Larry,

I watched this piece last night, and you are right, Keith deserves an Emmy at the very least. Chris Matthews has turned into a MSM (and that wasn't a misprint)Whore, which leaves Keith the only real journalistic voice on that network.

Within the hour, I listened to the first part of Joe Scarborough's show, based on the teaser of "Is George Bush an idiot, or merely inarticulate?" John Fund said no, he's just inarticulate and incurious.

Does Bush even have a figleaf any longer?

Bushco delenda est.

I watched Olberman's piece as well. Funny but when I tell people about it the usual reaction isn't surprise. Instead most of the folks I have talked to respond with "that sounds about right."

The tragedy is that the Rovian phony terror threats are so common I don't think many people would pay attention to a real one if announced by the attorney general or the head of homeland security.

Ron Byers

Just like showing you anything on FOX News, you won't believe it.

"the lowest rated show on cable." Are you sure that is an accurate statement?

If you want credibility you have to make sure your facts are accurate.

Ron Byers

SFCWallace, you might be on firmer ground there if your President hadn't responded to the August 6, 2001, memo by masturbating. I'm not criticizing him for it, I'm just saying it don't do your case any good.

  But that isn't accurate...their policies should be described as "intentional and calculated negligence".

with malice and forethought.,,yes, indeed.

Don't believe anything on any network or the media in general. Always check it with other sources.

this is unfair. surely if the motivation behind the arrests was political impact they would have waited until September or October to roll up the plotters.

Andrew Sullivan questions and links to a memo from a British ambassador on how real and how imminent it was

From the Ambassador:

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports,

many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year ... Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests. Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance.

From Sullivan

I wonder if Lieberman's defeat, the resilience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the emergence of a Hezbollah-style government in Iraq had any bearing on the decision by Bush and Blair to pre-empt the British police and order this alleged plot disabled. I wish I didn't find these questions popping into my head. But the alternative is to trust the Bush administration.

Be patient, Architect. There are many, many more so-called terrorist plots that will be "uncovered" before November. Chances are 99.9 percent of them will go the way of the Miami 7. I'm guessing a really big "uncovered" plot will be all over the news sometime during the first week of October. In the meantime the MSM will dutifully sound the alarm, hour after nauseating hour that a "suspicious package" was found at a terminal or a "suspicious individual" forced a jet from London headed for Dulles to land at Logan. Sound familiar?

That interrogation in Pakistan involved the alleged ringleader, Rauf, whom British intellegence wanted to take into custody "in circumstances where there was due process" so he could be tried in British courts. (Someone should tell the fuddy-duddy Brits that "due process" has been declared null and void by the Decider.)As it is, given that the Decider prevailed the guy's been arrested and rendered to heaven knows where. Stripped and water-boarded he'll reveal nothing worth knowing. Properly interrogated by professionals, he'd probably have spilled his guts. Bush is a clear and present danger to our safety.

Fox has a pretty poor record of informing the public. The lowest actually.

Damn right I wouldn't believe anything I saw on faux News without Independent verification. As Oberman provided numerous sources for his, what exactly is your problem?

What has a notoriously unreliable NewsSource have to do with Larry's post or my point?

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

"this is unfair. surely if the motivation behind the arrests was political impact they would have waited until September or October to roll up the plotters." (Sorry, not quite HTML literate yet)

If the motivation was political impact why not use it now to kick off the Republican talking points especially in the light of the Lieberman defeat.

Also, a scarier thought comes to mind. I've often thought that some of the scarier conspiracy theories' predictions of another major terrorist attack coming midway during the current election campaign were off base particularly because such an attack would highlighht how little Bushco has done to keep this country secure. However, if Bush can trumpet a series of successes in the GWOT (and it's obvious he can't name many as of now) but then another major attack were to occur he could argue that he needs even more powers, even more Republicans in office etc. etc.

Right, because a historic document titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside America" was given such consideration by this administration before 9/11.

