Spain's Supreme Court yesterday overturned an al-Qaida suspect's
conviction for conspiracy to commit murder in the September 11 terrorist
attacks, weeks after prosecutors acknowledged the case against him was
weak.

The high court threw out a 15-year sentence against Syrian-born Imad
Yarkas for conspiracy to commit murder in the airliner attacks in the
United States, but upheld a 12-year sentence he received for belonging
to a terror organization.

It also confirmed the acquittal of three other suspects accused of
belonging to or collaborating with al-Qaida. They had already been
released in April at the request of prosecutors. They are Moroccans
Driss Chebli, Sadik Merizak and Abdelaziz Benyaich.

The court announced only its verdicts in Yarkas' appeal and the other
cases, not its specific grounds for the decisions. The reasoning is
expected to be released in a few days, court officials said.

Yarkas is alleged to have founded and led an al-Qaida cell in Spain,
which investigators say was a staging ground for the attacks, along with
Germany. He was one of 18 people found guilty of terrorism charges in a
trial that ended in September of last year. But prosecutors in April had
asked the court to overturn his conviction in the US attacks, citing a
lack of evidence.

A three-judge Spanish panel at a lower court that handed down the ruling
against Yarkas in September said he was innocent of a more serious
charge of being accomplice to mass murder, but guilty of "conspiracy
with the suicide terrorist" Mohamed Atta and other members of the
Hamburg, Germany-based cell that staged the September 11 attacks.

The White House blasted Iran in its "National Strategy for Combating
Terrorism" released on Tuesday for allegedly sponsoring terrorism.

"Iran remains the most active state sponsor of international terrorism,"
the 23-page report said.

"Through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of
Intelligence and Security, the regime in Teheran plans terrorist
operations and supports groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and
Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)," the report said.

"Iran also remains unwilling to account for and bring to justice senior
Al-Qaida members it detained in 2003," it added.

Iran has been on the U.S. list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and the
United States has been trying to impose sanctions on Iran for its
defiance on its nuclear issue

This is my Opinion and i like to know your thoughts on the matter?



It is now five years since the "9/11" incident and people have reached
their own opinions about the US anti-terrorist strategy. The US
President George W. Bush believes that the Iraq war has made the world a
safer and better place. However, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid does
not agree. "The American people clearly know that in the five years
following the '9/11' incident, we are not as safe as we should and
expect to be", said Reid. Why do people believe this? The US has
conducted its war on terrorism both at home and abroad.

Looking at the US, it can be seen that the US government has certainly
been effective in its fight against terrorism during the past five
years. After the "9/11" incident, the President gave many orders to
strengthen domestic security. Orders were made to establish the US
Northern Command in order to defend national security and to set up the
Department of Homeland Security to oversee the anti-terrorism strategy.
There were also demands to: establish a National Intelligence Bureau to
co-ordinate 15 intelligence agencies; enhance the monitoring on people
and goods entering the country at airports and ports; launch stricter
management of immigrants and foreigners across the border and conduct an
unprecedented wiretapping of telephone calls. As a result, President
Bush proudly claimed that over the past five years there have been no
more terrorist attacks similar to the "9/11" incident. This is one of
the main reasons why nearly 50% of Americans were satisfied with the
Bush Administration's anti-terror performance over the past year even
though the dissatisfaction rate of his general performance was as low as
30%.

However, the US anti-terror efforts overseas have proved disappointing.
Taking a broader perspective, terrorist activities have not changed
significantly since five years ago. With the anti-terrorism campaign
continuing, even more terrorist activities have actually occurred and
the situation is not improving. From the Toronto explosion to the plane
scheme in London, most of the terrorist activities were targeted at the
United States and its allies in the Iraq war. There has also been the
resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the escalation of the
conflict between religious sects in Iraq. President Bush has turned Iraq
into the centre of the US anti-terrorism conflict. The major polls in
recent months have indicated that 62% of Americans disapproved of Bush's
decision on the Iraq issue; 69% think the Iraq war has complicated US
diplomatic activities; 63% think that the Iraq war was not worthwhile;
56% claim that the Iraq war was a mistake and as much as 68% think that
the US invasion of Iraq will lead to more terrorist attacks in the
United States, putting the country's security at risk.

The public and the media are questioning why the US anti-terrorism
campaign has only resulted in more terrorist activities. It seems that
there is something wrong with strategy.

Firstly, the US neo-conservatives have "hijacked" the great cause of
anti-terrorism. They greatly believed in anti-terrorism and launched a
war that was falsely justified. This has decentralized and diverted the
attention of anti-terrorism and its track, but also created a hotbed of
training ground of terrorist activities.

After the evidence for mass destructive weapon was denied, the United
States resorted to a banner of "democratic panacea" and was determined
to establish a model of democracy for the entire Middle East region.
However, the reality is that this only encouraged the regime and relied
on more than 130,000 American soldiers being close to the brink of a
civil war. Since July, more than 100 people were killed every day in a
religious vendetta. Just as some scholars have pointed out, democracy
can not survive amongst military forces.

The United States not only attempted to expand the scale of the war on
terrorism, but also tried to make the issue one of ideology and
religion, whether intentionally or not. Not long ago, President Bush
took over the extremely conservative slogans and defined the
anti-terrorism war as a "confrontation between free and democratic
Western forces and anti-freedom-and-democracy fascism forces in the
Middle East.". In his speech delivered at the American Legion National
Convention on August 31st, Bush divided the terrorists into three
categories: "Some are radicalized followers of the Sunni tradition, who
swear allegiance to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Others are
radicalized followers of the Shia tradition, who join groups like
Hezbollah and take guidance from state sponsors like Syria and Iran.
Still others are 'homegrown' terrorists - fanatics who live quietly in
free societies they dream to destroy." US Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld even said that this was another round of a new ideological war
against the Islamic Fascism following the war against Nazism and Fascism
and the Cold War against Communism. Rumsfeld did not wonder far from the
theory of "Clash of Civilization" and therefore received protests from
Islamic organizations. CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations)
National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed criticized President Bush for
linking "Islamism" with "fascism". "It will foster the hostility to
Islam and Muslims in the United States", said Ahmed. It should be
pointed that there is a risk of such stereotypes that result in the
anti-terrorism war having repercussions on religion.

In summarizing the lessons learnt from the "9/11" Incident, President
Bush and Vice President Cheney announced a new anti-terrorism strategy.
Firstly, the United States is absolutely determined to prevent attacks
before they occur and is therefore watchful of terrorists abroad, known
as "pre-emptive" politics. Secondly, any person or government that
supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of
the innocent, and will be held to account as a US enemy, although this
actually fosters even more enemies. Thirdly, the US is determined to
defeat the ideology of the enemies by supporting the forces of freedom.
This is a distortion of the nature of terrorism. Fourthly, the United
States is working to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, keeping those weapons out of the hands of the killers;
however this requires the United States to first abandon its double
standards. One of the flaws of the new anti-terrorism strategy is that
the United States has not reviewed its partial and double-standard
policy in the Middle East.This is in fact the major source of the
increasing anti-US sentiment and terrorist activities in the Middle
East. Without directly addressing and eliminating this root cause, the
United States will never be successful in the fight against terrorism.

