...will undo you

In my opinion, Natalie Maines in a no-talent hack. She's also in the news again:

"...but if you live in Lubbock, Texas, where I'm from -- you just have one paper and one radio station and unless you're savvy on the Internet, that's it for you."
-Natalie Maines

Vancouver Sun, September 15th, 2006 (subscription)

Apparently Ms. Maines isn't "savvy on the Internet":

From OnTheRadio.Net:
Radio Stations in Lubbock Texas [yes, some of them are physically based in different towns, but they can be heard in Lubbock]

KTXT   88.1 FM	Texas Tech University	Lubbock, TX	Alternative, Radio
KPBB   88.5 FM		Brownfield, TX	Spanish, Radio
KPMB   88.5 FM		Plainview, TX	Spanish, Radio
KOHM   89.1 FM	Texas Tech University	Lubbock, TX	Public Radio, Radio
KAMY   90.1 FM	Family Life Radio	Lubbock, TX	Religious, Radio
KPHS   90.3 FM		Plains, TX	Grade School (K-12), Radio
KBAH   90.5 FM	American Family Radio – Something Good in the Air	Plainview, TX	Religious, Radio
KKLU   90.9 FM	K-Love - Positive and Encouraging	Lubbock, TX	Christian Contemporary, Radio
KBKN   91.3 FM	American Family Radio – Something Good in the Air	Lamesa, TX	Religious, Radio
KWLD   91.5 FM	Wayland Baptist College	Plainview, TX	Christian Contemporary, Radio
KJAK   92.7 FM	Christian Radio Station	Slaton, TX	Religious, Radio
KXTQ   93.7 FM	Magic 937 FM	Lubbock, TX	Tejano, Radio
KFMX   94.5 FM	fmX 94.5 - Absolute Rocks	Lubbock, TX	Rock, Radio
KLLL   96.3 FM		Lubbock, TX	Country, Radio
KSTQ   97.3 FM		Plainview, TX	Spanish, Radio
KKCL   98.1 FM	Cool 98 - Good Times, Great Oldies	Lorenzo, TX	Oldies, Radio
KICA   98.3 FM		Farwell, TX	Rock, Radio
KYMI   98.5 FM		Los Ybanez, TX	Country, Radio
KQBR   99.5 FM	The Bear - #1 for New Music and Country Legends	Lubbock, TX	Country, Radio
KMMX   100.3 FM	Mix 100 - Lubbock's Pop-Rock	Tahoka, TX	Hot AC, Radio
KOLF   100.7 FM		Plainview, TX	Religious, Radio
KONE   101.1 FM	Rock 101 - New and Classic Rock	Lubbock, TX	Classic Rock, Radio
KSNY   101.5 FM		Snyder, TX	Country, Radio
KZII   102.5 FM	Lubbock's #1 Hit Music Station	Lubbock, TX	Top-40, Radio
KMUL   103.1 FM		Muleshoe, TX	Country, Radio
KAMZ   103.5 FM		Tahoka, TX	Spanish, Radio
KRIA   103.9 FM		Plainview, TX	Tejano, Radio
KLZK   104.3 FM		Brownfield, TX	Adult Contemporary, Radio
KBTE   104.9 FM	104.9 The Beat - #1 for Hip Hop and R&B	Tulia, TX	Hip Hop, Radio
KLVT   105.3 FM		Levelland, TX	Country, Radio
KRBL   105.7 FM	K-Rebel - Classic Country 1057 FM	Idalou, TX	Country, Radio
KFLP   106.1 FM	K-Flip Country	Floydada, TX	Country, Radio
KEJS   106.5 FM		Lubbock, TX	Tejano, Radio
KKYN   106.9 FM		Plainview, TX	Country, Radio
KPOS   107.3 FM		Post, TX	Country, Radio
KRFE   580 AM	The Station that Listens to Lubbock	Lubbock, TX	Nostalgia, Radio
KPET   690 AM		Lamesa, TX	Country, Radio
KFYO   790 AM	NewsTalk 790 AM	Lubbock, TX	News/Talk, Radio
KFLP   900 AM	All Ag, All Day	Floydada, TX	Farm, Radio
KJTV   950 AM		Lubbock, TX	News/Talk, Radio
KIJN   1060 AM	JESUS Radio KIJN	Farwell, TX	Religious, Radio
KVOP   1090 AM		Plainview, TX	Spanish, Radio
KLVT   1230 AM		Levelland, TX	Gospel Music, Radio
KKUB   1300 AM		Brownfield, TX	Country, Radio
KKAM   1340 AM	Sports Radio 1340	Lubbock, TX	Sports, Radio
KMUL   1380 AM		Muleshoe, TX	Spanish, Radio
KREW   1400 AM		Plainview, TX	Oldies, Radio
KJDL   1420 AM	News Radio 1420	Lubbock, TX	News
KLFB   1420 AM		Lubbock, TX	Spanish, Radio
KBZO   1460 AM		Lubbock, TX	Spanish, Radio
KZZN   1490 AM		Littlefield, TX	Farm, Radio
KCLR   1530 AM		Ralls, TX	Spanish, Radio
KDAV   1590 AM	Renaissance Radio	Lubbock, TX	Oldies, Radio

