Throw The 9-11 Commission Report In The Trash

The Reason I say this is because THE 9-11 Commission Report is NOT completely accurate, thank's to Sandy Berger. And nothing can be done about it because by Law the 9-11 Commission doesnt exist anymore! However I will post at the bottom of this story a link to what can legally happen to "The Burglar" should he FAIL his Lie Detector Test (Which we ALL know he will)

THIS IS A MUST READ AND PREPARE TO GET REALLY MAD!

Source:
World Net Daily

********************************
On July 6, 2006, Stonebridge International, a global strategy firm, announced that it had added a new member to its high-profile, five-member advisory board – former Democrat Rep. Lee Hamilton.
True to form, the major media ignored the Hamilton appointment. They should not have. Hamilton, who had served as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, had just joined a firm headed by the man who had criminally undermined that very Commission, Stonebridge chairman and founder Samuel "Sandy" Berger.

In the words of a recent House Committee report, Berger had perpetrated "a disturbing breach of trust and protocol that compromised the nation's national security," a breach that had come at the expense of the 9/11 Commission's very mission. On July 6, 2006, Stonebridge International, a global strategy firm, announced that it had added a new member to its high-profile, five-member advisory board – former Democrat Rep. Lee Hamilton.

The unseemly nature of this new alliance apparently did not trouble Hamilton, Berger or the Washington media. By the spring of 2006, Berger felt sufficiently comfortable in his relationship with that media to execute a brazen, political drive-by on the one man who most seriously threatened the Clinton legacy and his own reputation, namely Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania.

Berger began his spring offensive in March 2006 with a fund-raiser for Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak. Almost universally despised by his Naval colleagues, the former vice admiral was forced into retirement for what the U.S. Navy charitably called "poor command climate." Before being recruited to run for Congress, Sestak had not lived in Weldon's district for 30 years.

Although hosted by Berger, the fund-raiser was held at the law offices of Harold Ickes, a veteran Clinton fixer, and Janice Enright, the treasurer of Hillary Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign.

Before the campaign was through, Clinton insiders would enlist Stonebridge's director of communications to serve as Sestak's campaign spokesperson, summon former President Clinton to rally the troops, and finally call in the federales. Their motives were transparent even to the local media.

"A Sestak victory," observed suburban Philadelphia's Delco Times early in the campaign, "would muzzle a Republican congressman who blames Clinton for doing irreparable harm to America's national security during the 1990s."

As the No. 2 Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Weldon had not only exposed the Clinton administration's lethal "Able Danger" breakdown, but he had also catalogued the CIA's failures before Sept. 11 in his book "Countdown to Terror." And he wasn't stopping there.

In late July 2006, I accompanied Mike and Joan Wire to visit Weldon in his D.C. office. The Wires, who live in suburban Philadelphia, had arranged the interview.

I happened to be in New Jersey at the time so we drove down together. The interview lasted two and a half hours and ended only because I had to leave.

Mike Wire just happened to be the most critical of the 270 eyewitnesses to an apparent missile strike on TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996. As is well enough known, the government had argued that a mechanical failure brought down the plane.

To make the story work, however, the FBI and/or the CIA had to manufacture from whole cloth a second interview with Wire that fit their invented scenario.

This was criminal obstruction, and it is easily verified.

To get some sense of what Wire and others actually witnessed, I have put two relevant sections of the video "Silenced" on YouTube. The skeptical reader would do well to review these clips: Part 1



and Part 2.



As late as 2001, I was as skeptical about TWA Flight 800 as the next guy. It was then that I met James and Elizabeth Sanders. The Sanders and TWA Capt. Terrel Stacey had been arrested in 1997 and charged with conspiracy.

An investigative reporter, Sanders was doing the job the major media had chosen not to do. Elizabeth, a TWA trainer, had introduced her husband to Stacey, then working inside the investigation; nothing more.

Before committing to co-produce "Silenced," I had flown to Ft. Lauderdale, where the Sanders were living, and spent three days reviewing their evidence and assessing their character. As I learned, the government arrested the three of them – and convicted the Sanderses – only because they had been closing in on the truth.

When the Wires and I met with Weldon and his aide Russ Caso, we showed them sections from "Silenced," but we were not revealing anything they did not know or at least suspect. What most intrigued Weldon was the cast of characters involved in the misdirection of the TWA Flight 800 investigation. Many of those characters were working to unseat him.

Sandy Berger: Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the nuclear football the summer of 1996, identifies then Deputy National Security Adviser Berger as the one person holed up in the family quarters with the president on the night of July 17, 1996. In addition to his other services, Berger donated $1,000 to the Sestak campaign. Sestak was the only congressional candidate to whom Berger gave money.

Tony Lake: As national security adviser, Lake was Berger's immediate boss. Although he stayed out of the family quarters on July 17, he, too, was in the loop that night. At 3 a.m. he received a call from the president asking that he "dust off the contingency plans." Lake donated $500 to Sestak. It was his only federal donation in 2006.

Richard Clarke: The anti-terror honcho takes credit for discovering the exploding fuel tank theory that provided a mechanical explanation, however contrived, for TWA Flight 800's demise. He is likely also responsible for bringing the FBI and CIA together to create the "zoom-climb" animation seen in the YouTube clip, which was used to discredit the eyewitnesses. Clarke donated $2,100 to Sestak. It was the only federal donation he made in 2006.

John Deutch: Deutch was serving as CIA director the night TWA Flight 800 went down. Several months later, in a scandal that foreshadowed Berger's own, Deutch was discovered to have loaded classified documents onto to his personal computer and taken them home. His motives were never made clear. He eventually signed a plea agreement and agreed to pay a $5,000 fine only to be pardoned the next day by President Clinton. Deutch donated $500 to Sestak, one of of only two congressional candidates he supported in 2006.

Mary O. McCarthy: In 1996, McCarthy, a CIA analyst, served as an intelligence officer on the National Security Council. In 1998, Berger appointed her as special assistant to the president. In 2006, the CIA fired her for allegedly leaking secret information about overseas prisons to the Washington Post. The only federal candidate to whom she donated in 2006 was Joe Sestak. To give some sense of the politicized nature of the CIA, McCarthy donated $2,000 to John Kerry in 2004.

Jamie Gorelick: Gorelick does not have the excuse of knowing Sestak from his work on the National Security Council. Gorelick served as deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. Still she donated $3,000 to the Sestak campaign, the most she gave to any candidate in 2006.

Gorelick, of course, was one of five Democrats appointed to the 9/11 Commission – and for no more obvious reason than her stake in keeping talk of TWA Flight 800 out of the commission room.

