by TChris

In translation, "we're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here" means "we're creating terrorists over there, then supplying them with easy targets." Does this make the country more safe? Not according to the consensus of opinion reported in the National Intelligence Estimate.

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Thanks, Mr. President, for taking a serious problem and making it worse. Much worse.

Update: Chirac says the rumor is not confirmed. Time Magazine cites Saudi reports here. CNN provides update here. [hat tip Raw Story.]

*******
Via TL reader Scribe:

A French newspaper is reporting bin Laden died of typhus. The French report is said to be based on information from French intelligence services. This seems a bit tricky, and you'll see why, below. This story bears watching. Here's my translation of the text off the MDR/ARD website:

Media Report: Bin Laden has died from typhus

A French newspaper has made public new rumors about the terror chief Osama Bin Laden. According to information from intelligence agency sources, the al Qaida head has died from typhus. The newspaper "L'Est Republicain" refers to documents from the French foreign secret services, in which they have analyzed/evaluated information out of Saudi Arabia. The French government wants to make clear it is not confirming the report. The [French] Defense Ministry announced instead an investigation into how the newspaper got its hands on the report.

last updated: 23 Sept. 2006, 1:36 PM their time (7:36 AM ET)
Source: MDR Info

Updated Transcript here.

**********
Fox News' Chris Wallace thought he could pull a fast one of Bill Clinton during an interview that was supposed to be about Clinton's Global Initiative, which today announced the creation of a $1 billion renewable energy fund. Two questions into the interview, Wallace asked Clinton about his not having caught Osama bin Laden during his Presidency. Wallace got creamed.

Crooks and Liars has the transcript. You Tube has the video. Jane at Firedoglake weighs in. Here's the transcript:

by TChris

TalkLeft has repeatedly told the story of Maher Arar, beginning with his arrest in October 2002 (coverage collected here). This post, praising Time Magazine in Canada for naming Arar Canada's Person of the Year, summarizes the story of Arar's secret deportation to a prison in Syria, where torture induced him to give a false confession that linked him to al Qaeda. Arar is walking proof that torture produces unreliable information. If the president were inclined to let facts influence his judgment, a meeting with Arar might convince him to back off on his petulent insistence that it's not worth interrogating suspected terrorists unless torture and abuse are available tools in the interrogation protocol.

Reuters reports the conclusions drawn at the end of Canada's official inquiry -- conclusions that have been obvious for some time:

Judge Dennis O'Connor, asked in 2004 to examine what had happened, said the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrongly told U.S. authorities that Arar was an Islamic extremist. "The provision of this inaccurate information ...[is] totally unacceptable'' and guaranteed the United States would treat Arar as a serious threat, O'Connor said. "I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.''

While Judge O'Connor blamed the RCMP for getting the facts wrong, he found no evidence that Canada played a role in the American decision to deport Arar. The American authorities, of course, declined to respond to O'Connor's questions. The administration refuses to be accountable to Congress; it's no surprise that it has no interest in furthering a Canadian investigation into the mistreatment of Arar.

by TChris

According to this Raw Story piece, terrorists really can't mix chemicals together on board an airplane to blow it up. Homeland Security, take note. Can we please start bringing our toothpaste, concealer, and bottled water with us again when we fly?

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Back to the stage returns the utterly discredited John Yoo as he pens one of the most audaciously mendacious columns seen on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times this side of David Brooks. The man is truly shameless:

Thus the administration has gone to war to pre-empt foreign threats. It has data-mined communications in the United States to root out terrorism. It has detained terrorists without formal charges, interrogating some harshly. And it has formed military tribunals modeled on those of past wars, as when we tried and executed a group of Nazi saboteurs found in the United States.

The Administration has gone to war? Not even the Administration claims this. They rely on the Authorization to Use Force enacted by the Congress in September 2001. Harsh interrogation? Say the word Yoo. Torture. John Yoo is simply incorrigible. In a just world, he would be hooted off the stage of public affairs. In today's BushWorld, he writes Op-Eds in the New York Times. The man is a sick joke. More on the flip.