April 25, 2007

The call for American troops to promptly get out of Iraq raises the
question of what exactly would happen if the U.S. forces did leave, say,
by the end of the year. If we stay in Iraq, we delay, perhaps even
prevent, the expulsion of the Sunni Arab minority (they used to be ten
percent of the population, but are now down to about five percent, and
are still the source of most of the terrorism.) Four years ago, the
Sunni Arabs were twenty percent of the population. As the Sunni Arab
population gets smaller, the terrorists have fewer places to hide. This
can be seen in the plan to wall off some of the remaining Sunni Arab
neighborhoods in Baghdad. Analysis of terrorist movements had shown that
these neighborhoods were the sources of most of the suicide bombing
attacks. By restricting road access to one carefully monitored
checkpoint, car bombers would be forced to find another base of
operations, and be more likely to get caught. The wall would also keep
out Shia death squads, who are expected to return once the security
build up in Baghdad is over, later this year. But the way Arab politics
works, the wall building got stopped when the Israeli security wall was
invoked. Despite the fact that the Israeli security wall stopped terror
attacks, that wall, and by association all similar walls, are considered
evil. You can't do it, even though the purpose of the wall was explained
to Iraqi politicians, who understood and approved it, before
construction began. The Sunnis would rather be dead, than not be
politically correct, and the Shia agreed. The continuing suicide bomb
attacks on Shia Arabs has only increased the belief among the Shia that
the Sunni Arabs have to go.


If we leave, two things happen. First, the Kurds and Shia Arabs take
care of the Sunni Arab terrorists the traditional Middle Eastern way.
That gets very ugly, with massive civilian casualties and most of the
Sunni Arab population turning into refugees. Any criticism is deflected
by insisting its all about self-defense and justice for Saddams victims.



There's also the risk of a civil war between Shia Arab factions (backed
by Iran and the Arab Gulf states, respectively.) The Turks will keep the
Kurds in check, no matter what, although if we leave the Turks will be
tempted to annex northern Iraq (and its oil fields), which used to be
part of Turkey (not an imperial province), until 1919.



The Shia Arabs are now about two-thirds of the population, and they are
gearing up for a real civil war. The factions backed Iran (especially
the Sadr and Badr groups) are trying to take control by force. The
majority of Shia Arabs want power, but they don't want a religious
dictatorship. These "democratic" Shia Arabs are arming and getting more
violent in their resistance to Iran-sponsored militants. More of the
terrorism in Shia areas (which is a small fraction of what the Sunni
Arab terrorists are creating) is directed against other Shia political
groups, not foreign troops.



There's always the threat that Iran would simply invade Iraq, and
install an "Islamic Republic" (religious dictatorship similar to the one
in Iran). With no American troops there, what's to prevent this? The
Arab Gulf States cannot stop the Iranians, although the Turks might be
persuaded to. The Iranians could avoid that by making a side deal with
the Turks, involving how to handle the Kurds, before going in. The
Iranian government sees democratic Iraq as a threat, because most
Iranians want a real democracy, and they are not getting it because of
the religious dictatorship they are stuck with. The Iranian radical
groups, in the form of the Quds Force, keeps the pot boiling in Shia
Iraq so that Iraq does not become a base for Iranian democrats.



Meanwhile, opponents of the Iraqi operations back in the United States
are getting nervous about the success of the security operations in
Baghdad and its suburbs. The fact that nearly all the Sunni Arab tribes
have joined the government is seen as a political disaster by many U.S.
politicians who have declared Iraq a failed venture for the United
States. It's a bizarre situation, and long has been. You only have to
visit web sites frequented by Iraqis or American troops, to see that
what is reported in most of the media about Iraq is invented, or
distorted beyond all reason into an alternate reality.



Checking out what Iraqis feel, you also get the impression that everyone
wants the violence to stop. Iraqis want this so bad that they are
willing to give up some of their most coveted goals to have some peace
(and a piece of the booming economy). Indeed, many Iraqi Sunni Arabs
have long suggested that there be no terrorist violence, and that within
a decade or less, the smarter and better organized Sunni Arabs would be
back in charge. While in theory this plan has merit, in practice it
forgets the desire for revenge among Kurds and Shia Arabs. Saddam ruled
by terror for decades, and his thugs wore no masks. The terrorized Kurds
and Shia knew who their tormentors were, and they want blood. This is a
key reason for the continued terror attacks. Many of Saddams thugs
cannot, or will not, flee the country. They have no place to go, and
believe in victory, or death. Getting the Sunni Arabs back in power is
out of the question, so the Sunni Arab terrorists are basically fighting
to the death. One way or another, they are going to die. The only
question is, how many Iraqis and Americans will they be able to take
along.

By Keith Olbermann
MSNBC Countdown

Wednesday 25 April 2007

Olbermann: Rudy Giuliani exploiting fear for power and personal gain.
A special comment about Rudolph Giuliani's remarks at a Lincoln Day
dinner in New Hampshire:

Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Rudolf Giuliani's remarks
at a Lincoln Day Dinner in New Hampshire last night.

Since some indeterminable hour between the final dousing of the pyre
at The World Trade Center, and the breaking of what Senator Obama has
aptly termed "9/11 Fever," it has been profoundly and disturbingly
evident that we are at the center of one of history's great ironies.

Only in this America of the early 21st Century could it be true,
that the man who was president during the worst attack on our nation,
and the man who was the mayor of the city in which that attack
principally unfolded, would not only be absolved of any and all blame
for the unreadiness of their own governments, but, more over, would
thereafter be branded heroes of those attacks.

And now, that Mayor - whose most profound municipal act in the wake
of that nightmare was to suggest the postponement of the election to
select his own successor - has gone even a step beyond these M.C. Escher
constructions of history.

"If any Republican is elected president - and I think obviously I
would be best at this - we will remain on offense and will anticipate
what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it. "

Insisting that the election of any Democrat would mean the country
was "back... on defense," Mr. Giuliani continued:

"But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties
will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will
go on longer."

He said this with no sense of irony, no sense of any personal
shortcomings, no sense whatsoever.

And if you somehow missed what he was really saying, somehow didn't
hear the none-too-subtle subtext of 'vote Democratic and die,' Mr.
Giuliani then stripped away any barrier of courtesy, telling Roger Simon
of Politico.Com, quote....

"America will be safer with a Republican president."

At least that Republican President under which we have not been
safer ... has, even at his worst, maintained some microscopic distance
between himself, and a campaign platform that blithely threatened the
American people with "casualties" if they, next year, elect a Democratic
president - or, inferring from Mr. Giuliani's flights of grandeur in New
Hampshire - even if they elect a different Republican.

How dare you, sir?