Television in Lubbock:
KJTV Fox
KUPT UPN (Out of New Mexico)
KBZO
KTXT-TV
KCBD TV
KGLR
KWBZ

Newspapers:
Avalanche-Journal
El Sol Latino
El Editor
The Hispano Weekly
Lubbock Southwest Digest
The Daily Toreador

And to think, Maines called President Bush a "dumb f***". Maybe she should take an old phrase to heart that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Update: Looking at the list, maybe she meant there's only one lefty oriented station in Lubbock?

Honestly, I am not pulling out this comment from the "Dear Sandy" post for special attention, it's just that HaloScan won't post my reply and I really want to respond to this.

Beth,
First off, the quotes in the document were to rebut Mr. Berger's statement that there was "...nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report...to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene..." which I believe is, at the very least, a misleading statement. As the 9/11 Commission report excerpt clearly shows, the mission was scrubbed, and at least one person (James Pavitt, the assistant head of the Directorate of Operations,) who believed that Mr. Berger was the source of the cancellation, although possibly based on Tenet's recomendation. Therefore, the 9/11 Commission report does contain information that supports the possible mission. Whilst I agree that they *may* have dramtized (or even over-dramatized) the possible scene in question, it's a little hard to present a mission that was planned over a number of months and probably debated endlessly in a two night mini-series. Hence, the action was compressed into one scene that shows the same overall effect.

To address your second statement: "If this plan, like in your quote says, was never presented to the White House for a decision, then how could they have turned down this request that was never requested?" "They" I assume being President Clinton? Well, it's really rather moot as Mr. Clinton's actions or inactions are not addressed by the quoted paragraph of the 9/11 Commission report. When Mr. Berger said that the plan hadn't been presented to the White House, one would know from the rest of the description of the planning of the mission as reported in the earlier unquoted section of the report (and I highly recommend you read the entire report, or at least that chapter if you can be bothered) that Mr. Berger himself was fully aware of the plan and that he claims he never passed it up the chain. However this is moot as the statement in the report rebuts his statement of "In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda." [emphasis added]

As for being a Democrat in Arizona and not having to "hide"; congratulations. I am glad to see that the great state of Arizona is accepting of people with different political viewpoints. Unfortunately San Francisco really isn't. For all of it's much ballyhoo'd "peace, love and understanding" mantra, this city is more like a totalitarian nightmare that is completely unaccepting of anyone that is not parroting the party line than the utopian dream it purports to be.
I would recommend you come live here for a while to see what runaway liberalism can do to a place.