On Aug. 22, 1996, the politically reliable Gorelick met with the FBI brass and directed their efforts away from any serious terror or missile leads. From this point on, the FBI was tasked with finding an alternative explanation for the explosive residue found throughout the plane and duly reported to the New York Times for the previous month.

This FBI search culminated in an exculpatory tale of a sloppy dog-training exercise aboard the Flight 800 plane five weeks before the crash. Though easily disproved, the story satisfied a painfully incurious media.

Unfortunately for America, by suppressing talk of TWA Flight 800, the Clinton administration had to suppress talk of a very real terror plot against the United States that culminated in the events of Sept. 11.

In the way of background, in January 1995, the Philippine police shared with the FBI detailed plans for an aerial terrorist assault on the United States. Those plans called for the use of hijacked airliners and/or explosives-filled private aircraft as flying bombs to attack the United States.

The architect of those plans was Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing and a cohort of 9-11 chief strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his alleged uncle.

Richard Clarke obviously took Yousef's planes-as-bombs plots seriously. In planning security for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996, Clarke warned of the possibility of terrorists hijacking a 747 and flying it into a packed Olympic stadium.

The U.S. Navy apparently took Yousef's plans seriously as well. On July 17, 1996, National Liberation Day in Saddam's Iraq and two days before the start of the Atlanta Olympics, a small fleet of ships and subs, some perhaps NATO, cruised off the coast of Long Island, locked and loaded.

One of two things happened next: Either Navy missiles intercepted a terrorist plane and inadvertently took out TWA Flight 800 in the process; or, more likely, while practicing to intercept a terrorist plane in the kind of crowded air corridor where such an attack would likely occur, Navy missiles accidentally destroyed the 747.

In either case, the U.S. Navy did not have the will or the wherewithal to conceal this on its own. That decision would have been made in the family quarters of the White House in the early morning hours of July 18.

Those few subordinates in the know would have been told that the decision was made for reasons of national security. A more urgent reason, of course, was to secure Clinton's re-election a few months hence.

The evidence for Navy involvement has been greatly enhanced by the research of Capt. Ray Lahr on the west coast and the legal work in the federal courts by his counsel, John Clarke. Highly useful, too, has been a new and stunningly sophisticated crash analysis drafted by an apparent insider (or insiders), whose identity remains stubbornly unknown.

As a result of Lahr's work in particular, the NTSB and FBI have quietly abandoned the CIA zoom-climb scenario shown in the YouTube clip and rely now only on a quiescent media to ignore the un-rebutted testimony of some 270 eyewitnesses to a missile strike.

In the summer of 1996, President Clinton had a keen interest in the planes-as-bombs plot as well. Soon after the destruction of TWA Flight 800, Col. Buzz Patterson was returning a daily intelligence update from the Oval Office to the National Security Council when he "keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons."

"I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community," Patterson writes, "and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it." The president's handwritten comments on the documents verified the same.

Most likely to keep the subject of TWA Flight 800 off the table, all talk of planes as bombs ended in the summer of 1996. Incoming National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was not even warned about the possibility. Richard Clarke verified as much when he testified before the 9/11 Commission.

"Knowledge about al-Qaida having thought of using aircraft as weapons," admitted Clarke, was "5-years, 6-years old." He asked that intelligence analysts "be forgiven for not thinking about it given the fact that they hadn't seen a lot in the five or six years intervening about it."

As to President Clinton's legacy-killing notes on the Yousef plot documents, they obviously did not find their way to the 9/11 Commission. Not surprisingly, according to the National Archives staff, "Berger was especially interested in White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's personal office files." Berger reviewed these and "original NSC numbered documents" on his first visit to the Archives.

The House report noted, "Had Berger seen 'a smoking gun' or other documents he did not want brought to an investigatory panel's attention, he could have removed it on this visit."

When the Wires and I left Weldon in July 2006, he was on his way to review the Berger evidence. Weldon was the one man in Washington willing and able to put all the pieces together of what loomed as the most serious scandal in American political history. But this was not to be. The Clintons and their cronies had other plans.

During the now legendary Chris Wallace interview with President Clinton in late September 2006 on Fox News, the nation saw just how potent were the guns aimed at Weldon.

"A three-star admiral," Clinton announced out of nowhere, "who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania." He did not even mention Sestak by name. He may not have known it. Other than President Bush, Clinton mentioned no other Republican than Weldon.

It is not easy to take out a popular 10-term congressman. Weldon's enemies, however, had a nasty little ace up their sleeves. A week after President Clinton visited Weldon's district to fire up the troops, the McClatchy Newspapers broke a story attributed to two anonymous sources, namely that Weldon had "traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter."

Alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, the FBI raided the homes of Weldon's daughter and a friend on Monday, Oct. 16. By noon of that same day, a group of nearly 20 Democrat protesters were milling outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying matching signs that read "Caught Red-Handed." The story received a great deal of unreflective attention from a media desperate for a Democrat win, and Weldon went down to defeat.

The move against Weldon was naturally attributed to the Bush Justice Department. As the Berger case proved, however, there are powerful forces operating in the Justice Department and FBI that seem to have no greater goal than protecting the Clinton legacy and advancing the Democrat agenda. The idea that Karl Rove somehow orchestrated the Weldon hit makes sense only in the nether reaches of the liberal blogosphere.

Sometimes, as in the case of Watergate, conspiracy is not a theory. It's a crime. Still, the major media will use the "conspiracy theory" mantra as an excuse to ignore this story.

To this point, the "respectable" conservative media have been intimidated into following their lead. It is past time for those media to show some sand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the answer to what Sandy "Burglar" STOLE from the National Archives is becoming more apparent with or without a Lie Detector Test. I STILL WANT ONE, but since this all happened, and it's been so long, who is to say that "The Burglar" hasnt been taught by now how to pass a Lie Detector Test? However THIS Justice Department will make sure the Lie Detector Test is conducted by an FBI agent trained in spotting when someone is Lying! If he was ignorant enough to steal classified documents from the archives he may be such a nitwit that all the training in the world might not help his dumbass pass the test. Burglar also has to take an oath to tell the truth before taking the lie detector test, and if he fails, that means he lied to a Federal Officer and it then becomes Perjury. When Burglar got his little slap on the wrist, one of the conditions was he HAD to take a Lie Detector Test. Also if he fails the test, not only has he committed perjury, but that means the hunt for the documents he stole will start again which could land him in bigger trouble.

Here is a Video Link from Fox News John Gibson and Judge Andrew Napolitano discussing the consequences Berger faces is he fails the Lie Detector Test:

VIDEO HERE

I dont know about the rest of you, but I am clearly beginning to see that Burglar stole classified documents about [Ramzi Yousef "Planes-As-Bombs"] documents, and alot of Information reguarding TWA Flight 800 that just happened to [Blow Up] in Mid Air without reporting any mechanical difficulties to Air Traffic Control.