"How many casualties will we have?" - this is the language of Bin
Laden.

Yours, Mr. Giuliani, is the same chilling nonchalance of the madman,
of the proselytizer who has moved even from some crude framework of
politics and society, into a virtual Roman Colosseum of carnage, and a
conceit over your own ability - and worthiness - to decide, who lives
and who dies.

Rather than a reasoned discussion - rather than a political campaign
advocating your own causes and extolling your own qualifications - you
have bypassed all the intermediate steps, and moved directly to trying
to terrorize the electorate into viewing a vote for a Democrat, not as a
reasonable alternative and an inalienable right ... but as an act of
suicide.

This is not the mere politicizing of Iraq, nor the vague mumbled
epithets about Democratic 'softness' from a delusional Vice President.

This is casualties on a partisan basis - of the naked assertion that
Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it
- and to hell with everybody else.

And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is
somehow the Messiah-of-the-moment.

Even to grant that that formula - whether posed by Republican or
Democrat - is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most
Un-American electioneering in our history - even if it is somehow
acceptable to assign "casualties" to one party and 'safety' to the other
- even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of
our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party's property
and the other's liability... on what imaginary track record does Mr.
Giuliani base his boast?

Which party held the presidency on September 11th, 2001, Mr.
Giuliani?

Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr.
Giuliani?

Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe, and the
remains of the dead, recovered - and not being used to fill pot-holes,
Mr. Giuliani?

Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted - the postponement
elections - and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded,
Mr. Giuliani?

Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first
attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror
in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland
Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani?

Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik's Organized Crime allegations,
Mr. Giuliani?

Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be
vetted, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party rode roughshod over Americans' rights while braying that
it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards,
utterly counter-productive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr.
Giuliani?

Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the
pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of
9/11, Mr. Giuliani?

Drop this argument, sir. You will lose it.

"The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the
terrorist war against us," Mr. Giuliani continued to the Rockingham
County Lincoln Day Dinner last night. "Never, ever again will this
country be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us, if I have
anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put
us back on defense."

There is no room for this.

This is terrorism itself, dressed up as counter-terrorism.

It is not warning, but bullying - substituted for the political
discourse now absolutely essential to this country's survival and the
freedom of its people.

No Democrat has said words like these. None has ever campaigned on
the Republicans' flat-footedness of September 11th, 2001. None has the
requisite, irresponsible, all-consuming, ambition. None is willing to
say "I Accuse," rather than recognize that, to some degree, all of us
share responsibility for our collective stupor.

And if it is somehow insufficient, that this is morally,
spiritually, and politically wrong, to screech as Mr. Giuliani has
screeched ... there is also this: that gaping hole in Mr. Giuliani's
argument of 'Republicans equal life; Democrats equal death.'

Not only have the Republicans not lived up to their babbling on this
subject, but last fall the electorate called them on it.

As doubtless they would call you on it, Mr. Giuliani.

Repeat, go beyond Mr. Bush's rhetorical calamities of 2006.

Call attention to the casualties on your watch, and your long,
waking slumber in the years between the two attacks on the World Trade
Center.

Become the candidate who runs on the Vote-For-Me-Or-Die platform.

Do a Joe McCarthy, a Lyndon Johnson, a Robespierre.

Only, if you choose so to do, do not come back surprised nor
remorseful if the voters remind you that "terror" is not just a matter
of "casualties." It is, just as surely, a matter of the promulgation of
fear.

Claim a difference between the parties on the voters' chances of
survival - and you do Osama Bin Laden's work for him.

And we - Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in
between - We - Americans! - are sick to death, of you and the other
terror-mongers, trying to frighten us into submission, into the
surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for
which this country has always stood.

Franklin Roosevelt's words ring true again tonight.

And, clarified and amplified, they are just as current now, as they
were when first he spoke them, 74 years ago.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" - and those who would
exploit our fear, for power, and for their own personal, selfish,
cynical, gain.

Friday 27 April 2007

San Francisco - A congressional committee on Friday requested
documents from the White House and Pentagon describing how and when the
Bush administration learned the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death.

The House Oversight Committee is investigating why Tillman's family
and the public were misled about the circumstances of his death.

Tillman, a San Jose native, turned down a lucrative new contract
with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals to join the Army following the Sept. 11
attacks. He was killed April 22, 2004, by friendly fire in Afghanistan.

Although Pentagon investigators determined quickly that he was
killed by his own troops, five weeks passed before the circumstances of
his death were made public. During that time, the Army claimed he was
killed by enemy fire.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman wrote Friday to White House Counsel
Fred Fielding requesting "all documents received or generated by any
official in the Executive Office of the President" that relate to
Tillman.

A second letter was sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Gates
was asked to produce all documents related to Tillman generated by his
office and the Pentagon's office of public affairs, as well as the
office of Gen. John Abizaid.

The committee gave the administration until May 18 to produce the
documents.

The committee held its first hearing on Tillman's death earlier this
week. Tillman's family has said they believe the erroneous information
peddled by the Pentagon was part of a deliberate cover-up that may have
reached all the way to President Bush and then-Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld.

A White House spokeswoman said this week that Bush did not learn
about the unusual circumstances of the Army Ranger's death until after
the soldier's memorial service on May 3, 2004.

Another spokeswoman, Jeanie Mamo, said Friday evening: "We've
received the committee's letter and we will review the request."

On April 29 of that year, a top general sent a memo to Abizaid, who
then headed all U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central
Asia. The memo warned that it was "highly possible" that Tillman was
killed by friendly fire and made clear that the information should be
conveyed to the president. The White House said there is no indication
that Bush received the warning.

Two days later, the president mentioned Tillman in a speech to the
White House correspondents dinner, but he made no reference to how he
died.

Sunday 29 April 2007

Baghdad - A suicide car bomb exploded Saturday in the Shiite holy
city of Karbala as the streets were packed with people heading for
evening prayers, killing at least 63 and wounding scores near some of
the country's most sacred shrines. Separately, the U.S. military
announced the deaths of nine American troops, including three killed
Saturday in a single roadside bombing outside Baghdad.

With black smoke clogging the skies above Karbala, angry crowds
hurled stones at police and later stormed the provincial governor's
house, accusing authorities of failing to protect them from the
unrelenting bombings usually blamed on Sunni insurgents. It was the
second car bomb to strike the city's central area in two weeks.

Near the blast site, survivors frantically searched for missing
relatives. Iraqi television showed one man carrying the charred body of
a small girl above his head as he ran down the street while ambulances
rushed to retrieve the wounded and firefighters sprayed water at fires
in the wreckage, leaving pools of bloody water.

The Americans killed in Iraq included five who died in fighting
Friday in Anbar province, three killed when a roadside bomb struck their
patrol southeast of Baghdad and one killed in a separate roadside
bombing south of the capital.

The deaths raised to 99 the number of members of the U.S. military
who have died this month and at least 3,346 who have died since the Iraq
war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The blast took place about 7 p.m. in a crowded commercial area near
the shrines of Imam Abbas and Imam Hussein, major Shiite saints.

