Behind Enemy Lines

COALITION FORCES FIND TORTURE ROOM, DESTROY WEAPONS CACHE IN SADR CITY

2007-05-06T08:02:00.000-07:00

Sunday, 06 May 2007

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ COMBINED PRESS INFORMATION CENTER BAGHDAD, Iraq

Coalition Forces destroyed a torture room, a large cache of weapons and improvised explosive device-making materials Sunday morning while targeting terrorists in Sadr City.

Coalition Forces targeted the location based on intelligence reports that indicated the presence of suspected members of a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training.

During a search of the objective, Coalition Forces found a torture room and cache of over 150 mortar rounds, ammunition and IED-making materials.

Because the explosive nature and instability of the materials, Coalition Forces cordoned off the area and an explosive ordnance team detonated the materials in place.

When ground forces initially approached buildings at the targeted location, they began receiving heavy small arms fire, including rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons, from one of the buildings. Coalition Forces, using appropriate self-defense measures, returned fire.
Four more armed men engaged Coalition Forces from behind a vehicle, which was struck when Coalition Forces returned fire, reacting to the hostile actions with appropriate self-defense measures and fired on it. The vehicle was destroyed.

Despite efforts to subdue the armed terrorists, Coalition Forces continued to receive enemy fire. Coalition Forces used actions to react to the perceived threat in self-defense and called for close air support to suppress the armed terrorists who were firing rocket propelled grenades.
Coalition Forces estimate eight to 10 armed individuals were killed during the exchange of fire during the operation.

Intelligence reports indicate that the secret cell has ties to a kidnapping network that conducts attacks within Iraq as well as interactions with rogue elements throughout Iraq and into Iran.
“Coalition Forces continue to target terrorists who use torture, improvised explosives devices, and facilitate the training of those who would use the same methods,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson. “We continue to strike at the networks around Iraq that disregard the safety of all Iraqis.”

Joy

2007-04-30T05:48:00.000-07:00

So the Maze got melted yesterday. This is going to be fun. I'll time it and maybe even post some photos or video later.

In other news, I promise I will post some more tales of interest soon. I realize my "Fatted Calf" post below may have been a bit presumptive.

US, Iraqi raid in Mahmudiyah nets Iranian-marked rockets

2007-04-28T19:11:00.000-07:00

From Camp Victory

Saturday, 28 April 2007
Multi-National Corps – Iraq
Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory
APO AE 09342
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASER
ELEASE No. 20070428-13April 28, 2007
US, Iraqi raid in Mahmudiyah nets
Iranian-marked rockets, mortars
Multi-National Division – Center PAO
Mahmudiyah, Iraq – A U.S. and Iraqi
raid in a Mahmudiyah apartment complexdetained eight suspected extremists and
discovered three caches containingmortar systems, rockets and ammunition April
22.
Soldiers of 4th Battalion, 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division and the
2ndBattalion, 15th Field Artillery Regiment of 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th
Mountain Division, from Fort Drum, N.Y., discovered the caches at about 6:30p.m.
local time.
Coalition forces have found many weapons caches in the
Mahmudiyaharea, but most rocket and mortar rounds found there have been
deteriorated andapparently intended for use in improvised explosive
devices. In contrast, the 60mm and 82mm mortar systems, three 107mm
rockets,three 60mm and three 82mm rounds found in the latest cache were nearly
new.
Soldiers of the unit examined the weapons, which were stamped with
recent dates and Iranian markings.
Also found was bulk ammunition for a PKC
machine gun. The munitions were seized for further investigation.
The
detainees were taken into Iraqi Army custody for further questioning.

Slay the fatted calf

2007-04-09T20:53:00.000-07:00

"It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."

Today in Crazy Town

2006-11-14T23:38:00.000-08:00

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors voted to essentially decriminalize marijuana by making it the lowest police priority. Henceforth let it be known that you may grow, sell and consume marijuana in San Francisco, but don't spit on the sidewalks or the cops will bust your ass.

San Francisco's Board of Education kicked out the 90 year old JROTC program from City schools at the behest of anti-war activists and Viet-Nam era draft dodgers. 1,600 students now have no real reason to stay in school because Dan Kelly and his ilk think that the military is "bad". The same article also notes as a sideline how the Board of Education also introduced racist quotas to school assignments in the same meeting.

Breaking the "Berlin Wall" meme

2006-11-14T23:31:00.000-08:00

I've been seeing a fair amount of comparisons lately between the proposed fence seperating Mexico and the United States and the old Berlin Wall that seperated East and West Berlin during the Cold War.

There's only one problem: The East Germans built their wall to keep their people in.

Happy 231st Birthday Marines

2006-11-10T06:46:00.000-08:00

Voter turnout: 40%

2006-11-08T08:20:00.000-08:00

According to MSNBC, voter turnout for this mid-term election was just slightly over 40%.