Here are some past postings of mine about San Francisco:

"Only In San Francisco"

Tilting at Windmills

While it does have some (ok, a LOT) of "adult language" in it, I think that this one probably sums up my personal politics and feelings about San Francisco and the Bay Area the best:

My apologies

Ok, so I just finished my first perusal of the "Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs And Links To Terrorism And How They Compare With Prewar Assesments together with Additional Views" (seriously, that's what it's called.) and have some early impressions.

1) I agree with the minority opinion that the document is a witch-hunt and that it is designed to "...point fingers in Washington and at the Administration."

2) I feel that it really glosses over a lot of data and does a dis-service to the Intelligence Community by coming to a conclusion so quickly.

In support of point two above, let me quote from the report:

"The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which is leading the exploitation effort of documents(DocEx) uncovered in Iraq, told Committee staff that 120 million plus pages of documents that were recovered in Iraq have received an initial review for intelligence information. As of January 2006, 34 million pages have been translated and summarized to some extent and are available to analysts in an Intelligence Community database"

For the math challenged (which I admit to being a member of) that means that ~30% of the "120 million plus pages...[that] have received an initial review..." have been translated and summarized, leaving only the 70% majority left to translate and finish reviewing.

"But they received an initial review!" some will say, ok, granted. But does that mean it was truely analyzed or just glanced at? You can review a lot of the declassified information for yourself at the Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center's website for Operation Iraqi Freedom documents.

(As an aside I wish I could read Arabic (meh, something to learn in my freetime perhaps?) as some of them look rather interesting:
Log Records and Microfilm of Jews[?! WTF ed.]

Telecommunication lines in (IAEC) building offices and instructions by Saddam Hussein for internet use by government to hack and gather information off of websites

)

Anyway, back to the PFAIWMDPALTTAHTCWPATWAV report. The document really only says that while everyone accepted the Democrat requested 2002 NIE was factual and accurate with the information they had available then, in 20/20 hindsight and with the gathering of more information (that hasn't been completely exploited yet) that the Intelligence Community was, in retrospect, wrong.

Wow. What a long winded title to come to that conclusion.

I think that document also does a dis-service by focusing so narrowly on al Qaeda as the (apparently) sole focus of the "links to terrorism" section of the report.


Well, I will have more later, but first I have to get the report title out of my head as it's taking up too much space.

From Chapter 2 of the 9/11 Commission report:

There is also evidence that around this time [March 1997] Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.⁷⁴
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.⁷⁵
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a
collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.⁷⁶

I think the keyword in the above information is "operational." As one reads the footnotes for chapter two, you get a better sense for what lead to this term being used:

74. Intelligence report, unsuccessful Bin Ladin probes for contact with Iraq, July 24, 1998; Intelligence report,Saddam Hussein’s efforts to repair relations with Saudi government, 2001.

75. Intelligence report, Iraq approach to Bin Ladin, Mar. 16, 1999.

76. CIA analytic report,“Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa’ida’s Ally in Northeastern Iraq,” CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1,2003. See also DIA analytic report,“Special Analysis: Iraq’s Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida,” July 31, 2002; CIA analytic report,“Old School Ties,” Mar. 10, 2003. We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information.Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative,Feb. 14,2004.Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 (cited in CIA letter, response to Douglas Feith memorandum,“Requested Modifications to ‘Summary of Body of Intelligence Reporting on Iraq–al Qaida Contacts (1990–2003),’” Dec. 10,2003, p. 5).

The footnotes seem to imply that while there was one al Qaeda operative who was the source of "the most detailed information" there logically were other sources as well.

Front Page Banner (used to say):

Conspiracy Theories
Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity
(Yes, I know it now says "Many Americans distrust official 9/11 account", they changed it, but the article is still subtitled "Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity ")

You could read that and think "Wow, a lot of Americans believe in these conspiracy theories...maybe there is something to them"

In the actual article, the author first talks about the "eminent liberal theologian and philosopher" David Ray Griffin and how he at first believed the facts of September 11th "were as stated on the screen" and that it wasn't until a year later that he "began his stroll down the path of disbelief."

Wow! "Many Americans" and an "eminent liberal theologian and philsopher" believe these theories! There might really be something to this!