Ghalib al-Daami, a provincial council member who oversees security
matters, said the bomber detonated his payload about 200 yards from the
Imam Abbas shrine, which with the others draws thousands of Shiite
pilgrims from Iran and other countries.

That suggested the attack, which occurred two weeks after 47 people
were killed and 224 were wounded in a car bombing in the same area on
April 14, was aimed at killing as many Shiite worshippers as possible.

Salim Kazim, the head of the health department in Karbala, 50 miles
south of Baghdad, said Sunday that 63 people were killed and 169
wounded. The figures were confirmed by Abdul-Al al-Yassiri, the head of
Karbala's provincial council.

"I did not expect this explosion because I thought the place was
well protected by the police," said Qassim Hassan, a clothing merchant
who was injured by the blast. "I demand a trial for the people in charge
of the security in Karbala."

Hassan, who spoke to a reporter from his hospital bed, said his
brother and a cousin were still missing.

"I regret that I voted for those traitors who only care about their
posts, not the people who voted for them," he said.

The U.S. military has warned that such bombings were intended to
provoke retaliatory violence by Shiite militias, whose members have
largely complied with political pressure to avoid confrontations with
Americans during the U.S. troop buildup.

The radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr launched a strong attack
earlier Saturday on President Bush, calling him the "greatest evil" for
refusing to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

Al-Sadr's statement was read during a parliament session by his
cousin, Liqaa al-Yassin, after Congress ordered U.S. troops to begin
leaving Iraq by Oct. 1. Bush pledged to veto the measure and neither the
House nor the Senate had enough votes to override him.

"Here are the Democrats calling you to withdraw or even set a
timetable and you are not responding," al-Sadr's statement said. "It is
not only them who are calling for this but also Republicans, to whom you
belong."

"If you are ignoring your friends and partners, then it is no wonder
that you ignore the international and Iraqi points of view," he added.

Al-Sadr led two armed uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004, and his
Mahdi militia is believed responsible for much of Iraq's sectarian
killing. The U.S. military says he has fled to Iran, although his
followers insist he is hiding in Iraq.

Abdul-Al al-Yassiri, the head of the Karbala provincial council,
said local authorities had raised fears that militants fleeing the
Baghdad security crackdown were infiltrating their area.

"We have contacted the interior minister and asked them to supply us
with equipment that can detect explosives," he said.

Ali Mohammed, 31, who sells prayer beads in the area, said he heard
the blast and felt himself hurled into the air.

"The next thing I knew I opened my eyes in the hospital with my legs
and chest burned," he said. "This is a disaster. What is the guilt of
the children and women killed today by this terrorist attack?"

Crowds stormed the provincial government offices and the governor's
house, burning part of it along with three cars and scuffling with
guards. Security forces detained several armed protesters, al-Daami
said.

Saturday's bombing was the deadliest attack in Iraq since April 18,
when 127 people were killed in a car bombing near the Sadriyah market in
Baghdad - one of four bombings that killed a total of 183 people in the
bloodiest day since a U.S.-Iraq security operation began in the capital
more than 10 weeks ago.

In all, at least 124 people were killed or found dead, including the
bodies of 38 people killed execution-style - apparent victims of the
so-called sectarian death squads mostly run by Shiite militias.

In Baghdad, a mortar attack killed two people and wounded seven in
the Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah, where the U.S. military recently
announced it was building a three-mile long, 12-foot high concrete wall
despite protests from residents and Sunni politicians that they were
being isolated.

The U.S. military also said Saturday that a suicide truck bomber
attacked the home of a city police chief the day before in the Sunni
insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, killing nine Iraqi security
forces and six civilians.

Police chief Hamid Ibrahim al-Numrawi and his family escaped injury
after Iraqi forces opened fire on the truck before it reached the
concrete barrier outside the home in Hit, 85 miles west of Baghdad.

Sunday 29 April 2007

Ex-CIA chief says he was "in bed, asleep" during Bush's 2003 State of
the Union speech when the president claimed Iraq was attempting to
obtain uranium from Niger.
George Tenet told former Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley in October 2002 that allegations about Iraq's attempt to acquire
yellowcake uranium from Niger should immediately be removed from a
speech President Bush was to give in Cincinnati. Tenet told Hadley that
the intelligence was unreliable.

"Steve, take it out," the ex-CIA director writes in a new book, "At
the Center of the Storm," about a conversation he had with Hadley on
October 5, 2002, about the 16 words that alleged Iraq tried to obtain
uranium from Niger. As deputy National Security Adviser, Hadley was also
in charge of the clearance process for speeches given by White House
officials. "The facts, I told him, were too much in doubt."

The 16 words in question, "the British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa," was cited by Bush in a January 28, 2003 State of the Union
address and was widely seen as the single most important element that
helped convince Congress and the public to back an invasion of Iraq.
However, the intelligence was wholly unreliable and based on forged
documents. Tenet says that White House officials knew that and used the
language anyway.

Following his conversation with Hadley, one of Tenet's aides sent a
follow-up letter to then Deputy National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice, Hadley, and Bush's speechwriter Mike Gerson highlighting
additional reasons the language about Iraq's purported attempts to
obtain uranium from the African country of Niger should not be used to
try and convince Congress and the public that Iraq was an imminent
threat, Tenet wrote in the book.

"More on why we recommend removing the sentence about [Saddam's]
procuring uranium oxide from Africa," Tenet wrote in the book,
apparently quoting from a memo sent to the White House. "Three points:
(1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as
the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by
the source is under the control of French authorities; (2) the
procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear
ambitions...And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress,
telling them the Africa story is overblown and telling them this was one
of two issues where we differed with the British."

The revelation about the behind-the-scenes jockeying, as portrayed
by Tenet, related to the so-called 16 words has not been previously
reported. A copy of Tenet's book was purchased by a Truthout reporter at
a bookstore Saturday afternoon. The book officially goes on sale Monday.
Tenet received a $4 million advance for "At the Center of the Storm,"
according to news reports.

In the book, Tenet did not say whether he or his staff briefed a
particular member of Congress, a Congressional committee, or the full
Congress about the 16words. Still, no one in Congress has stepped up
over the past five years to say they were informed about the flawed
Niger intelligence, and if so why they allowed the story to be peddled
as fact for the past five years. To the contrary, Congressman Henry
Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
has sparked renewed interest in the issue.

Waxman issued a subpoena last week for Rice in order to compel her
testimony about her role in the 16 words controversy. Specifically,
Waxman wants Rice to testify about whether she knew in advance that the
intelligence was false. Rice said she would not honor the subpoena. For
more than four years, Rice has said she could not recall receiving any
oral or written warnings from the CIA about Iraq's interest in uranium
from Niger as being unreliable. And despite previous warnings Tenet said
Rice was given, she penned an Op- Ed January 23, 2003 claiming Iraq was
actively trying "to get uranium from abroad."