In essence he was either trying to protect President Clinton's "So called Legacy", or to cover his own ass, or both. And if Condi Rice was NEVER informed about any of this upon entering her position as National Security Adviser that explains why the Bush administration was unaware of most of this and had NO time to act. What Sandy Berger did when he stole those documents, was a Threat To Our National Security, by not informimg Condi Rice about any of this when entering office left our Country and our Citizens vulnerable for an attack which cost thousands of lives NEEDLESSLY, fixed it to where it appeared to have happened on "Bush's Watch", basically layed the whole mess in President Bush's lap, and layed the foundation for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to be attacked.

So the 9-11 Commission NEVER had all the documents on which to draw a complete and accurate conclusion, thier recommendations (Some of them) should have been added to or changed, most of the conclusions they did come to were distorted because they didnt have ALL the documentation needed to form a correct conclusion, and the ones they did come to may well be wrong! So the 9-11 Commission report pretty much needs to hit the trash can thanks to Sandy Berger.

Presidents are suppose to leave the Country in better shape than they found it, President Clinton left us with the biggest disaster this Country has EVER seen. And the sickening thing is....IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!!!!

I am urging everyone to call the Department of Justice or email them and ask them WHEN IS SANDY BERGER COMMING IN FOR HIS LIE DETECTOR TEST???

DOJ email:
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Snail Mail:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Phone:
Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000
Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555

Also Blogging

Fore Left

Unedited Video Clip From Path To 9-11

Last September 11th ABC decided to run the movie "Path To 9-11" after strong objections from the former Clinton administration. Clinton wanted this particular portion of the movie (Cut Out) because it shows Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger HANGING UP on the then head of the CIA George Tenet. The CIA had Usama Bin Laden in thier sites, ready to take him out, and they were unable to do so because Sandy Berger said "They werent all on the same page" and hung up on Tenet. This video clip is the UNEDITED version of the movie. What we didnt get to see in the actual movie on September 11, 2006. Keep in mind a 9-11 commission member Thomas Keene, George Tenet, and other CIA members swear this is an accurate depiction of the events that happened.



Could this be some of the documents Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives and stuffed down his underwear, hid under a trailor, and later burned? Footnotes maybe? Perhaps documents the 9-11 commission never got to see? Anything to protect the Clinton legacy?

Here is Clinton becoming very testy when questioned about this by Chris Wallace



When is Sandy Berger EVER going to take the Lie Detector Test? Why is the Justice Department dragging thier feet on this? And why hasnt Sandy Berger been put in front of ANY Congressional Hearings about this?

Please!! You have Bin Laden in your site and you DONT take the shot? After declaring war on America in 1998? After the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Before the U.S.S. Cole and 9-11, they KNEW!! The Clinton administration KNEW he was going to attack America and they DIDNT take the shot!!!! 13 chances to get Bin Laden and NOT ONE SHOT!

Report of the Accountability Review Boards on the Embassy Bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam on August 7, 1998


WHAT IS TAKING SO DAMN LONG AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

UPDATE: Video of Judge Andrew Napolitano telling John Gibson of Consequences that will arise if Sandy Berger FAILS The Lie Dectector Test:

VIDEO HERE

The Gloves Are Off/Iraqi Army Takes It To The Enemy

U.S. Backed Iraqi Army Captures/Kills 200 Insurgents

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraqi officials said Monday that U.S.-backed Iraqi troops had targeted a religious cult called "Soldiers of Heaven" in a weekend battle that left 200 fighters dead, including the group's leader, near the Shiite holy city of Najaf. Two U.S. soldiers were also killed when their helicopter crashed during the fighting.

The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said the raid on Sunday was targeting a group called the Jund al-Samaa, or Soldiers of Heaven, which appeared to have had links to Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign fighters. Officials said the cult wanted to stir up trouble to force the return of the "Hidden Imam," a 9th century Shiite saint who Shiites believe will come again to bring peace and justice to the world.

Both Mohammed al-Askari, the defense ministry spokesman, and an Iraqi military commander in charge of the Najaf area said 200 terrorists were killed and 60 wounded, lowering previous estimates for the death toll in the battle outside the holy city. Maj. Gen. Othman al-Ghanemi, the commander of the 8th Division that is in charge of Najaf, said 150 had been captured, while al-Askari put that figure at 120.

The fighting began Sunday and ended Monday. Iraqi security forces frisked suspects while others patrolled elsewhere on the battlefield in a mopping up operation.

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WAY TO GO Iraqi and U.S. Military! Looks like the Iraqi Army is begining to take it to the enemy :-) All they needed was some time and training and look at them go. This should make a lot of you "Nay Sayer's" feel a bit more comfortable. Pretty soon this will be going on all across the Country, and the bad guy's will lose. And our Troops will come home with the Honor and Respect they deserve.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE:

Over at Gazing At The Flag
She needs help in the following area:

"Helping Our Soldiers
Help Afghan Children
One Pair of Shoes,
One Pair of Mittens,
and a Cap at a Time"

All the information for this wonderful operation to bring warm clothes to the children of Afghanistan are located over at her Website
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wordsmith over at Sparks From The Anvil

Is asking Republicans and those that believe that these Republican Senator's and Congressman should not get away with signing the Resolution "Not To Support The President And The Troops", To Take The Pledge

All the information for "Taking The Pledge" is located over at his website. Which I am now a big supporter of the pledge. Why should one more dime go to these Republican Senators that dont represent alot of us and the way we feel?

Also blogging on this:

Skye has a blast fax message, or you can use it as an email over at MidnightBlue
Lots of links and help over there.

Curt: "Flopping Aces" "Resolution For Quitting"
Lots of links and help over there too.


So send the kids in Afghanistan a Sweater and Sign the Pledge!!

Sandy Berger: Not Off The Hot Seat Just Yet

GOP urges Berger lie test


Eighteen House Republicans have urged the Justice Department to proceed with a polygraph test for Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser who agreed to take the test as part of a plea of guilty of stealing documents from the National Archives.
"This may be the only way for anyone to know whether Mr. Berger denied the 9/11 commission and the public the complete account of the Clinton administration's actions or inactions during the lead-up to the terrorist attacks on the United States," the congressmen said in their letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.