The current line is that this Administration will not trumpet their successes in the GWOT for the purpose of raising approval numbers.

Translated, they are trying to tell us that approval numbers are not important. Why would they say that? Because their approval numbers are so abyssmal.

They're trying to set up a win-win situation. Stop a terror plot, and its proof that Republican policies are working. Fail to stop a terror plot, and its proof that we are still vulnerable and need Republicans to protect us [which I guarantee you that most swing voters would see through].

Architect,

Permit me to share some of the influences on my opinion that "our leaders" are among those who "hate us for our freedom", and are "terrorizing" us!

Just as he was "working from Wyoming, last year, when Bush was playing guitar and delivering a birthday cake to John McCain, while Katrina was destroying New Orleans, Mr. Cheney was again on vacation, at the same time that Mr. Bush was....this year, when the first "red alert" terror warning in post 9/11, US history was issued:

www.whitehouse.gov
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 10, 2006

Press Gaggle by Tony Snow
Aboard Air Force One
En route Green Bay, Wisconsin

9:33 A.M. CDT

.........Q When did the President first learn about this plot and the investigation into it?

MR. SNOW: Again, we're being a little careful on operational details. I think it's safe to say to what I said before, which is he certainly has been extensively briefed over the last few days as the operation that took place became more and more imminent.

Q Was part of that during the teleconference on Sunday?

MR. SNOW: Let's see, what day was Sunday, that was the 6th? Yes. Yes. ....

.........Q Are there details about his talk with Blair overnight, you can give? What time it occurred?

MR. SNOW: There was no overnight. That report is false, so there are no details on the fallacious report.

Q But the President, himself, approved the red alert?

MR. SNOW: Correct. It was a recommendation by the Homeland Security Council, by Secretary Chertoff and others.

Q When did he approve it?

MR. SNOW: Yesterday..........

Q Can I ask you about timing again -- not to keep harping on this, but yesterday when you talked about raising the white -- you know, saying the Democrats might want to raise the white flag --

MR. SNOW: This was not done in anticipation. It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming.

Q So the Vice President, when he did his incredibly rare conference call with reporters, also didn't know about it at the time?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. You'll have to ask, but I can say from our point of view at that point we didn't.

Q Can you say anything about the possible al Qaeda connection?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Can I ask on a different topic? Can you clarify the Karl Rove call to Joe Lieberman and what that was all about?

MR. SNOW: It was a personal call. Yes, as I sent you -- in fact, I may get Karl back here, if you're interested.

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: It's probably best to let him describe, because he was in on the call. But this was not a call after the polls closed; it was not a political offer; it was not a political conversation. It was a personal conversation. And, you know, he's expressed some willingness to do it, so maybe I'll just grab him -- yank his tie and make him come back here.

Q That would be great. .......

Consider the comments that Cheney and RNC Chair, Ken Mehlmen were making....supposedly in response to Ned Lamont's primary victory, after Bush has already authorized a "red alert", but before the world was told.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/14/
By insinuating that the sizeable majority of American voters who oppose the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy, Vice President Cheney on Wednesday may have crossed the line that separates legitimate political discourse from hysteria.

Cheney's comments came in a highly unusual conference call with reporters, part of an extensively orchestrated and largely successful Republican effort to spin the obviously anti-Bush message of Ned Lamont's victory over presidential enabler Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary.
In the transcript above, a White House reporter also described Cheney's "call" to reporters as, "incredibly rare conference call"....

Architect, the press "gaggle" with Tony Snow, is time stamped at 10:33 am EDT, on Aug. 10. Snow answered that Bush had made the decision to issue the first red "terror alert", of his presidency....yesterday, and that Cheney was not involved in that decision.....how credible does that sound, to you? If Snow had said that Cheney was involved, it would have been an admission that Cheney's comments were made with the knowledge that there would be a "red alert" following his "vote for democrats, and we'll get hit again", message. IMO, that is orchestrated terrorist propaganda.....