Think about that for a minute when you hear people trumpeting about how this election signals anything about the will of Americans be it disatisfaction with Iraq, the President, the economy, whatever.

40%

Why did the Democrats take control of the House? Easy. They voted (or there was massive voter fraud on their part...oh wait, I forgot, that's the Democrats line whenever they lose anything ;) ).

Faux Fauxtography

2006-11-07T20:45:00.000-08:00

So, on YouTube, some guy posted a video claiming that the Whitehouse had edited President Bush's speech on the USS Lincoln to hide the "Mission Accomplished" banner. He claimed that there a "black box" at the bottom of the video was evidence that the video had been stretched and squished upwards to hide the sign.

Let's look shall we?

Wow, he sure seems impressive. And that black box is weird huh?
Was it an evil edit by the Chimpy McBushitler?? Of course not!

The "evil black box" he posted about is actually just a placeholder for CLOSED CAPTIONING text!

It's hilarious. Just use Real Player and tell it to open the following url: [Note: you will probably have to copy it and paste it into the "open" dialog in Real Player

rtsp://a661.v59136.c5913.g.vr.akamaistream.net/ondemand/7/661/5913/3eb1d821/whitehouse.download.akamai.com/5913/20030501-ussabraham.v.rm

Notice that the black box is gone.

That is the video link contained in the .smil file which is used to layout the form for Real Player in the link from the Whitehouse video server site.

The details:

.smil files are used to describe the layout of the Real Player viewer. And that's just what happened here.

In the .smil file there is a section titled "<region>" with an ID of "textregion". This is the "black box" in the video

<region id = "textregion"
background-color = "#000000"
top = "190"
left = "0"
height = "50"
width = "320"/>

Notice the size spacing etc are all consitent with the "evil black box"
It is defined as a place holder for closed captioning information.

To confirm this go into Real Player and choose "Tools | Options" this will open the options window. Go to "Content" on the left hand side and then look at the "Accesibility" section. In that section choose "Use supplemental text captioning when available". Apply that setting and watch the video again. Lo and Behold the "stretched video" is placeholding for the captioning and the captions appear in the "evil black box". [Note these are instructions for Real Player 10, your instructions may vary]

You can also confirm this by checking the .smil file from the Whitehouse web server. Near the bottom of the .smil file there is the following entry

<switch>
<textstream
src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.v.rt"
region="textregion"
system-language="en"
system-captions="on"
title="President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended"
alt="President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended"/>
</switch>

It's a block region tag for the closed captioning text stream. See how it refers back to the "textregion" id? This tells Real Player to run the closed captioning stream in that section. Removing the "textregion" block and the closed captioning block will remove the black box completely.

Why is that there? Simple. The feds operate under very strict accessibility rules and this was probably done to be compliant. How damned evil of them!

The moral of the story is don't listen to technically illiterate fools on the internet.

Moral for the guy who posted the video ("Mike Mcintee"): Understand the techonology involved before you go off an make a video making yourself look like a paranoid nut job on the Internet.

Link to .smil file for video : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.v.smil
Link to html page containing link to .smil file; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.v.html

Hat tip: HotAir

Breaking the [shari'a] law in Minneapolis

2006-10-01T08:43:00.000-07:00

Apparently "[h]undreds of Muslim cabdrivers " are refusing to carry passengers from the airport in Minneapolis-St. Paul if they have alcohol because "[i]t is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol"

There's only one little problem with that: It's forbidden in Minneapolis to refuse to convey a passenger in a taxi cab.

341.170. Duty to accept passengers.
No driver shall refuse or neglect to convey any orderly person or persons upon request anywhere in the city unless previously engaged, provided that such person agrees to pay the legal rate of fare. No taxicab driver shall refuse or fail to provide services to any person protected under the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances section 139.10. No taxicab driver shall carry any other passenger than the person first employing the taxicab, except as provided in section 341.730, and then only with the consent of the first passenger or passengers. (88-Or-004, § 5, 1-15

Minneapolis Municipal Code
Title 13; Chapter 341; Article 1A

The only reason they could legally refuse to carry the alcohol carrying passengers is if the passenger refused to pay the fare or the cabby already had a passenger. The airport is trying to sanction the cab drivers actions by offering the cab drivers a way to signify they won't carry alcohol bearing passengers via a special light on the cab roof. How are the airport workers going to direct people to the correct cabs? They are going to have to interrogate them about what they are carrying no? Therefore to not "offend" a cab driver who is in violation of the law, the onus of burden is put onto the passenger. That's just not right.

I have no problem with the cab drivers religious beliefs at all. If they don't want to carry alcohol, fine. But when they take the job of a cab driver then they are beholden to the laws and regulations the cover their job. If they violate the rules or so devoutly disagree with the rules, then they shouldn't be cab drivers.