The congressmen -- led by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia -- said a prompt lie-detector test is needed to determine the extent of Mr. Berger's thievery, especially because the former Clinton administration adviser reviewed original documents for which there were no copies or inventory.
Other signers of the letter are Reps. Duncan Hunter, Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray of California, John L. Mica of Florida, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, Dan Burton and Mark Souder of Indiana, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, John M. McHugh of New York, Chris Cannon of Utah, John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. of Tennessee, Michael R. Turner of Ohio, Kenny Marchant of Texas, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Patrick T. McHenry and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Bill Sali of Idaho.
Mr. Davis, former chairman and now ranking Republican on the House Government Reform Committee, released a report by his staff on Jan. 9, saying a Justice Department investigation of Mr. Berger's admitted document theft was "remarkably incurious."
The report said the theft compromised national security "much more than originally disclosed" and resulted in "incomplete and misleading" information to the September 11 commission. It said Mr. Berger was willing to go to "extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience."
In October, Mr. Davis led an effort to hold hearings to determine whether any documents were "destroyed, removed or were missing" after visits by Mr. Berger to the Archives. He said the full extent of Mr. Berger's document removal "can never be known" and the Justice Department could not assure the September 11 commission that it received all the documents to which Mr. Berger had access.
Mr. Davis said that during sentencing, Mr. Berger agreed to a polygraph examination as part of a plea deal, but Justice never administered the test, according to two Justice officials closely connected to the case -- John Dion, chief of the counterespionage section, and Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division.
He said Mr. Berger assured the commission that it received all the documents it sought but that some of the papers Mr. Berger examined were originals for which there were no copies or inventory. He said there is no way to know whether Mr. Berger returned all of those documents.
Lanny Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, has said the matter was thoroughly investigated by the Justice Department for more than two years and effectively closed for more than a year. He said the report's conclusions were based on "pure conjecture."
"Sandy Berger made a mistake. But he has admitted that mistake, fully cooperated with the government's investigation, paid his debt to society, and moved on. It's time for the new congressional minority to do the same."
Justice Department spokes-man Bryan Sierra has said the department "has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 commission of documents, and we stand by our investigation of this matter."
Mr. Berger pleaded guilty in April 2005 to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, including documents outlining the government's knowledge of terrorist threats to the United States. Fined $50,000 and barred from access to classified material for three years, he faced a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, but his plea deal reduced the fine and kept him out of prison.

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A mistake? Since when was the theft of National Security Documents "A Mistake"? I am never going to let this story go. If Sandy "The Burglar" Berger FAILS this lie detector test, I imagine there could be a whole host of NEW charges brought against him. (I Hope) Anything will be better than the slap on the wrist that he got to begin with. If this was Condi Rice, the Left would be throwing one hell of a hissy fit! Some may think I am beating a dead horse here, but if "Burglar" never returned all the document's (Which he didnt) then the 9-11 panel NEVER had all the correct information for thier investigation to begin with. And what now? A new 9-11 commission? Or at least seperate hearings with Sandy Berger and the members of the 9-11 commission? An add on to the origional findings? Sandy Berger really messed this whole damn thing up a good one. He deserves alot more than a slap on the wrist and I am going to whine and moan and cry until he gets more!!!

Jim Webb's Pathetic Defeatist Response To The State Of The Union

Democrats Blister Bush Iraq Policy in Lightning-Focused Rebuttal

WASHINGTON — Democrats blistered President Bush's war policy Tuesday night, challenging him to redeem the nation's credibility — and his own — with an immediate shift toward a diplomatic end to the bloody conflict in Iraq.

"The president took us into this war recklessly," the Democrats' chosen messenger, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, said in response to Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday evening. "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed."



Webb, a Vietnam veteran who was Navy secretary during Republican President Ronald Reagan's administration, called for a new direction.

"Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos," said Webb. "But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

Bush offered no such plan in his speech before the most unfriendly joint session of Congress of his tenure.

Instead, the president focused on making the case that "failure would be grievous and far-reaching" and he defended his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq in a short-term surge. He also issued a long list of domestic policy initiatives centered on such pet Democratic issues as energy independence and health care.

Newly installed majority Democrats welcomed his overtures of bipartisanship but weren't interested in changing the subject.

"Unfortunately, tonight the president demonstrated he has not listened to Americans' single greatest concern: the war in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a joint statement. "We will continue to hold him accountable for changing course in Iraq."

In a speech written himself and previewed by senior Democratic officials, Webb challenged Bush to support the House-passed minimum wage increase and nurture an economy that restores the middle class. And he said Democrats would work with Bush to promote energy independence.

But he chose harsher rhetoric for what he framed Bush's abuse of the public's loyalty, trust and welfare in the rush to war.

"The war's costs to our nation have been staggering," said Webb, whose son is serving in the military in Iraq. "Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve."

Democrats also hammered home a message that achieving bipartisanship must be as much a part of Bush's agenda as proposals on the war, energy independence and health care.

"We hope to begin working with him to move our country in a new direction," Reid and Pelosi said in their statement.

"If he does, we will join him," Webb said. "If he does not, we will be showing him the way."

The speech capped the Democrats' effort to have the first, most frequent and last words on the president's annual address.

Seated in the gallery above the chamber was a reminder of a key factor in the Republicans' loss of congressional control and the lone veto of Bush's presidency. Actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, attended as the guest of Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., who is a quadriplegic, Langevin's spokeswoman said.

Both men have health problems that some scientists believe might someday be cured or treated by embryonic stem cell research. Bush last year vetoed a bill that would have allowed taxpayer money to speed up those studies, arguing that public funds should not be spent on research that destroys budding human life.

Fox then appeared in several campaign commercials for candidates that support the bill, sparking a controversy and helping tilt the election in the Democrats' favor. The House earlier this month passed the same bill by a margin far short of the two-thirds majority required to override a second veto.

Part of Webb's Response included a statement that has me puzzled:

["The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military"]

How the hell does Webb know what the majority of the Military feels? He hasnt talked to the majority! He hasnt talked to at least 100,000 Troops. Who is he to make such an uninformed, misleading and outrageously WRONG statement? I think Jim Webb Has some explaining to do about this one. A "Correction" should be in order here also.

Story Here

Jim Webb's Response-Full Text Version
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Way to go jackass!! That was the most pathetic, misleading, absolutely wrong assessment of the Country and The War on Terror I have ever heard. There goes Bi-Partisonship. Screw That!! Maybe it's a good thing President Reagan has passed on because he would be so upset with your defeatist ass right now. Way to bring down Troop Morale. Why dont you on the left just start waving White Flags? I mean the Country and everything else has completely gone to hell as far as you are concerned. Geez you on the left are the whiniest bunch of little sissy's I have ever seen. AND YOU STILL OFFER NO PLAN!!!!! Reagan must be spinning.

What Is It The Democrats Dont Understand About "Jihad"?

New Al-Qaeda video mocks Bush

Cairo, Egypt - Al-Qaeda's deputy leader mocked President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, challenging him to send "the entire army," according to a new al-Qaeda videotape released Monday by a U.S. group that tracks terror messages.