Would the following be reported about a US administration that was committed to fighting a "long war", on terror?

www.team4news.com
While terror plot unfolded, Bush administration tried to cut funds for explosives detection

WASHINGTON The Bush administration quietly tried to cut six (m) million dollars that earmarked for developing new explosives detection technology even as the British terror plot was unfolding.
Officials wanted to use the money instead on federal building protection. Congressional leaders rejected the idea.

It's one in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that have left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the administration's commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

An investigation by The Associated Press shows the department failed to spend 200 (m) million dollars in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers this summer to rescind the money.

The Bush administration has also been slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year. The terrorist plot to blow up trans-Atlantic passenger jets would have involved liquid explosives.
....and....it's not like liquid explosives is a recent threat scenario, either:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Aug10
Mishap Foils First Plot to Blow Up Jets
Thursday, August 10, 2006
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

A mysterious chemical fire in a seedy Philippine hotel in January 1995 foiled the first plot to blow American airliners out of the sky with liquid bombs _ a grisly scenario allegedly planned by extremists arrested in Britain.

British authorities said Thursday they had thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up 10 aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in hand luggage in a plan that police described as"mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

The alleged plot was grimly reminiscent of a plan developed in late 1994 and early 1995 by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a life sentence without parole in the United States for masterminding the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

Yousef planned to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific and even carried out a test bombing in December 1994, smuggling nitroglycerine onto aPhilippine Airlines jet in a contact lens solution bottle.

The explosive detonated near Okinawa, killing a Japanese man after Yousef had gotten off the plane in Cebu, Philippines. The plane managed to land safely in Okinawa.

At the time, however, authorities had no idea of the link between the blast and Yousef. That would come later after an intensive investigation of the strange events that unfolded on the night of Jan. 6, 1995, in Suite 603 of the Dona Josefa apartment-hotel, located near Manila's raucous red-light district.

........Under intensive interrogration over time, Murad gave up a plot _ to kill the pope and blow up American planes. Corraborating evidence was found on a laptop and diskettes found in Suite 603.

Three days after Murad's arrest, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued a security alert for all American airliners flying over the Pacific, including a ban on hand-carried liquids, aerosols and shaving cream.

Yousef slipped out of the country and made his way to Pakistan, where he was arrested a month later and sent to the United States. Murad was extradited to the United States the following April and testified against Yousef.

Both are serving sentences of life without parole at the Florence Super-Max federal prison in Colorado.

Robert H. Reid, correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press, was chief of bureau in Manila in January 1995.
Let's see...the US Justice Dept. has had these f**kers in custody for more than ten years.....and only this past week, after deliberately not funding research to detect the type of terrorist threat that they planned nearly 12 years ago, and killed an airline passenger as they tested their method....have US and UK passengers been banned from carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, and no technology was developed in all that time.....funding was actually blocked recently.....to bring screening machines "on line" at airports.

Doesn't President Bush seems more like the "terrorist" "in chief", or at the very least, incompetent and "clueless", than he does, the "commander in chief", now that we see what has transpired, in the fullness of time? The following was written before Bush and Cheney, caught on tandom vacations last year, during the "long war on terror", had their asses handed to them over their collective, delayed, and incompetent, crony sabotaged, disaster relief response:

www.washingtonpost.com
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
With Long Sojourn at Ranch, President on His Way to Surpassing Reagan's Total

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Page A04

WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and Tuesday was the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further....
Bush made sure that the press reported that he had ended his 5 week vacation, last year, "2 days early", to do his much criticized, "fly over" of the devastated Gulf coast, in AF-1, on his flight back to DC that ended his vacation.

