-mongering and more insidious Republican blame of the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks? I'm not sure myself, but I'm certainly getting tired of the Republican Party's excuses.

Finally, there is the mini-series itself. From what I've read, the television critics are shredding this mini-series. According to Doug Elfman of the Chicago Sun-Times, the Path to 9/11 is:

[T]he most anticlimactic, tension-free movie in the history of terrorist TV.

It's hard to fathom a brouhaha brewed over such a bore.

Controversy could boost viewership, except "Path" is the dullest, worst-shot TV movie since ABC's disastrous "Ten Commandments" remake. It substitutes shaky handheld cameras and dumb dialogue for craftsmanship. It could not be more amateurish or poorly constructed unless someone had forgotten to light the sets.

Robert Bianco of USA Today says:

[I]n the end, the movie is defeated by its subject and by its willingness to twist that subject to score political points. Too confused for a documentary, insufficiently dramatized for a movie, Path simply doesn't have the skill needed to support its intentions.

Yet for some viewers, politics will be Path's stumbling block. In its tone, images, assumptions and factual liberties (led by an invented failed attempt to capture bin Laden), the movie misses no chance to slam the Clinton administration and no opportunity to support a very expansive reading of police powers, here and abroad. ("How do you win a law and orderly war?" "You don't.")

Path has enough trouble just following history. Rewriting history is an ambition it should have left at the door.

Finally, Matthew Gilbert of the Boston Globe says this:

[T]he five-hour miniseries was probably doomed to fail creatively, not for lack of ambition but for having too much ambition. The story in ``The Path to 9/11," which premieres Sunday and Monday at 8 p.m. on Channel 5, is just too massive and unwieldy to fit neatly into two sittings.

Dramatizing the roots of 9/11 in a two-parter is like trying to fit the origin and politics of the entire AIDS crisis into one movie. Oh wait, that was ``And the Band Played On," and it failed, too. ``The Path to 9/11" would have fared better as an eight-or-so episode miniseries like HBO's ``Band of Brothers," so it could devote more focus to each of its many fragments. With the kind of time that series TV offers but movies don't, director David L. Cunningham could have made each of the pieces of his puzzle richer and more engaging.

So whether you accept the Path's claims that the Clinton administration was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or are convinced that this is another Republican smear campaign against Clinton and the Democrats just before the midterm elections, the Path to 9/11 is just a terrible film. There will be plenty of documentaries about the 9/11 attacks and the World Trade Center on Discovery, History Channel, and perhaps even on the cable news programs to choose from. How many Americans are so willing to watch something this jittery and convoluted? They may, at first, be curious to see what the controversy was all about regarding this series, but are they going to stay and watch the entire series? I can't say.

I personally will not be watching the series. And it is not because of the inaccuracies, or because The Path is a Republican campaign commercial, or even because it is just a bad series. I do not feel it is time yet to start fictionalizing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The events are still too closely etched into America's pysche--there is still too much raw emotion regarding the event. We are just now starting to review the history of these attacks, and the political and historical consequences that have stemmed from the events of 9/11. And right at this time, we get this badly written and produced revisionist history of the events with this right-wing mini-series? Of course, it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum these fictionalized accounts of the 9/11 attacks fall into--I will not watch either Flight 93, or even Oliver Stone's World Trade Center. I believe it is still too early to watch any fictionalized account of this event. Of course, that is not going to stop those film-makers from trying to capitalize on 9/11.

They are just not going to get my dollars for their efforts.

In final days of 2006 campaign, GOP is going personal

I found this off The Washington Post:

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

The Republican Party has nothing left to run on. The war in Iraq is a complete disaster. The Bush administration has admitted that there is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, there were no Iraqi WMDs, there is a secret NSA domestic spying program, and finally there are secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe--even as they previously denied these allegations when they first surfaced. Americans are looking at the Bush PR-spin on the economy and their own stagnating paychecks, and are questioning whether they are better off under the six years of Bush reign. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed out of existence. Katrina and the reconstruction of New Orleans has been another complete disaster. Everything the Bush administration has said regarding foreign or domestic policies has been complete lies after lies after lies. Finally, the Republican-controlled Congress has castrated themselves by refusing to provide any oversight against the Bush White House. This has been the Republican Party agenda, as prescribed by corporate interests, PNAC neocons, and even the Religious Right with their own demands on pushing the social agenda towards the extreme religious views of outlawing abortions, stem cell research, and gay marriage. Everything the Republican Party has done to try to maintain control of Congress for this election year has failed. They can't run on a legislative agenda because they have no positive agenda to show to the American people.

So now for the next two months, the Republicans are going personal with their attack ads against the Democrats. Continuing with the Post article:

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy -- combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation -- proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.

In a sense it doesn't surprise me.

The Democrats have got to go all out in responding to these personal attacks. They are also going to need to dig up the dirt, revive the scandals of the GOP "culture of corruption," and shove the Republicans back into their own crap. In addition towards going personal here with Republican candidates, the Democrats also need to paint the Republican Party with the six years of Bush administration failures, again and again, and again. The Democrats cannot let up on these attacks. In addition, the Democrats should also be aware that the Republicans may use illegal means to suppress the vote on Election Day, or commit fraud--the Democrats have got to be vigilant and remind voters of these Republican transgressions. Because the Republicans will certainly use election fraud to maintain their control of Congress.

It is going to get very nasty in the next couple of months.

A Nation Remembers....Forgets.... Remembers....Forgets....

Mark Fiore has got a wicked editorial cartoon on his site.

Check it out.