Waxman has asked Tenet to testify about the Niger allegations, but
the congressman has not yet received a reply. Neither Tenet nor his
spokesman was available for comment.

Still, the written and verbal warnings Tenet had made to various
members of the administration in October 2002 and thereafter about
citing intelligence claiming Iraq was actively trying to obtain uranium
from Niger apparently fell on deaf ears. On January 28, 2003 Bush cited
the 16 words in the State of the Union. Tenet said he had no idea what
the president said that evening because he "was at home, in bed,
asleep."

"You won't find many Washington officials who will admit to not
watching the most important political speech of the year, but I was
exhausted from fifteen months of nonstop work and worry since the
tragedy of 9/11," Tenet writes in the chapter "16 words." "We had warned
the White House against using the Niger uranium reports previously but
had not done so with the State of the Union," Tenet wrote.

According to Tenet's book, and previously published news reports,
Robert Joseph is the official who suggested that the sixteen words about
Iraq's supposed attempts to acquire uranium from Niger be included in
the State of the Union Address. Joseph, formerly the director of
nonproliferation at the National Security Council, is now the under
secretary of state for arms control - a position once held by John
Bolton. Bolton is the former United States ambassador to the United
Nations.

Joseph fought to have the language included despite a telephone call
he received from Alan Foley, director of the CIA's nonproliferation,
intelligence and arms control center, demanding the 16 words be taken
out of Bush's speech. Joseph has said he did not recall receiving a
phone call from Foley, according to Tenet's book and a July 18, 2003
story in the Washington Post http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/
exec/view.cgi/18/1372.

Foley had revealed the details of his conversation with Joseph
during a closed-door hearing before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence back in July 2003 - just two weeks after Wilson wrote an
op-ed in the New York Times documenting his role investigating whether
Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Niger, according to the Post story
and Tenet's "At the Center of the Storm."

The Senate committee held hearings during this time to try to find
out how the administration came to rely on the Niger intelligence at a
time when numerous intelligence agencies had warned top officials in the
Bush administration that it was unreliable.

According to the report in the Washington Post, Foley said he had
spoken to Joseph a day or two before President Bush's January 28, 2003,
State of the Union address and told Joseph that detailed references to
Iraq and Niger should be excluded from the final draft. Foley told
committee members that Joseph had agreed to water down the language and
would instead, he told Foley, attribute the intelligence to the British,
which is exactly how Bush's speech was worded.

Tenet wrote that he believes the administration was excited about
the prospect of removing Saddam Hussein from power and ignored his
previous warnings about the bogus intelligence in order to win support
for the war.

"The vision of a despot like Saddam getting his hands on nuclear
weapons was galvanizing" and "provided an irresistible image for
speechwriters, spokesmen, and politicians to seize on," Tenet wrote.

Still, Tenet says when the furor surrounding the 16 words reached a
boiling point in July 2003 he "decided to stand up and take the hit."

"Obviously, the process for vetting the speech at the Agency had
broken down," Tenet wrote. "We had warned the White House about the lack
of reliability of the assertion when we had gotten them to remove
similar language from the president's October [2002] Cincinnati speech
and we should have gotten that language out of the [State of the Union]
as well."

Tenet wrote in his book that when it came time to issue a mea culpa
for allowing Bush to use the 16 words in the State of the Union, White
House officials held a background briefing for the media and placed most
of the blame for the intelligence gaffe on the CIA. At that time, July
18, 2003, one of the officials at the briefing, later identified as I.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was recently convicted of perjury and
obstruction of justice for his role in the leak of covert CIA operative
Valerie Plame Wilson, released a portion of the highly classified
National Intelligence Estimate which attempted to provide further
credibility to the uranium claims - even though the intelligence it was
based upon was exposed as forgeries.

The briefing was sparked by an Op-Ed written by former Ambassador
Joseph Wilson two weeks prior in which he accused the administration of
twisting the Niger intelligence to build a case for war. Wilson had been
the special envoy who traveled to Niger in February 2002 at the behest
of the CIA to investigate the uranium claims. He reported back to the
CIA that the allegations were baseless.

Tenet wrote that the intent of the White House's background briefing
"was obvious.... They wanted to demonstrate that the intelligence
community had given the administration and Congress every reason to
believe that Saddam had a robust WMD program that was growing in
seriousness every day. The briefers were questioned about press accounts
saying that the White House had taken references to Niger out of the
Cincinnati speech at the CIA's request. Why then did they insert them
again in the State of the Union?" Tenet wrote that the White House
officials had told the media that the language pertaining to Niger
omitted from the Cincinnati speech was dramatically different than the
Niger claims that ended up in the State of the Union.

"That simply wasn't so," Tenet wrote. "It was clear that the entire
briefing was intended to convince the press corps that the White House
staff was an innocent victim of bad work by the intelligence community."

President Bush and his aides routinely call Iraq the "central front" in
Bush's war on terrorism and likely will say that the preponderance of
attacks there and in Afghanistan prove their point. But critics say the
U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have worsened the terrorist threat.
Washington - A State Department report on terrorism due out next
week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks
worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to
growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

The annual report's release comes amid a bitter feud between the
White House and Congress over funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and a
deadline favored by Democrats to begin a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this
week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year's
edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on
Capitol Hill said.

Ultimately, they decided to issue the report on or near the
congressionally mandated deadline of Monday, the officials said.

"We're proceeding in normal fashion with the final review of this
and expect it to be released early next week," State Department deputy
spokesman Tom Casey said.

A half-dozen U.S. officials with knowledge of the report's contents
or the debate surrounding it agreed to discuss those topics on the
condition they not be identified because of the extreme political
sensitivities surrounding the war and the report.

Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community's National
Counterterrorism Center, the report says there were 14,338 terrorist
attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005.

Forty-five percent of the attacks were in Iraq.

Worldwide, there were about 5,800 terrorist attacks that resulted in
at least one fatality, also up from 2005. The figures for Iraq and
elsewhere are limited to attacks on noncombatants and don't include
strikes against U.S. troops.

Even after this year's report was largely completed and approved,
Rice and her aides this week called for a further round of review, in
part to avoid repeating embarrassing missteps of recent years in the
report's release, officials said. The review process is being led by
Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, formerly the nation's
intelligence czar.

The U.S. intelligence community is said to be preparing a separate,
classified report on terrorist "safe havens" worldwide, and officials
have debated whether Iraq meets that definition.

The report can be expected to be used as ammunition for both sides
in the domestic battle over the Iraq war.

President Bush and his aides routinely call Iraq the "central front"
in Bush's war on terrorism and likely will say that the preponderance of
attacks there and in Afghanistan prove their point.

But critics say the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have
worsened the terrorist threat.

The contention by Bush and Vice President **** Cheney that al-Qaida
terrorists were in Iraq and allied with the late Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein before the invasion has been disproved on numerous fronts.