Condoning the actions of the drivers in this case is wrong since under the secular municipal code of Minneapolis the drivers are in violation. Period. Where does it stop? Will they soon refuse to carry women who aren't wearing the hijab? What special colored light would they get on the top of the cab for that? What if there was another group of cab drivers whose religious beliefs forbade them from carrying anyone who was not caucasian? Or what if their religion forbode adherents from carrying anyone who wasn't of their religious order? Would everyone have to wear little pins or badges identifying their religious beliefs so as to be instantly identifiable?

Are some of these scenarios far fetched? Prior to this cab incident I would have said yes, but when you begin to bend the rules for one religion or religious edict you eventually have to bend it for all and that's not the point of the United States. We are a secular nation of law under the guiding beacon that is the Constitution which while respecting the religious beliefs of citizens, trumps all other law espoused by religion, be it shari'a, Torah, or Bible.

Your lying heart...

2006-09-23T10:08:00.000-07:00

...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?

Not to single any one out

2006-09-09T09:18:00.000-07:00

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

What a long document, but it's still interesting

2006-09-08T17:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Some more interesting tidbits from the 9/11 Commission report

2006-09-08T08:19:00.000-07:00

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.

MSNBC / Washington Post pimp conspiracy theories

2006-09-08T07:06:00.000-07:00

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)

Dear Sandy

2006-09-07T17:04:00.000-07:00

"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.

In other news: California Assembly Approves Financial Aid for Illegal Immigrants

2006-08-30T08:24:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, the California State Assembly approved bil SB160 which requires the University of California, California State University and state community colleges to allow illegal immigrants be eligable to apply for all of the student aid programs.

Let me get this straight: Come to the United States illegally and feel free to consume taxpayer funded resources.

"...[b]ut Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate (Los Angeles County), argued that students who work hard shouldn't be punished because of their immigration status. "This simply allows these kids that are working their butts off to live their version of the American dream," he said. "
(San Francisco Chronicle 08/30/2006)

By that arguement I shouldn't be punished if I were to rob a bank and use that money to live my fantasy version of the American dream. I mean, I work hard, a hell of a lot harder than an illegal immigrant who has time to go to school, so I should be able to commit crimes and use that as an excuse no?

Castro has surgery;"provisionally" passes power to Raúl

2006-07-31T22:14:00.000-07:00

My bet: "Il Comandante" is really dead. I mean come on, in all the years of his dictatorship he's never given up power, not once. He's dead and they are covering for him to prevent the people from true Libertad de la tiranía . Face it folks, he's taken hells version of the Granma and is crossing the river Styx right now, late for his appointment.

My feeling if he is dead: Oddly torn. I mean, it's not that I wish to kill him, it's just that I don't want him to be alive anymore.

My feeling if he is alive: Missed him by *this* much.

I really don't like dictators, can ya tell?

We'd better be careful, we're risking a "backlash!"

2006-07-30T23:16:00.000-07:00

Oh no, we're risking a backlash in the Middle East!

I mean, everybody already loves us in the Middle East right? Isn't that what all of the polls are saying all the time?

Why I hate Hizballah

2006-07-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

I have nothing but utter contempt for Hizballah and their ilk.

Many people ask why the United States is against a cease-fire with Hizballah, it's really really damn simple folks

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hizballah. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad (a.k.a Hizballah) claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers (linked to Hizballah) exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

1985
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hizballah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hizballah , were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

(above source information culled from InfoPlease listing of terrorist attacks within the United States or against Americans abroad)

The last multi-national force that the United States was involved in with Lebanon was a total cluster f**k that got 241 Marines killed when Hizballah blew up the barracks.

"Why were Marines in Beirut!? They must have been Crusaders!"
I've seen many in the Middle-East still use the involvement of the United States in Lebanon in the Multi National Force against us, claiming that we "attacked" Lebanon. We went into Lebanon with the French, Italians and British to try and stabilize Beirut. Do we get thanks for that? No. We get blamed for everything even though it was Hizballah, Syria, Iran, Israel, etc. who were doing all the fighting.

It's not often that I post something from the media that is worth reading...

2006-07-20T05:55:00.000-07:00

...and not criticizing. Rabbi Marc Gellman wrote this piece for Newsweek and I think it's a very good read: What the Bible says about terrorism

Stupid stupid stupid move by Hizbollah

2006-07-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

That was the dumbest move that Hizbollah, Syria and Lebanon could have possibly made.

Hizbollah has now given Israel casus belli in attacking Lebannon. The U.N. can't even decry this latest move as it falls under self-defense. I wonder how Nicaragua v United States of America or The Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic can be applied as Hizbollah is effectively under the control of the Lebanese government no?