Excerpts from the video were distributed by the Washington-based SITE Institute, which said it had intercepted the footage of Ayman al-Zawahri. The tape had not yet been posted on Islamic militant Web sites, where his messages are usually placed.

Al-Zawahri said the U.S. strategy for Iraq, outlined by Bush in a Jan. 9 speech, was doomed to fail.

"I ask him, why send 20,000 (troops) only - why not send 50 or 100 thousand? Aren't you aware that the dogs

"So send your entire army to be annihilated at the hands of the mujahideen (holy warriors) to free the world from your evil," he said, "because Iraq, land of the Caliphate and Jihad, is able to bury ten armies like yours, with Allah's help and power." In the video - which showed al-Zawahri in a full gray beard and wearing a white turban, in front of a black backdrop - Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant said it was the "duty" of all Muslims to take up arms against the enemies of Islam or support those who do.



SITE did not elaborate on how it received the video and it wasn't immediately possible to confirm its authenticity. U.S.

intelligence had no immediate comment. CIA normally analyzes tapes once they air to determine whether they are authentic.

In the excerpt - about 90 seconds from the 14-minute tape - the Egyptian militant appeared more sedate than in past videos, not wagging his finger as he often does.

The message was the first reaction from al-Qaeda's leadership to the new Iraq strategy. The U.S. has said the extra troops aim to crack down on al-Qaeda fighters and other Sunni Arab insurgents in Iraq, as well as Shiite militiamen blamed in the country's spiraling sectarian violence.

It was the third message by al-Zawahri in just over a month and it helped to underline the increasingly rapidity with which the terror network comments on events in the news. In the past, new videos would often refer to events dating back months before the message's appearance.

In an audiotape posted on the Web on Jan. 5, he urged Somalia's Islamic militants to carry out suicide attacks on Ethiopian troops fighting in their country.

In the latest video, he vowed that mujahideen would "break (the) backs" of the Ethiopians in Somalia, according to a full transcript of the tape released by SITE.

Al-Zawahri also contended that the al-Qaeda and Taliban were regaining control in Afghanistan, denying claims that his terror group no longer has a safe haven there.

"Al-Qaeda and the Taliban under the command of the commander of the faithful Mulla Muhammad Omar are the ones who have deprived America of safe haven in Afghanistan." Al-Zawahri repeated a call he makes often in his messages, for Muslims to turn against secular and nationalist leaders and fight for Islam.

He said Muslims should try to free Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian militant cleric imprisoned in the United States after being convicted in a plot to attack New York landmarks. He also warned that "Americans must expect to pay the price for everything they have done to" detainees held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why dont the Democrats see this war for what it really is? "Jihad" against EVERYBODY!! If this doesnt prove Iraq is the central front in the war on terror I dont know what else does. AMERICA: WE MUST KEEP OUR RESOLVE. Things are going to look really bad, really soon, and we have to keep our wits about us and keep the faith we have in our Troops to pull us through this. We have to remember everything we are seeing on tv is NOT going on all across the Country of Iraq. There is NO other option, we MUST support our Troops during this fight. We will NOT let the terrorist's in Iraq win. President Bush and our Troops have my unshakeable resolve. There is only one option: WE WIN, THEY LOSE!!!

Pelosi Won't Block Iraq Funding To Stop Troop Surge/But Then Again She Cant

There may be a growing battle between Congress and the president over the Iraq War strategy, but new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she won't block funding for additional troops.

Pelosi's position, revealed in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, came a day after a group of senators announced a bipartisan resolution condemning the Bush administration's plan to increase U.S. forces in Iraq by more than 20,000 troops.



While the Senate resolution would be non-binding, it would send a message to the president, and at least a dozen Republican senators have already offered their support.

Below is an excerpt from Sawyer's interview, in which Pelosi said Democrats in Congress would not be held responsible for putting the soldiers in the troop surge in additional harm's way by blocking funds.


Sawyer: As we sit here right now, 3,500 troops are moving in. That's the first of the surge. It has begun. Fifty-one percent of the American people say they want Congress to stop the surge. Money is the method at hand to do that.

Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?

Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.

It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.

Sawyer: But short of that — questions posed, resolutions passed — short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?

Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.

But we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then again Pelosi nor the rest of the Democrats can really cut off funding for the Troops at all can they? I mean since IT IS THE FRIGGEN LAW!! You are probably thinking at this point "Marie has lost it" until I was reminded of this yesterday by Amy Proctor over at ~~>I Support Iraqi Freedom<~~!! President Clinton signed into LAW in 1998 the "Iraq Liberation Act". What the hell is that you ask? Here you go:

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this whining and bickering, and mudslinging and "We are coming out against a Troop Surge" NONSENSE is exactly that. 'NONSENSE' and Political posturing and position grabbing for the top job in '08. This was NEVER President Bush's War, it has ALWAY's been AMERICA'S War!! Strange isnt it how this is NEVER mentioned?

Here is President Clinton's Full Statement To The American People October 31, 1998:
HERE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you Amy for reminding us that when it's Clinton, most Democrat's and some Republican's *cough* 'Chuck Hagel' *cough*, forget that Clinton signed this into LAW to begin with!! So in reality, Clinton started the "Bush Doctrine"?

Exactly WHAT Is Fair, About The "Fairness" Doctrine?

Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say

Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.

Many in the broadcast industry credit the dropping of the rule to the rise of conservative talk radio that became a booming industry, featuring personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Ownership Reform Act."

"The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it's important that all sides are heard," Lieberson told Cybercast News Service Tuesday.

The Fairness Doctrine is a key component of Hinchey's bill, which also sets tighter limits on media ownership. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has proposed a companion bill in the Senate.

"This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all," Lieberson said of conservative talk show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. "They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard."

But muzzling is exactly what such a law would do, charged Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in the Media, a conservative media watchdog group.

"Make no bones about it, they want to force the conservative media to hand over air time to liberals," Kincaid said in an interview. "When federal bureaucrats dictate the content of radio and TV shows, it's muzzling to tell them what to say and how to say it."

Many conservatives have long argued that the bulk of major newspapers, news magazines and network news programs tilt left and regard talk radio as an antidote.

"Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to reign in the conservative media using the federal government," Kincaid continued. "There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place."

Kincaid pointed to Air America, the liberal talk radio network started in 2004 that is now in bankruptcy but still operating with a limited audience.

The Fairness Doctrine was adopted by the FCC in 1949 as a regulation, never a law enacted by Congress. The effort now by Democrats in Congress is to codify the doctrine into law.

When the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face hefty fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing equal time to opposing viewpoints. Critics said the result was self-censorship by timid broadcasters who avoided politics to escape any potential government retaliation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the doctrine did not violate the First Amendment, because the airwaves belonged to the public and thus could face government regulation to which print media were not subjected.