In September, a Senate Intelligence Committee report found that
Saddam rejected pleas for assistance from al-Qaida leader Osama bin
Laden and tried to capture another terrorist whose presence in Iraq is
often cited by Cheney, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of
al- Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime,
refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational
support," the Senate report said.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who also worked in
counterterrorism at the State Department, said that while the new report
would show major increases in attacks last year in Iraq and Afghanistan,
it could chart reductions in mass casualty attacks in the rest of the
world.

"The good news is ... we're seeing verifiable and drastic
reductions," he said.

Among the major strikes were bombings in the Egyptian Red Sea resort
of Dahab on April 24, which killed 23 people and injured more than 60,
and aboard trains in Mumbai, India, that left more than 200 dead and in
excess of 700 wounded on July 11.

In 2004, the State Department was forced to correct a first version
of the report that the administration had used to tout progress in
Bush's war on terror. The original version had undercounted the number
of people killed in terrorist attacks in 2003, putting it at less than
half of the actual number.

In 2005, the department was again accused of playing politics with
the report when it decided not to publish the document after U.S.
officials concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than
in any year since 1985.

The outcry forced Rice to drop that plan and publish the report

By Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times

Thursday 26 April 2007

Washington - The Senate narrowly passed a $124 billion war spending
bill early this afternoon after an emotional debate about the best way
forward in Iraq. The vote will send the measure to President Bush, who
has vowed to veto it because it would require American troops to begin
withdrawing by Oct. 1.

The 51-46 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be
needed to override Mr. Bush's veto, came after a morning-long debate in
which supporters of the bill called it a way to make the Iraqis take
responsibility for their own security, while opponents called it a
blueprint for defeat.

But the outcome was regarded as certain all along, with the White
House saying the president might not even comment on it today, given the
absence of suspense.

Still, there was plenty of feeling in evidence in the Senate as it
debated the bill, which the House of Representatives narrowly approved
on Wednesday.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, called
the bill one that "we can and will proudly send to the president," and
one that charts a new course in Iraq while honoring America's fighting
forces.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the
measure is "the only way to make Iraqis take responsibility" for their
own destiny. Mr. Kennedy said the president has been wrong all along on
Iraq. "Now, he is wrong to threaten to veto this bill," the senator
said. "We cannot repeat the mistake of Vietnam."

Another Democratic supporter, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island,
said the conflict is "a war that never should have started, and on this
president's watch may never end" without a timetable for American
withdrawal.

But Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who
lost the Democratic nomination last year at least partly because of his
support for the war, called the bill "a deadline for defeat" and said it
would have "exactly the opposite effect that its supporters expect"
because it would discourage the Iraqis.

And Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said it was
high time to "look beyond the politics of this thing, and do the right
thing" by letting Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in
Iraq, a chance to finish the job.

General Petraeus himself acknowledged this morning that the
situation in Iraq is "exceedingly complex and very tough."

"Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice,
all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi
political actions that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraq's many
problems," the general said at a Pentagon briefing.

At the White House, meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the president, Dana
Perino, said that Mr. Bush would veto the measure "very soon," so that
"we can take the next step." The next step, presumably, would be more
back-and-forth between the White House and the Capitol, since backers of
the bill have nowhere near the two-thirds majority required in each
chamber to override a veto.

Asked if Mr. Bush planned to comment, Ms. Perino said, "Look, this
is a little bit of a foregone conclusion, a little bit anti-climactic,"
she said.

The veto will be the second of Mr. Bush's presidency, and the first
since Democrats gained control of Congress. Last year, Mr. Bush vetoed a
stem-cell research bill.

On Wednesday, only hours after General Petraeus told lawmakers he
needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of the recent troop buildup
there, the House approved the measure by 218 to 208."Last fall, the
American people voted for a new direction in Iraq," said Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, Democrat of California. "They made it clear that our troops must
be given all they need to do their jobs, but that our troops must be
brought home responsibly, safely, and soon."

Republicans accused Democrats of establishing a "date certain" for
America's defeat in Iraq and capitulating to terrorism.

"This bill is nothing short of a cut and run in the fight against Al
Qaeda," said Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky.

On the final vote, 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the
bill; 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats opposed it. The legislation
provides more than $95 billion for combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan through Sept. 30, with the money conditioned on the
administration's willingness to accept a timetable for withdrawal and
new benchmarks to assess the progress of the Iraqi government.

Democratic leaders plan to send the bill to the White House early
next week - coinciding with the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush's May 1,
2003, speech aboard an aircraft carrier, when he declared the end of
major combat operations in Iraq, under a banner that said "Mission
Accomplished."

With the outcome essentially preordained, advocacy groups on both
sides of the issue were readying campaigns to try to shape public
opinion as the showdown unfolds.

Groups aligned with the Democrats plan to capitalize on the
connection between the veto and the "mission accomplished" anniversary.
Americans United for Change has produced a television commercial that
replays scenes of Mr. Bush on the carrier and says: "He was wrong then.
And he's wrong now. It's the will of one nation versus the stubbornness
of one man."

Allies of the president are mobilizing as well. The conservative Web
site Townhall.com was organizing an online "no surrender" petition, and
urging visitors to the site to tell the Democratic Party's "rogues'
gallery that we will not stand for their defeatism," adding, "While they
may lack courage, our troops do not and they deserve the resources
needed to win this war."

With the vote barely behind them, House Democrats were already
considering how to respond legislatively to Mr. Bush's veto. Though
there are differing ideas, Representative John P. Murtha of
Pennsylvania, a Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, said his
preference would be to "robustly fund the troops for two months," and
include benchmarks but no timetable for withdrawal.

In addition to General Petraeus, lawmakers in the House and Senate
heard on Wednesday from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England,
Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Adm. Edmund P.
Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As they walked into the House briefing, the officials were greeted
by about a dozen war protesters, some of whom shouted: "War criminal!
War criminal!" One woman walked alongside the general, urging him in a
softer tone to consider her point of view.

After the briefing, whose substance was classified, Representative
Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, disputed criticisms
that Democrats were trying to end the war before giving the
administration's plan a chance to succeed.

"Nobody is saying, 'Get out tomorrow,' " Mr. Hoyer said, noting that
the legislation would allow American troops to remain in Iraq to battle
terrorist groups.

He and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican
leader, differed on what emerged from the briefing as the most
significant cause of violence in Iraq. Mr. Hoyer attributed it to
sectarian strife, while Mr. Boehner cited Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia,
calling the group "the major foe that we face in Iraq today."

Democrats sought to portray their approach as reasonable and called
for Mr. Bush to reconsider before sending the bill back to Congress.

"I believe that this legislation, if people were to just take their
time and read it, is the exit strategy that the president ought to be
pleased to receive," said Representative James E. Clyburn of South
Carolina, the Democratic whip.

But Republicans called it a dubious attempt at micromanaging the war
and said Democrats were also seizing the opportunity to stuff the bill
with home-state spending.

The president's allies, aware of public dissatisfaction with the
war, acknowledged the difficulties on the ground in Iraq while
portraying the Democratic approach as a prescription for defeat.