The only time I recall Bush interrupting a trip to Crawford, in "mid-stream", was his middle of the weekend flight to DC to sign the law that transferred Michael Schiavo's spousal guardianship over his brain dead wife, Terri's, long term medical care issues. Would a benevolent POTUS, during a "lomg war" that he himself declared, choose this record for his legacy? The vacation reputation is something he could have controlled, if he was benevolent, and if he gave a sh*t. When you observe what "they" do, their words take on new meaning, or are rendered meaningless.....

....but another year has passed.....and "here they go again"....the first code red "terror alert" in the 4 years and 11 months since 9/11 is issued, concerning a "real" threat that has been known about for a dozen years, but ignored by the administration's TSA and DHS, but not before Cheney, once again on vacation at the same time as Bush is....is afforded an opportunity to make a rare telephone conference call to reporters to spew some partisan crap designed to put more fear in us, if we make the bad decision that Connecticut democrats had made the day before....and vote the "wrong way" !. Mehlman of the RNC picked up Cheney's terroristic talking points and spewed them further, that afternoon.

Architect, so how do you call it? Are "our leaders" engaged in a "vote control", domestic terror propaganda campaign, or are the just the most lazy and incompetent executives to lead us in a "WoT", and just the beneficiaries of an incredible string of lucky coincidences, as to the timing of what they say about "terror", vs. the background of current events and competing news stories that are either muted because of the timing of their alerts, or take on unintended prominence, as Cheney's Aug. 9 comments did, after the Aug. 10, "red alert"?

I'd rate this post a "5" if I could. Great job!

...f the motivation behind the arrests was political impact they would have waited until September or October...

Oh, never fear, architect.  There is plenty of scarey stuff planned for September.  And just wait for it:  The October Surprise!  This British thing was just foreplay.  It was a test.  Now that they know they didn't get the bump they wanted to from it, they will have to ramp up the fear factor to show that the Cheney administration is keeping us safe?

I've never really understood how the facts fly in the face of their proclaimations, but it has worked for them up to now.  How, exactly are they keeping us safe?  Um, how is that?

Jan Knaus

BushCo fear mongering is the companion to the shibboleth "Democrats are weak on national security and defense.

If you go to the Mahablog you will find among many other worthy things a reference to Kevin Baker's essay in Harper's magazine, "Stabbed in the Back".

Here is link to Harper Magazine and Kevin Baker's "Stabbed in the Back", wherein the author traces the Republican Party's design, construction and delivery of the "Democrats are soft on national security" label to which they attach all the "terror alerts" that Host has so well documented.

aside from the fact that i'd still be surprised if bush has enough awareness of religious dietary restrictions to be either sensitive or antagonistic on the subject... correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that the pig in question was to be served at a pig roast. not at all unusual to refer to the meat as 'pig' for the occassion of a pig roast. would actually be more unusual to refer to it as pork in that instance. now if they were just BBQing ribs or loin or whatever then it would be unusual to refer to the meat as pig.

seemed to me the reason bush kept going on about the pig was that to him the pig really was the most important part of his day. but more than that, bush is smart enough to know that his talking extemporaneously for any length about israel/lebanon could only do harm to him and to israel. as far as he was concerned israel could go ahead and level all of lebanon and it would be alright with him. but the administration was working to appear as if they were being diplomatic on the subject.

Thank you Crissie!  That essay is an extremely powerful condemnation of the GOP, and it doesn't let our country off the hook either.  Great writing!!

Hoppy in Sacramento

If they are smart they would realize that these terror alerts now work against them. Unlike the first couple of years they can no longer blame our vulnerability to terrorism on Clinton and the Democrats. The buck now stops with Bush and the GOP Congress and every time there's an alarm people are beginning to wonder why, after five years of spending obscene amounts of money and spilling obscene amounst of blood, we still aren't any safer. There will be no bumps from alerts and alarms, only further erosion of the public trust.

CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., AUG. 14, 2006
VIEWERS

FNC O'REILLY 2,059,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,614,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,496,000
FNC GRETA 1,485,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,179,000
CNN LARRY KING 805,000
CNN COOPER 798,000
CNN DOBBS 678,000
CNN ZAHN 669,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 456,000
MSNBC INVESTIGATES 451,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 363,000

Poor record informing the public or doesn't toe the liberal line?

The folks at Gitmo are POWs and as such can be held until their masters surrender, or there's a negotiated peace. Of course they should also be treated as POWs under the Geneva Covnentions, not as if they were the inmates of a Soviet Gulag. But there's no problem with detaining them for years if hostilities go on that long.

High Five SFCWallace, Right On!

And we were so lucky that George W. Bush and not Larry Johnson was President of these here United States the summer of 2001! Bush protects us and gets bad guys like Saddam! And spreads freedom!

IN the summer of 2001 we know George Dubya DID take....did take...stem cells, very seriously during his one month August 2001 vacation in Crawford. And, he was going to get around to that PDF about bin Laden hitting us, which he received one month before 9/11, he just had other priorities. It said:  Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks....

What the heck was Bush to do, end his vacation and return to the White House?  Call  for some cabinet meetings?  Issue a warning to pilots or raise security at the nations's airports? Make sure the Air Force is up to speed for fighter response? 

Your conclusions are probably right, and I am just being paranoid. But really, are you serious that they were having a pig-roast in Germany? I thought that was a southern US thing. Either way, George is an ass for the way he responded; if any business CEO was that stupid he would have been out long ago.

When is the last time ANYONE heard the leader of the "free world" give an intelligent, well-thought-out answer to a question? Has anyone EVER heard him say anything SENSIBLE that wasn't an obviously scripted response? Joe Scarborough has it right:

GEORGE W BUSH IS AN IDIOT. THERE IS NO OTHER DESCRIPTIVE AS ACCURATE AS THAT ONE. OTHERS COME TO MIND, HOWEVER: DRY DRUNK, NINCOMPOOP, WAR MONGER, COWARD, THIEF, FAKE CHRISTIAN, PATHETIC LEADER, LOSER, oh, I'm getting tired. Any other descriptives?

Jan Knaus

The folks at Gitmo are POWs

Hmmmm, only countries have POWs...the GWOT does not have an soverign state that we recognize, it is  amorphous in terms of being state sponsored...which is why we are able to detain them indefintely and also why Gonzales says the Geneva convention rules do not apply, sinde those rules pertain to soldiers and citizens of countries and citizens of recognized soverign states.

Bottom line..they are NOT....POWs in any sense of the word...theya are terrorist, without country, without kin, and without any rights, internationally or otherwise.

I think Bush may not be entirely aware of what he's saying, or where, or why when left unattended. You may recall the scene, caught on tape, of Bush at St. Petersburg, chawing away on something with his mouth wide open and talking...to Tony Blair...like he was drunk. Might he have been? Or perhaps he was in a "dry drunk." At any rate, shortly thereafter, he startled Angela Merkel when, standing behind her, Bush began to massage her shoulders. It was just the sort of exhibitionist, inappropriate behavior of the classic "drunk." Several of my friends and I cringed in acute embarrassment, and we thought we'd seen it all.

Andrew Sullivan fairly recently posted several links to a series of articles on About.com concerning Bush's not-in-recovery alcoholic behavior: his characteristic moodiness, stubbornness, resentfulness and belligerence, overweening pride, sarcasm, etc.

Nixon drank more and more as Watergate began to consume his energy, time and dominate the headlines. It was scary, since he was still President while increasingly given to erratic, un-sober behavior. It may just be my imagination, but Bush has seemed unstable of mood, inflating and deflating depending on the direction events are blown, with or against him. It wouldn't surprise me if the underlying emotional conflicts he may have experienced that led to his drinking have greatly intensified as his support has continued to slip away from him, and he's now feeling overwhelmed. It happens.

I disagree. Bush or anyone else in his administration don't hate Americans at all.