After the FCC ditched the rule in 1987, Democratic lawmakers made several attempts to bring it back in statute. Those attempts were unsuccessful even when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress in 1993 and 1994.

Despite the 1969 court ruling, Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday it was fundamentally a First Amendment question.

"It was not appropriately named," Wharton said of the doctrine. "It was unfair in inhibiting broadcasters' free speech rights.

"There has been an explosion of viewpoints and coverage of issues since the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine," Wharton said. "It's been a boon for free expression."

Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of Media Caucus" in the House, is among several
Democratic lawmakers who spoke at the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis, Tenn., this past weekend.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic policy, announced he would hold hearings on the media, which would include looking at restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

"We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda," Kucinich, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, reportedly told the Memphis event.

"We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible," he said.

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do the Democrats want to control ALL forms of media? Will this affect bloggers? Will Air America (Or what's left of it) be forced to air "Opposing" points of view? Will this affect the print press like the New York Times? And if not why? This is total insanity! It's not Hannity or Rush's fault that more people listen to them than listen to all the Liberal radio show's combined! It's not enough that all the Main Stream Media and most of the print press are in the Liberals pocket, but all we have is Talk Radio and Fox News! And they want to take that away next? Where is the outrage?

Al Gore: Bite Me!!

Just a quick note to say Global Warming My Ass!!


Snow In Malibu?

Story Here

Oklahoma Is Closed: Go Around

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah Now It Feels Like Winter!!

Stories That Caught My Eye This Week

Stories That Caught My Eye That I Didnt Have Enough Time To Post

Tear's Of A President
Mike's America Has A Beautiful Story About "Tears Of A President" Over At His Place

Bush's new Iraq strategy 'makes sense': British PM Blair

Blair Blames Media For Anti-War Mood
Gee Ya Think?

Did the 9/11 Commission receive all the documents it requested? Sandy Berger: Committee On Government And Oversight Reform Report
Where Is The Outrage Over Sandy Berger? Why did he just get a slap on the wrist? Do we need a new 9-11 Commission Report?

14 Carter Center Advisers Resign Over New Book
I guess they had issues with Jimmy Too

Bush Authorized Arrest Of Iranians
You know those guy's the Iraq Surrender Report Said We Should Talk To

Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years


Google Satellite Maps Aid Terrorists?!:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Boxer Attack's Secretary Rice For Being "Childless"

Secretary Rice Attacked By Senator Boxer For being "Childless"



Is it not outrageous that Senator Barbara Boxer (Dem, Cal) verbally attacked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not having children as Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to discuss the Administrations position on Bush’s Iraq military “surge” plans? Is this an acceptable criticism of a political official? Is the fact that an official might not have children reason to doubt their capacity for policy making or ability to advise an administration?

Is this the Democrat’s new era of niceness, their less rancorous way of governing?


BOXER ATTACKS RICE

BOXERS LOW BLOW

REMARK DURING SENATE HEARING BECOMES FLASHPOINT ON FEMINISM...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHITE HOUSE BLASTS BOXER

WASHINGTON — The White House fired back Friday at Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's verbal slap at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calling the California Democrat's caustic comments about Rice's family life "outrageous."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barbara Boxer has no class, poor judgement, and a loose tongue. She should be ashamed!

Clock Ticking On Democrats

Clock Ticking On Dems 100 Hour Agenda


WASHINGTON - The clock is ticking for House Democrats, but it's hard to tell what time it is.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi News, Bio, Voting Record, D-Calif., was touting a plan to push six bills through a Democratic House in 100 hours or less as early as June of last year. She's reached the halfway point — in fewer than 20 hours, According To Her Count.



But just as the official clock for a basketball or football game stops for time-outs and commercial breaks, Democrats aren't counting the minutes spent on business unrelated to those six designated bills.

So while the House has been in session for almost 48 hours since the 110th Congress was sworn in Jan. 4, the clock on Pelosi's Web site says only 17 hours 48 minutes have elapsed.

"We're just counting the legislative hours," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill explained. (HaHa)

Finished are new rules on ethics, lobbying and budgeting — part of the Democrats' 100-hour promise in November but not included on Pelosi's clock. Also completed are the passage of three bills: antiterrorism measures, a minimum-wage increase and expanding federally funded stem cell research.

With just three bills to go, and one of those scheduled for passage Friday, Democrats appear on their way to accomplishing their promise, regardless of which clock is used.

After acting on a measure to make the government negotiate directly with drug companies for lower Medicare prescription drug prices, the House turns next week to the final two bills on their 100-hour to-do list: cutting interest rates on some student loans and getting more money for the government from oil companies.

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner News, Bio, Voting Record, R-Ohio, said the clock — no matter how time is kept — is irrelevant.

"The clock is just a distraction to the hypocrisy they've exhibited and continued to exhibit in the first 100 hours," Kennedy said, referring to House Democrats' refusal to allow the GOP minority a chance to offer amendments or have any role in writing the bills.

No time was run off on either clock Monday, when many lawmakers attended the BCS championship football game in Arizona between Ohio State and Florida.

Story Here

GOP Hits Pelosi's 'Hypocrisy' On Wage Bill

Rangel And Pelosi Butt Heads

(Rangel yesterday swatted down a tax hike that Pelosi has floated, and he made an end run around her decision to bypass House committees in a rush to bring bills to a vote......Whoa! Maybe Charlie will keep this Nutjob in line!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Way to go Nancy, your first mistake was postponing the "First 100 Hours" for a football game! I think the clock should have started ticking the minute the new 110th Congress was sworn in. This is the longest 100 hours I have ever seen. Oh by the way Nancy, the clock is still ticking on any alternative plan you guy's have to the President's besides Retreat-In-Defeat!

SURGE!!!!!!!!!

PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADDRESS TO THE NATION...

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.



Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We owe it to our men and women in Uniform to see this through to the end. I like this plan. It is NOT an open ended committment, there is an artificial timetable with no date certain as not to give the terrorist's any ideas. Iraqi money is paying for alot of this. Pressure is being put on Iran and Syria. And the faster we can train Iraqi Troops and secure Baghdad and the Anbar Province, the faster we can get out of there without letting Iraq turn into terrorist haven like Afganistan was. And the Troops armes arent tied down, they are free to "Get 'em" this time! And hey, the Democrat's wanted more boot's on the ground all along anyway, so they are getting what they wanted (But watch them try to back out of it now!!!!) You have my resolve President Bush!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE: Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan (Well Of Course They Do)

Story Here

CONFIRMED: MASTERMIND BEHIND US EMBASSY BOMBINGS IN KENYA AND TANZANIA "DEAD"

Somali Official Confirms Death of Wanted Al Qaeda Militant in U.S. Airstrike

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

MOGADISHU, Somalia — The suspected Al Qaeda militant who planned the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa was killed in an American airstrike in Somalia, an official said Wednesday.