Of course when you get below the fold you find that the "many Americans" is from a Scripps Howard survey of 1,100 Americans polled that reports that 36% "suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands." and that
that little bit of datum was part of a survey that also came to results such as:

Even motorcyclists favor tougher safety helmet laws

It's True: Men really won't stop car to get directions

Bush couldn't beat Gore or Kerry, or even his father

Personally I don't know how much one can trust that poll. First off it's a web poll, secondly it's such a mishmash of questions that I think you could draw a huge number of results from it, but they would be so oddly correlated as to be meaningless, and lastly there are some very weird issues with some of the questions. There is one question for example that talks about re-running the 2004 Presidential election and who the respondent would vote for.

How about the 2004 election among Republican George W. Bush, Democrat John Kerry and third part candidate Ralph Nader?*
Bush 40%
Kerry 46%
Nader 7%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%

See the footnote asterik after Ralph Nader? It says "*This question had 0 respondents..."

Ummmm, hello? How does that work?

Anyway, back to the Washington Post / MSNBC article; while the article does go on to present the evidence from NIST about the collapse and spend some time talking to real scientists about the events of that day, but the main bent of the article seems to me to be promoting the conspiracy theories more so than just commenting on it. There is more time devoted to the conspiracy nutters than is spent disputing their statements. "But that's the point of the article is to talk about conspiracy theorists!" I can hear some of you saying. True. However, if I were to write an article about say the Nazi party in WWII, would I be doing a service to people to only discuss what the Nazi's believed and thought and didn't present a balanced counterpoint their insane beliefs?



(image is owned by MSNBC, reprinted / linked under the Fair Use clause of applicable U.S. Copyright law)

"There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda."

Sandy Berger in letter to Robert Iger of Disney in re "The Path to 9/11"
September 5, 2006

But Sandy, that's not what the National Commission Report says:

On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high.They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”²⁹
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed.He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision. [emphasis added]

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States
"The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 7

While I will grant that ABC probably took dramatic license in presenting an operation that was planned, rehearsed, gamed and simulated over six plus months and compressed it into one scene, it still doesn't diminish the fact that the snatch plan was scrubbed by either someone in the White House, NSC or Cabinet and that at least one person thought you were the reason it was scrubbed.

And that is just one example of "missed opportunities" to do what was right and necessary, what about Kandahar in '99?

Of couse Chapter 4 also doles out this little paragraph that apparently you and the rest of the Democrats don't really want people to think about now do you?

On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States "The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 21 (page 128 of the entire report)

Sure you don't want to rethink that statement there Sandy? You might open up a whole can of worms that y'all have fought to keep closed for a long time no? I mean, Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism right?

Updated:9/7/2006

I completely forgot how interesting the 9/11 report was...especially if you read the footnotes:

On December 4, as news came in about the discoveries in Jordan, National Security Council (NSC) Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke wrote Berger,“If George’s [Tenet’s] story about a planned series of UBL attacks at the Millennium is true, we will need to make some decisions NOW.” He told us he held several conversations with President Clinton during the crisis. He suggested threatening reprisals against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the event of any attacks on U.S. interests, anywhere, by Bin Ladin. He further proposed to Berger that a strike be made during the last week of 1999 against al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan—a proposal not adopted.¹¹

The 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 6, Page 176 (Page 3 in the linked PDF)

Footnote 11 for Chapter 6 reads:

11. NSC note, Clarke to Berger, Dec. 4, 1999; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004). In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote “no.”

I guess technically speaking though it is only the National Security Council and not the CIA or military making the recommendation / request.

Correction:9/7/2006

I mistakenly stated that the letter was from Berger to Mr. Iger at ABC, Mr. Iger works for The Walt Disney Company

Updated 9/8/2006
Added the sentence "On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations." to the information from the report on Page 128 (page 21 in chapter 4) as it better clarifies the context of the original quote. The added sentence is part of the original quote and was inadvertantly clipped in the original posting.