"It's been ugly, it's been difficult, it has been very painful,"
said Representative David Dreier, Republican of California. "We all feel
the toll that has been taken and are fully aware of the price we are
paying, especially in a human sense. But we do not honor those who have
sacrificed by abandoning the mission."

The House vote on Wednesday and the preceding debate closely
resembled those of one month ago, when the House passed its initial
version 218 to 212.

i could be taliban, or i could be an agent deepthroat, or i can be the
worst thing on this planet right now that all Republicans hate and that
is I am the Voice Of JUSTICE. I am the Voice of Freedom. I am the
Voice.

oldsage can you understand this:

Hóigh! Cad é mar atá tú? Céard atá nuacht?
Tá Éire tír iontach.
Ba chóir dom dul.
Feicfidh mé roimh i bhfad thú!
Slán agat!

Maybe i am IRA

Heus! Quid agis?

سلام
كيف حالك؟
مالجديد؟

My friend I am from Russia...

This is for OldSage Привет! Как дела? Что нового? Очень приятно
России-замечательная страна! Чем Вы занимаетесь?

just a little side issue... Hitler Killed jews because he felt that they
were the reason for the poor economic situation within Germany.. He
wrote Mein Kamf,, But, don't hold him guilty by himself.. He did have
the support of the Catholic Church.

oldsage one answer i post them doesn't mean i wish for what they talk
about whether it's good or bad it's a thought that is written in a forum
of discussion. As for personal If a love one was shown or being viewed
in public the first question i ask is that My love one being represented
as a matryr or as a idiot.

trampledApr 24th, 2007 - 18:00:24

The US government is now worse than the soviets were. The propaganda
isn't even well thought out. It'sxd obvious that they don't know the
truth anymore, since they've spun so many lies they can't even keep them
straight in their own minds anymore.

Lie to cover up a lie...

PatriotApr 24th, 2007 - 18:02:28

what a sin this war has been, we won't 'win' anything but a guaranteed
future of even more enraged muslim hordes looking to kill us. We need
smarts in our leadership to battle their irrational faith. Interesting
that Sheryl Crowe, despite her wacky suggestions-is dead on in promoting
biofuels. If we did not need to import oil we could tell the middle east
to beat it What a great day that would be! I think green awareness and
fuel alternatives are as American in spirit as the tea party in Boston
all those years ago.

BackboneApr 24th, 2007 - 18:19:07

As americans we are all such cowards and simpletons. We can't figure out
that we need to flood Iraq with soldiers and overcome this challenge.

Are we all so scared and weak-minded that we run when we see adversity.
It is appalling and disappointing, it seems like this country needs
another Pearl Harbor or 9-11 before we will have resolve hardened.

Iraq was a mistake we all know that now, but how we handle our mistakes
is what will define us as a country. I wish we had a politician who
wasn't afraid to say this is how we will win the war in Iraq. Instead we
are all pining away for a spineless leader who wants to cut and run.
Focus on welfare, abortion and any other liberal pet issue.

Our country has steadily declined in our economic prowess and
inventiveness since we lost Vietnam. I wonder how low we will sink after
we lose Iraq because of all the spineless folks.

tbApr 24th, 2007 - 18:23:22

If we stopped buying middleast fuel their countries would become even
poorer and their suppresive leaders would still blame the US.causing
more Jihadist Islam is evil, pure and simple truth. It has give these
repressed people someone to blame instead of their evil and unhuman
religion that keeps them unstified with their human existance!

ChristinaApr 24th, 2007 - 18:26:02

Leaving this war is not about being spineless. It's about realize we
made a mistake and righting out wrongs. Are the Iraqi people honestly
better off now than before? Are they actually 'free'?? They still live
in fear of their lives and under the influence of a negative controlling
force. If anyone is spineless, it is our leader for not being man enough
to admit his mistake and his lies and right this wrong. Soldiers are
dying every day for a war that the American public does not support and
for a war that was started under false pretenses. How many years has it
been since that banner read 'Mission Accomplished' and don't try to spin
any bull about him not knowing about that. He's the president, I don't
believe for a second he doesn't know what a sign behind him says.

Bottom line, we must find a way to get out of Iraq. Not only for our own
good, but for the good of the Iraqi people. We have become enablers and
are probably causing more violence in the country by our mere presence.

kevin cormierApr 24th, 2007 - 18:26:06

i was at fort bliss with ms. lynch she was a slut and as for tillman do
you honestly think special forces shot thier own? the truth is is that
in the army there is a saying that there is no such thing as friendly
fire. my bet is that tillman showed his buddies he couldnt be trusted so
they took actions. thats the truth of war if you have quarrels then join
the army or work in politics and change it dont just sit around typing
complaints on the internet. my bet is you are all stupid, media
brainwashed minimum wage liberals.

JeanieApr 24th, 2007 - 18:26:12

I think it is time for the American people to stand up and say enough to
Bush and Cheney and their illegal war. What has Bush done that was not a
lie in the years that he has been in office.. I honestly believe that he
is a disgrace to the office and I wish Congress had the nerve to stand
behind the American people and do what they voted them in for.

MachiavelliApr 24th, 2007 - 18:26:14

Patriot, why do you call the Muslims faith irrational? Is it more so
than Christian faith? The attitude that Islam is 'irrational' is one of
the things that makes this war worse than it has to be: The Muslim
community in the Middle East know that many 'Westerners' think Islam
'irrational' and many believe that the U.S. is fighting a war on Islam,
not terrorism. To be fair I don't think that extremists should take it
as far as they have (bombings etc.), but it is not as if they haven't
been provoked. This war has made a mess that we will not be able to fix
for decades, maybe longer, but the least we can do is not call shots
against a faith that is given an extreme bad rap by its radicals and
extremists that claim that is is the will of Allah/God.

tbApr 24th, 2007 - 18:26:21

If we stopped buying middle-east fuel their countries would become even
poorer and their suppresive leaders would still blame the US, causing
more Jihadist. Islam is evil, pure and simple truth. It has give these
repressed sheeple someone to blame instead of their evil and unhuman
religion that keeps them unsatisfied with their human existance!

Beltway GregApr 24th, 2007 - 18:27:20

File this under Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' Cheney's 'The insurgency
is in its final throes' Condi's 'Why We Know Iraq Is Lying' Rumsfeld's
'We know Where the weapons of mass destruction are' Wolfowitz's 'The war
will pay for itself.' Almost makes you want to pull your kids out of
college and send them to work digging ditches. How could this seemingly
well educated lot make so many mistakes and mistatements? Are we the
people really this stupid or are Americans as a group delusional and
easily led?