"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, told The Associated Press. "One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead."

.........................Fazul Abdullah Mohammed


Mohammed allegedly planned the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 225 people.

He is also suspected of planning the car bombing of a beach resort in Kenya and the near simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002. Ten Kenyans and three Israelis were killed in the blast at the hotel, 12 miles north of Mombasa. The missiles missed the airliner.

Mohammed is thought to have been the main target of an American helicopter attack Monday afternoon on Badmadow island off southern Somalia.

U.S. attack helicopters also strafed suspected Al Qaeda fighters in southern Somalia on Tuesday, witnesses said.

The two days of airstrikes by U.S. forces were the first American offensives in the African country since 18 U.S. soldiers were killed here in 1993.

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another Al-Qaeda nutjob dead! Way to go Troops! Al-Qaeda is going down all over the world, the US WILL stop YOU!!

Ted Kennedy Vows To Fight President Bush On Troop Surge

Congress must act against Iraq troop rise: Kennedy

WASHINGTON - With the new Democratic-led Congress flexing its muscles in opposition to the Iraq war, a leading Democratic senator proposed on Tuesday to block President Bush from sending more troops to Iraq unless Congress specifically approves.

Bush is expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq on Wednesday and Sen. Edward Kennedy said Congress had the authority to block the move through its power to approve spending.

"We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq, we must act to prevent it," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a speech to the National Press Club.

The move seemed destined to touch off constitutional debate about the role of Congress and whether it can stop specific orders by the President -- who is the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces -- once it has authorized the use of force.

"There can be no doubt that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to decide whether to fund military action, and Congress can demand a justification from the president for such action before it appropriates the funds to carry it out," Kennedy said.



Congress in October 2002 passed a resolution authorizing the Iraq war. Since then the war has taken the lives of over 3,000 members of the U.S. military, and Democrats rode the far left extreme agenda with the conflict to majorities in both houses of Congress in November.

Bush on Tuesday continued meeting lawmakers at the White House as he sought to convince them of the necessity of his plan to try and improve the situation in Iraq.

Story Here

Bush Still President, Times Disturbed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ted Kennedy, you need to shut the F*** up! You dont have the "Moral Authority" (You have no Morals at all) to make this decision! You are NOT the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed forces! You try to cut off funding to our Troops WHO BY THE WAY DONT LIKE YOU, there will be PUBLIC OUTCRY like you have never seen. If the President and the commanders on the ground say "We need more Troops" like YOU on the left have suggested and called for on numerous occasions, then let's do it and put an end to this crap once and for all! Our founding father's left this decision to ONE MAN The President!! Kennedy YOU dont get to decide, YOUR job is to LEGISLATE! Way to support the Troops asshole! Why in the hell did you people in Mass re-elect this MORON???

Al-Qaeda: You Cant Hide In Somalia Either

U.S. Launches Attack on Suspected Al Qaeda Members in Somalia
Monday, January 08, 2007

After the attack by the Air Force AC-130 gunship, the official reported casualties on the ground, but is not sure if any are suspected terrorists.

The operation would mark the first time the U.S. mounted a mission in Somalia since forces pulled out in 1994, two years after entering on a mission to feed starving people there.

The U.S. could be taking advantage of terrorists that have flown their hideout, as Al Qaeda operatives taking cover in the Somalian capital of Mogadishu were likely chased out when Ethiopian forces cleared out Islamists who had taken power there.

Officials have long suspected those involved in the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings had taken refuge in Somalia. Because of that, the U.S. has shared intelligence with allies such as Kenya and Ethiopia and this fresh attack could be part of an long, ongoing anti-terror operation.



The Bush administration has grown increasingly concerned about the threat of terrorism in Africa, so much so that the Defense Department is planning to create a new regional command specifically to focus on Africa.

Over the past decade, the U.S. military has been working to train African armies and has been particularly concerned about lawless states such as Somalia and other failed states where Al Qaeda elements and other terrorist groups have sought haven.

Story Here

UPDATE: U.S. Launches New Attacks in Somalia


Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We will shut you down, chase you all over the world, and kick your Al-Qaeda asses!! Keep 'em on the run!! (Payback's a Bi*** aint it?) Way to go U.S.S. Eisenhower! Way to go Troops!!! Wonder how long it will take the left to whine about this? 10, 9, 8.....

The Crack Spider's Bi***

I know this is off topic, but some of these fact's are quite interesting!

Former Head Of DNC Lambast's Kerry

Well this is something you dont read everyday lol

Former Democratic Party boss lambasts Kerry campaign

WASHINGTON - Former Democratic Party boss and Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe is lambasting John Kerry’s unsuccessful presidential campaign, calling his effort to unseat President Bush "one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics."

In his scrappy memoir, McAuliffe criticizes the 2004 campaign that he was responsible for defending but ultimately lost to what he describes as a more organized Republican machine. McAuliffe calls the Kerry campaign gun-shy, distracted and incompetent.

McAuliffe is close to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton and will support her presidential bid if the New York senator runs in 2008. McAuliffe’s book, published by Thomas Dunne Books, could serve as the opening salvo against a potential Clinton rival as Kerry weighs another bid. However, McAuliffe has kind words for other possible candidates, such as Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.



The book, "What a Party! My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," goes on sale Jan. 23, but copies have already shown up in some bookstores.

McAuliffe plans a 25-city tour to promote the memoir and parties to celebrate its publication _ Feb. 8 in Washington hosted by Mrs. Clinton and Jan. 22 in New York City hosted by former President Clinton.

The book is full of revelations from McAuliffe’s years among the power elite _ getting a startling leg rub from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at a dinner, watching movie stars Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow smooching during a showing of "Good Will Hunting" at Camp David and being chastised by former President George H.W. Bush during the 2000 election for treating his son with such "disgrace."

He had an insider’s look at the Clintons’ marriage during the Monica Lewinsky scandal _ going along on a chilly Clinton family vacation to Utah a month after the impeachment vote and watching Mrs. Clinton silently click through channel after channel reporting on her husband’s infidelities before settling on ESPN. He wrote that the president described the period to him as "an absolute living hell."

McAuliffe served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001 to 2005, although he says Kerry’s aides wanted to oust him once the Massachusetts senator secured the nomination. He said he was never invited to a single meeting at Kerry headquarters.

Kerry spokesman David Wade said although many people wish the outcome of the 2004 election had been different, Kerry is proud of the hard work of his campaign staff and McAuliffe’s efforts as party chairman. "It’s time to look forward, not backwards," Wade said.