Senate Minority leader Harry Reid held a blogger conference call today. McJoan at Daily Kos has the details. Shorter version: Sen. Arlen Specter's warrantless NSA electronic surveillance bill will not pass. The Democrats will prevent it. McJoan says:

"...given the already expressed bipartisan opposition to the Specter legislation in the Senate, it seems that a filibuster will be unnecessary."

Blogger Glenn Greenwald asked Reid directly:

Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted. I then asked him how he could be so certain about that -- specifically, I asked where the 51 votes against the Specter bill would come from in light of the support it enjoys from both the White House and at least some of the ostensibly "independent" Republicans, exacerbated by the fact that all 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it yesterday (at least they voted in favor of sending it to the Senate floor).

by TChris

Although the president wants you to be afraid -- very afraid -- it's time to replace fear with courage.

It's time to suck it up, America. You can't just go around being terrified all the time. It's time to stop sniveling in a corner and get The Right Stuff -- the courage to have principles and STAND for something. Truth. Justice. Freedom. Education. Jobs. Honest Elections. The Ten Commandments. And commercial-free TV!

If you nonetheless insist on being afraid, here are ten things that are scarier than terrorists.

David Brock of Media Matters writes a great letter to ABC and Disney. First, he lists the film's major errors:

In fact, the miniseries was so rife with errors that even some conservatives spoke out against it. The first part of the film not only misrepresents some Clinton administration officials but also provides false depictions of others, including, reportedly, former FBI counterterrorism expert John O'Neill, who died on September 11, 2001, in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, where he was head of security.

The second half of the miniseries, which aired on September 11, also contained scenes that were factually inaccurate, this time showing President Bush taking aggressive action there is no indication he ever took. For example, in the film, Vice President Dick Cheney, after conversing with Bush over the phone immediately following the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, announced: "The president has just given the shoot-down order." Vanity Fair published an analysis of the recordings from the control room at NORAD's Northeast headquarters from September 11, 2001, indicating that Bush did not actually give the order to shoot down the hijacked airplanes; he authorized military commanders to make the decision themselves, and he did not grant that authorization until 41 minutes after Flight 77 had struck the Pentagon.

by TChris

This TalkLeft post criticized President Bush (and the media) for promoting the nonsensical phrase "Islamic fascist." Senator Feingold yesterday echoed that criticism.

"We must avoid using misleading and offensive terms that link Islam with those who subvert this great religion or who distort its teachings to justify terrorist activities," Feingold said Tuesday in a speech to the Arab American Institute on Capitol Hill. ...

"Fascist ideology doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam," Feingold said.

Predictably, the spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee dismissed Feingold's call for the president to stop slandering a religion, accusing Feingold of "overreaching political correctness."

by TChris

Michael Chertoff tells us that the goal of al Qaeda is to bankrupt the United States. If so, the President is surely assisting al Qaeda by squandering public resources on the war in Iraq.

Chertoff explained that "the American public must accept that the government cannot protect every possible target against attack." There's no doubt that choices need to be made -- better choices than cutting anti-terrorism grants to New York so that money can be diverted to protect petting zoos and popcorn factories. But finding money to protect ports and to inspect cargo would be easier if the Bush administration didn't continue to squander billions on a war that simply breeds supporters of terrorism.

I just got back from a great dinner in Manhattan and turned on the tv. The Path to 9/11 was over but a Nightline special was on. It blasted American farmers' opposition to federal attempts to regulate the sale of ammonium nitrate. It was an incredibly misinformed piece of journalism.

Ammonium nitrate is not a bomb. It can be a bomb when it's mixed with fuel oil or some other such substance. The OKC bomb was a mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. It was the fuel oil portion that created the confusion for the Government -- where did it come from? They didn't arrive at a conclusion until the eve of trial. The ammonium nitrate was not a puzzle. By itself, it is not a bomb. Didn't anyone see Rent?

Its ANFO that is dangerous -- ammonium nitrate and fuel oil -- not ammonium nitrate by itself.

Let's stop the fear mongering -- and let the farmers alone.