Wondering why your Residential Parking Permit more than doubled in cost?

2006-07-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

Thank these guys

San Francisco Budget and Finanace Committee

Supervisors Daly, Dufty, Peskin, Mirkarimi, Elsbernd

It was on their recommendation that the fee be increased

Recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee

050329 [Parking Permits] Ordinance amending San Francisco Traffic Code sections 308, 308.1, 308.3, and repealing section 314, to: clarify the requirements for issuance of Residential Parking Permits; increase parking permit fees for Residential Parking Permits and Health Care Worker Permits to sixty dollars ($60) if purchased in the first six months of the permit year or thirty dollars ($30) if purchased in the last six months of the permit year; increase Educational Institution Permits to sixty dollars ($60) for each permit regardless of the date of purchase or repurchase; increase temporary parking permit fees for Residential Parking Permits to twenty dollars ($20) for each week for up to four weeks or forty dollars ($40) for a four week permit; increase visitor parking permit fees for Residential Parking Permits to five dollars ($5) per day, twenty dollars ($20) for two consecutive weeks, thirty dollars ($30) for four consecutive weeks, forty dollars ($40) for six consecutive weeks, or fifty dollars ($50) for eight consecutive weeks; and, delete previous permit fee amounts. (Municipal Transportation Agency)

Enacted Number: 108-05 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: Ayes: 11 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Ma, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval

Some may think the the Liberaleliti aren't backing North Korea

2006-07-08T09:25:00.000-07:00

But consider that in this age of "Bush is responsible for everything bad" (BIRFEB) that any excuse to bash the President is a good one.

From the San Francisco Chronicles "World Views" blog in an article titled "Why the confusion? North Korea says why it test-fired missiles", Edward M. Gomez virtually parrots the official "Democratic" Peoples Republic of Korea's official news agency:

"North Korea's early-morning test launches of seven missiles on Wednesday provoked alarm in Washington and Tokyo, allowing both the Bush administration and the Japanese government to do what they do best. Team Bush quickly put its fear-mongering mechanism into high gear, while officials in the government of soon-to-retire Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi wrung their hands, shifted into high-victim, they-could-target-us-next mode, and then wrung their hands some more."

"In Australia, George W. Bush's sidekick, Prime Minister John Howard, dutifully parroted Washington's no-nukes-for-the-North line."

Mr. Gomez goes on to talk about the 1999 self-imposed moratorium where North Korea agreed to stop its testing of long range missiles in exchange for easing of economic sanctions (Mr. Gomez overlooks the money issue). He states (quoting the double-think of the DPRK news service) that the agreement was only valid in so long as the United States continued its dialog with North Korea and essentially blames the United States for the missile launch (he also throws in a jab at the media claiming that the "...tidbit of recent history has not and is not being widely reported by U.S. mainstream news media." Of course Mr. Gomez is technically correct in it "not being widely reported", since saying that is akin to saying "there have been no news stories specifically talking about this facet of the issue" (which I have to assume is correct, I mean, they do still have fact checkers at the Chronicle right? Or does that not apply to blogs?) . However, Mr. Gomez apparently forgot to fact check himself as a quick search via Google reveals the following:
New York Times coverage
CNN Coverage
Los Angeles Times Coverage

Unless of course three of the biggest news services in the country don't count.

Mr. Gomez also fails to recall other recent history about North Korea including its kicking out of U.N. IAEA inspectors, resumption of nuclear weapons development, threats against the United States and Japan, and North Korea's production of counterfeit U.S. currency. In fact, the counterfeit money is probably the real central issue here, since Banco Delta Asia was forced to freeze the North Korean money laundering accounts which resulted in depriving North Korea of one of their biggest influxes of illicit cash. Mr. Gomez fails to note that the re-opening of those accounts is also one of North Korea's demands for them to return to multi-national talks.

But, possibly because of BIRFEB, that little tidbit of recent history isn't being reported much either.

Kim says: "Don't complain about our launching missiles at Hawaii...

2006-07-06T22:15:00.000-07:00

...or we'll attack you. "

According to Japan's Sankei newspaper, North Korea's launch of the Taepong 2 missile on the 4th was aimed at the waters near Hawaii. [electronic translation version here / MarketWatch report here]

Japan, who has imposed basic economic sanctions against North Korea in response to the missile launches, has been told by North Korea to stop the sanctions....or else, with North Korea stating

"Any criticism of this [the launches] will be met with a stronger and physical response ,Japan is uppermost in this regard."

So, let me get this straight big boy: You fired missiles at the United States (ok, the waters near the United States) and when people criticize you for that you threaten them with violence? And we are all supposed to believe that "Dear Leader" Kim is completely harmless right?

Just wanted to make sure we are all on the same line in the "Kim Is Koo-Koo Krazy, But The Moonbats Still Love Him" songbook