McAuliffe said Kerry’s camp was so afraid of offending swing voters that it didn’t defend his record or criticize Bush. He said he was muzzled by Kerry’s aides from assailing Bush’s military record.

He said the campaign also ordered speeches at the Democratic National Convention to be scrubbed of any mention of Bush’s name or his record _ although McAuliffe privately encouraged firebrand Al Sharpton to go ahead with his attacks on the president in his crowd-pleasing speech.

"I thought the decision of the Kerry campaign to back off any real criticism of Bush was one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics," he said.



Meanwhile, Republicans went on a sharp tirade against Kerry at their convention. But when Bush said in an interview on the first day that he didn’t think the U.S. could win the war on terror, Kerry did not respond. The Massachusetts senator was windsurfing off Nantucket, unaware of the president’s comments.

McAuliffe said Kerry later told him that was one of the biggest mistakes of his campaign. "I should have gotten off the island," McAuliffe quotes Kerry as saying.

McAuliffe said he was "flabbergasted" to learn after the election that Kerry had $15 million left that he could have spent in the final push. "It was gross incompetence to hoard that money when the race was bound to be so close," McAuliffe said.

McAuliffe said Republicans told him they were shocked that Kerry just took the attacks on his military record, but also overjoyed. He said Bush called President Clinton while he was recovering from his heart attack in September 2004 and said, "The Kerry campaign is the most inept group I have ever seen in politics. Don’t let them ruin your reputation."

He said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked him why Kerry wasn’t fighting back more. "My guy (Bush) is no great shakes, but your guy (Kerry) looks like a wimp," McAuliffe quotes McCain as saying.

Kerry’s former running mate, John Edwards, also was frustrated with the campaign, according to McAuliffe. McAuliffe said Edwards was angered that the campaign wouldn’t let him go after Bush, but Kerry disputed Edwards’ claim and said he was frustrated his vice presidential pick wasn’t campaigning harder.

Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What a glimpse of what really goes on behind the scenes of a Presidential Campain lol

Does The New York Times Have A Direct Link To The Taliban?

One wonder's when one does'nt hear from Mullah Omar in 5 years how on earth the New York Times tracked him down! In Pakistan? Or even Reuter's or the AP and gave the story to the New York Times. Something is fishy here. For those of you that have forgotten who Mullah Omar is, he is the leader of the Taliban now scattered all over the region of Afghanistan/Pakistan/Waziristan area or somewhere along the Pakistan border, like I said scattered. Of course scattered since they no longer have any safe haven to commit thier atrocities or to give to Usama Bin Laden, Thank's to President Bush and the US lead coalition of Troops. The Taliban were the little group of idiot's that ran amuck willy nilly in Afghanistan, fought off the Russian's, and gave Usama Bin Laden safe haven and a place to plot and plan the 9-11 attacks.

What is strange about this article isnt that "Omar" is rambling on about the same old crap, we have to "Jihad Againt America" stuff that he used to ramble on about the last time any reporter met up with him, what is strange is the fact that ANY reporter has been talking to him AT ALL!! Especially knowing he is on our FBI's Most Wanted list! How did they contact him? Or did they contact him? Or was there a go-between? And who was it? I know the press doesnt have to reveal thier sources, but in a time of war? Why must the New York Times feel the need to aid the enemy?

As far as I know this is the only photo that has been taken of Mullah Muhammad Omar


Clip from the New York Times article:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Jan. 4 — In what appears to be the first exchange with a journalist since going into hiding five years ago, the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, said that he had not seen Al Qaeda’s chief, Osama bin Laden, in five years and that he would never negotiate with the United States-backed government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. He also threatened to continue the war until foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan. (Blah Blah Blah)

Full Article Here

Which brings me to my next concern.

If "Omar" hasnt seen him, where is he?

This is the last time we saw Usama Bin Laden, October 2004



Look's pretty rough doesnt he? Doesnt look like that happy ass smiling face we saw right after 9-11! He look's quite weathered and not in the best of health, well that could be from crawling around in caves and having to rely on a mule for official news and information as of the last known time anyone saw him. Not to mention he supposedly had a kidney problem and was on dialasis, and probably didnt have much access or hookup to his dialasis machine from a cave.

And the last known AudioTape from Bin Laden was in January 2006.

Yet we have been hearing alot out of this guy

...................................Zawahiri


Since Usama was in such poor condition, and he would have stuck out like a sore thumb being 7 ft tall, and probably beginning to be a pain in the ass to hide or drag around by mule, one also wonders looking at Zawahiri and what good condition he seems to be in and looking better every time we see him, if he is in better condition because he no longer has to drag around Usama? Which also makes one wonder was this Usama's Funeral?



A US Drone pick's up this image in July 2006 in Afghanistan and didnt fire on it knowing it was a
Funeral! But is there more to this funeral than meet's the eye? Was it Usama's? Is that the reason Omar hasnt seen Usama, and Zawahiri is looking pretty darn healthy? We havent seen Usama in over 2 years, the last audio which seemed to have some current events on it was a year ago, and then a photo of a pretty large sum of Taliban in Afghanistan at a funeral in July? I think Usama is dead! And unless the Afghani's or the NATO troops go dig it up, we may never know.

What puzzle's me is every time there is a Video tape, an Audio tape, and/or interview's with these freak's it isnt alway's Al-Jazeera who publishes this stuff, it's also Reuters, the AP, and most deffinately the New York Times!! Strange isnt it how the New York Times alway's seems to have the exclusive's these days?

UPDATE: ZAWAHIRI SENDS NEW MESSAGE:

Gee isnt this a shock, ironic to be talking about this and we get a new message:

A jihadist website is observed on 5 January to post several links to 5-minute and 30-second audio message by Al-Qa'ida's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri entitled "Rise up and Support Your Brothers in Somalia."

Following is the text of the audio message, dated Dhu al-Hijjah 1427 hegira, corresponding to January 2007, produced by Al-Sahahb Media Productions:

"In the name of God, praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon God's Prophet, his household, companions, and supporters. My Muslim brothers everywhere, God's peace and blessings be upon you.

While I am addressing you today, the Crusader invading Ethiopian forces are violating the Islamic land of dear Somalia. Moreover, the Security Council is plotting to approve this invasion by issuing its resolution to dispatch international forces to Somalia and by its failure to issue a resolution that calls for the withdrawal of the Ethiopian forces from Somalia. Here, I am urging the Islamic nation in Somalia to be steadfast in this new Crusader battlefield, which America, its allies, and the United Nations are waging against Islam and Muslims.
(Blah Blah Blah)

Read Full Zawahiri Dribble Here

This guy is releasing to many tapes. He isnt dragging Usama with him anymore