They just don't care about them at all either. Look at Bush's non-existent domestic policy.

This administration is a business run by the private sector. It has no time or use for the common toils and needs of the people.

But certainly doesn't hate the people.

Interesting that you don't provide a link...

And that is the very crux of the issue. There is no definiton, it can mean whatever they want it to mean.

I remember a line in a movie where folks were negotiating with a person for arms, and called the people they wanted to wipe out 'terrorists' and the person responded...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  That to me really sums it up.

It seemed like it was meant to be interpreted literally.

Oh.

Re: Hmmmm, only countries have POWs

This is not true. The Vietcong were not a country, but we treated their prisoners as, well, POWs. And per the British the American colonists were just a bunch of rebels and traitors, a view the Union also held of the Confederates, yet their prisoners of war were, well, prisoners of war regardless. The acronym means "Prisoner of War" after all, and the Gitmo detainees are prisoners taken in war, so what else could they be. Unless even the English language must warp and corrupt itself according to King Georgie's whims the way the Russian language had to be contort itself about the dictats and ukrases of the Politburo.
And if there is a case to be made that anyone at Gitmo is guilty of war crimes, by all means let's try them according to the international precedents of Nuremburg etc.--I'm not averse to seeing them hang higher than Hammon if the trial is just and the evidence sound. (POWs can be tried for war crimes you know).

The political impact is tied to the Gallup Polls. Terror alerts and news that occur the week before the polls have the greatest effect on presidential approval ratings, according to this Univ. of Iowa study.

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." GWB-Aug. 30, 2000

This is not true. The Vietcong were not a country, but we treated their prisoners as, well, POWs

True. However, America had declared war against Vietnam, thus soldiers opposing us in that war would fit the Geneva Convention rules of POW. Yes, I know what the acronym stands for.

GITMO detainess are not defined as POWs by this admin, and as you are well aware that is where the torture was first used and when Gonzales gave that twisted definition of why the Geneva rules against torture were no violated, since the detainess are not deemed POWs as our country has not declared war against a country...instead we call it a global war on terrorism.

Also, when soldiers/citizens are POWs it means their countries can negotiate on their behalf with the opposing side for their return. Since there is no country who we have formally declared war against in the 'war on terror' there would not be any way for a country to negotiate on behalf of the detainees in GITMO that would apply under the Geneva Convention rules. 

In short, by eliminating the POW status for GITMO detainees, the USA has effectively cut them off from any known 'formal rules of engagement' for someone to intercede on their behalf, Which is why I initially said they are without country and kin. Effectively tied up in limbo, no charges have been brought, no legal representation, labelled as terrorists and since they are not 'deemed' to be in our legal system..they have no rights under the jurisdiction of American legal system...they are FUBAR...

And if there is a case to be made that anyone at Gitmo is guilty of war crimes,

There is a case to be made for war crimes, but the individuals guilty of that are Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Woo and Gonzales...not the folks at GITMO.  Which is why the adminstration has recently been trying to legislate changes to the war crimes act.

JPF, I am no expert on the Geneva Convention rules, but I know that most of what you are saying is applicable to how heretofore (pre 9/11) the Geneva rules were applied and understood. However, there has been a shift in the paradigm with this administration, basically saying the Geneva rules do NOT apply because this is a global war on terror and the Convention rules are an agreement between countries. Perhaps, someone else in the forum may be able to explain all this better a lot better than I can.

 What this administration has done is simply unbelievable in terms of violating individual rights. Imagine a US President charged with war crimes?!  That is no longer far fetched and highly likely.

"GITMO detainess are not defined as POWs by this admin"

True, but the reason is because they are not defined as POW's in the Geneva Conventions. Which were written and agreed to about 150 years after the American revolution and 80 years after the Civil War. 

This is the main difference between Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans (it's also the reason you won't win back the Congress even though it should be a lock). You look at the War on terror as a criminal case; we look at it as a war. You can't prosecute a crime until it's committed, we want to stop them before the commit the next act of terror.