'Fate's Right Hand, I don't understand at all.' Rodney Crowell

Beltway Greg

John LarsonApr 24th, 2007 - 18:27:33

Since this is all about the truth then lets look at the big picture. I
am a little supprised by the media intensity of Pat Tillmans death. The
facts as reported by other soldiers there are now available for everone
to view. No this is about a failure to present the truth in a timely
maner. Since that is also obvious then Everyday Americans fight and die
for a war

rskaeterApr 24th, 2007 - 18:28:02

it's just more of the same. LIES LIES
LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!this admin. has lied about
everything since they were put in office by the (oil) powers that be.
That was the start of the lies. That mr. bush 'won' the election. the
Iraq war.. wmd's...etc. etc. etc. to have the Military LIE to promote
his war is absolutely outrageous.. Why in the world isn't this admin.
IMPEACHED? Anyone who believes ANY of these people...has to be living in
the same sh t pile these people crawled out from.

DanApr 24th, 2007 - 18:29:53

Lynch was the young veteran who was savaged by Iraqi soldiers and who
nearly lost her life in service to her country.
Give me a break! She got caught under fire, was treated and essentially
released before her fellow officers 'came to her rescue'.

icantsleepApr 24th, 2007 - 18:31:51

I recall seeing Jessica on the motivational speakers circuit in
Charlotte, NC shortly after she returned home. She didn't seem to mind
all the hoopla about her story then.......my have times changed.

PuzzledApr 24th, 2007 - 18:31:55

Backbone,
Where will the troops to 'flood Iraq' come from? Are you advocating
reinstatement of the draft?

The OmsbudsmanApr 24th, 2007 - 18:31:59

Fact check, please:

1) The claim that Lynch was sexually assaulted came from Rick Bragg, who
wrote a book about her. Lynch herself has never claimed she was sexually
assaulted, nor that she was mistreated.


2) The American doctor who examined Lynch said she received excellent
medical care, especially in light of the conditions in Iraq at the time.
This medical care included using one of the last bone braces in Iraq to
stabilize her injuries.

LAZApr 24th, 2007 - 18:33:10

Let's talk about saving lives and even enhancing those of people with
real illnesses that can be helped. BE FOR MORE STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Let's talk about saving lives... by coming home from Iraq and then
taking care of our returning vets, and especially those that are
injured. Enough is enough.

Let's talk about saving lives... by helping those in need here, at home.
People who are in need of medical insurance, from children to seniors.

You are not a coward or anti-patriot when you express your unwillingness
to swallow the lies and distortions of this administration. Beef up our
own borders. We cannot win a war that has been fought for most of
recorded history... by fuedal tribes and religions. Zealots who cherish
not peace but martyrdom.



PLOPApr 24th, 2007 - 18:33:18

the war was completely legal, unfortunately. signed and sealed with
permission of the UN and congress of the US to use force. John Kerry,
Hillary, and Edwards all agree with bush.

TOM FLORESApr 24th, 2007 - 18:35:13

Kevin cormier, will you accept a collect call?

KirbyApr 24th, 2007 - 18:36:22

You got that right 'trampled'. Our government, press and corporate
organization have trampled on individaul rights in this country long
enough

Army Ranger Pat Tillman A Pentagon watchdog on Monday found fault with
nine officers for investigations and incorrect accounts of the death of
Tillman in Afghanistan.


"I'm no hero, the people who served with me who died are the real
heroes" said Jessica Lynch to CNN. Lynch was the young veteran who was
savaged by Iraqi soldiers and who nearly lost her life in service to her
country.


Pat Tillman's brother Kevin spoke to the congress and accused the
military Tuesday of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful
misrepresentations" in portraying his brother's death in Afghanistan as
the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of a friendly
fire mistake.

"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more
importantly the American public," Kevin Tillman told a House Government
Reform and Oversight Committee hearing. "Pat's death was clearly the
result of fratricide," he said.

"Revealing that Pat's death was a fratricide would have been yet another
political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth
needed to be suppressed," said Tillman, who was in a convoy behind his
brother when the incident happened three years ago but didn't see it.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., accused the government of inventing
"sensational details and stories" about Tillman's death and the dramatic
rescue and fictionalized post incident details of Jessica Lynch, whose
capture riveted many Americans.

Lynch, then an Army private, was terribly injured when her convoy was
ambushed in Iraq. Rescued after being sexually assaulted and treated
with sub-standard Iraqi medical care, Lynch's true story became a
fabricated history portraying her as a fighting hero, when she admitted
on CNN in an interview she never even got a chance to use her weapon.
She praised her fallen peers in battle. Her frustration at the truth
being manipulated was evident in the hearing.

Still dealing with her life-altering injuries, Lynch slowly came to the
witness table and took a seat alongside Tillman's family.

"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their
own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales,"
Lynch said.

Kevin Tillman said his family has only wanted the truth about Pat
Tillman's death, and have now concluded that they were "being actively
thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative
than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served."

Posted on April 26th, 2007 by blogger
Rosie O’Donnell was ordered by ABC not to talk about U.S. casualty
figures on The View and was continually censored and blocked in her
attempts to feature prominent members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as
guests on the show.

O’Donnell had met with 9/11 truth crusader and World Trade Center hero
William Rodriguez before she went public with her comments on The View
questioning the suspicious collapse of Building 7. Pictured above is
Rosie holding the famous key that Rodriguez used in the twin towers
during the rescue efforts.

Rodriguez was instrumental in arranging the appearance of 9/11 first
responders on The View which is set to air Friday.

Rosie has attempted to get William Rodriguez on the show as a guest on
numerous occasions over the last few weeks but was rebuffed by program
directors every time due to Rodriguez’s vocal stance that 9/11 was an
inside job.

Rosie was told almost from day one that she could not mention U.S. troop
casualty figures in Iraq and the cover-up of the real death count,
despite the fact that Neo-Con panelist Elisabeth Hasselbeck was given
free reign and allowed to say what she liked, including referring to the
Iraqi people as “animals.”

The fact that O’Donnell was blocked from talking about dead U.S. troops
feeds into the same censorship that bars the media from filming coffins
of returning soldiers at Dover AFB and other locations.



One of the primary reasons why O’Donnell rejected ABC’s contract offer
was because the show’s Neo-Con producer, Bill Geddie, was continually
editing her statements and censoring what could be broadcast. The View
is normally pre-taped and aired the next day but occasionally on
Tuesdays or Thursdays the broadcast goes out live. Sources tell us that
O’Donnell would choose the live show to make statements about 9/11, but
that after the initial furore, Geddie even resorted to inserting a delay
between the recording and the transmission so that he could live edit
controversial statements he didn’t like.

Barbara Walters also told People Magazine that even outside of the show,
Rosie was discouraged from blogging because ABC were fearful of the
content on her website.

Following her decision to reject ABC’s offer of a new three year
contract under the proviso that Rosie accept censorship of her comments,
Fox News and other Neo-Con hacks are claiming that O’Donnell was fired
from The View, a total lie designed to chill free speech and scare other
prominent individuals into keeping quiet.

Much to the chagrin of those that tried to have Rosie kicked off the air
altogether, according to reports O’Donnell plans to launch her own TV
show next year absent the censorship she has had to endure at the hands
of ABC.