Ok, you have the document, even after it happend, look at it and point out the warning that 9-11 was imminent. Don't him and haw, say what part of that briefing that all of you think is the terror alert Rosseta stone and tell me where the warning is that you would use to stop the 9-11 attacks.

You can get them every day on Drudge or you can look them up on Google.

And the answer is...Poor record informing the public.

From a previous post:

The Univ.of Maryland did a study in 2003 called Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War.

One question analyzed the connection between news source and the frequency that a respondent held one, two or all three of the following misperceptions about the Iraq War:

1. WMD Found in Iraq
2. Evidence of al Qaeda Link and Iraq
3. There was a World Majority Support for War

80% of Fox News Viewers held at least one of the above misperceptions. Here is how they all fared:

• Fox 80%
• CBS 71%
• ABC 61%
• CNN 55%
• NBC 55%
• Print Media 47%
• NPR/PBS 23%

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." GWB-Aug. 30, 2000

If we are looking for a reason that the administration would push the Brits to move sooner than necessary on the alleged plot in London, just consider that they no doubt knew when the court decision on domestic spying was coming down. Now they can say that if the liberal Democrats had their way that plots like the one alleged in London could never be prevented.

What about Article 5?

ARTICLE 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

The title.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Deleted

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to help rebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for the public's favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on its image and goals for the Middle East.

Oh yeah, that'll happen. Either the rebuilding itself, or the undoing the damage part if they actually did manage to make a serious contribution to the recontruction.

Well, at least they realize the irony of the situation:

A major rebuilding investment would put the United States in the position of subsidizing both the Israeli munitions that caused the damage and the reconstruction work that will repair it.

And you have to love statements like this, from a former State Department official who is head of Middle East studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington: "We're coming in when there's a sense that we stood by the destruction of Lebanon by an ally, with U.S. weapons, and didn't complain. So we may be too late."

Yes, it's just a "sense" that the U.S. stood by. God forbid he should just say that we stood by and leave out the "sense" nonsense. Or that he should make it clear that the U.S. did a little more that just "not complain". Like blocking ceasefire resolutions and shipping replacement fuel and weapons to Israel while the shooting was going on.

Well, that's my "sense" of things, anyway. And I suspect it's the "sense" of the people on whose heads and houses those bombs were falling.

Thank you to my bud Eli over at left i on the news

Did we actually "Declare war" on Vietnam?   I think not.  Some argued at the time that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 was the equivalent of a declaration of war, but not all would agree.  The last Declaration of War in the Constitutional sense happened when the United States joined World War II. 

Probably not, is probably correct. I plead ignorance about this entire twisted duplicious 'interpretation of the 'rules of war' accd'g to the Geneva Convention.

 I was trying to communicate what I understood this administration to be saying as their basis for trampling on citizens rights and POW rights...but as usual Gonzales and Woo's interpretation is so flawed and inconsistent with history that there are numerous circumstances that do not match up with their 'interpretation'. I feel like an idiot for even attempting to explain their contortionist reading of the Constitution and the GC rules.

Recently this admin rec'd another legal setback as well when the courts refused to allow the admin to try GITMO detainees in 'military trials or tribunals'...so thery are running into more and more legal obstacles for what is blatantly a trampling of citizens basic rights under the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

I hope we try all these sordid creatures under the War Crimes Act, especially Gonzales and Woo, for providing the 'legal rationales' for this administration to engage in unfettered power and subversive acts violating all of our civil liberties. I want Gonzales, especially to be sent to GITMO and tortured, just like all those detainees, he refused to uphold the law and provide justice to. He and Woo are a disgrace to their ancestors and this nation, in terms of Civil Rights and equal justice under the law for all citizens.

If they were bigger threats...why are you beating up GWB about the PDB above, either BinLaden was the biggest threat or the list above was ...both can't be "bigger."