You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2101)

PLAYS: (1978)

Glenn Beck must have been feeling the pressure from Virginia Foxx yesterday in the Absurd Wingnuttery Championships. So, after Foxx compared the liberal health-care reform package working its way through Congress to terrorism, Beck went on his Fox News show and compared the package to the 9/11 attacks:

Beck: On 9/11, we experienced a feeling we had never had before -- when the buildings and our markets and the economy came falling down around our ears, we realized -- 'Oh my gosh. Our country isn't unsinkable.'

We came, on that day, to the understanding that this Republic is fragile. Here we are now, a decade later. I'm on the air again, warning you that our government cannot sustain our massive spending. The system will collapse if we continue down this progressive path.

Ten years ago, I could have shouted every single day about Osama bin Laden and his wacky, crazy threats to kill Americans in New York. And no one would have been willing to stand in line two hours while some security officers made grandma take her shoes off. No one would have done it.

But don't you see -- while the government is still not willing to do these things, today, America is different. America has changed. Washington, we're not going to let you get away with it anymore.

Look, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Conservatives are awake. 912ers are willing to do the hard things. We know what this means. We're taking time out of our busy lives, taking time away from their families, they're attending town-hall meetings -- you think they wanna do that? They are calling their representatives -- how many times do we have to be yelled at by your people in Washington? to work against the enactment of health care reform.

They are reading 2,000-page health-care bills on the weekend. They 912ers are willing to stand in line and take our shoes off before the plane actually hits the tower.

Glenn Beck has a long history of exploiting the 9/11 tragedy for the sake of ratings and rantings. (Who could forget his encomium to the widows? "It took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 victims' families.")

Indeed, you could make the case that his current stellar rise was built on such exploitation. Beck was a nobody until he started making incendiary remarks about Muslims on air and attacking liberals for their insufficient patriotism after 9/11 and cheerleading the Iraq invasion as a post-9/11 necessity. It's what made him famous in the first place.

And now he's springboarding from that to leading an open revolt against the liberal policies Americans just voted to implement, throwing a tantrum because no one believes in disproven and discredited conservative dogma anymore. No one, that is, except Glenn Beck and his hapless followers.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1367)

PLAYS: (2417)

Glenn Beck was trying real hard yesterday to convince people that his running theory -- that Barack Obama is secretly a Marxist who intends to radically transform America into a communist state -- just might be right.

He compared his theory to the early stages of the Monica-baiting of Clinton in 1998, when everyone was in denial -- because, you see, he thinks eventually he'll be proven right. OK, whatever.

Then he blurted this out:

Beck: I mean, at this point, you have to try to not pay attention. I mean, you have to be working to miss the pattern here. There's so much anti-free-market rhetoric from Obama and his top officials, you'd either have to either be living in a cave in Afghanistan next to Obama, and you can't hear anything that Ob -- uh, Osama is saying because of the goats going, ah-ah-ah, or you're so deeply in love with Obama that you can't detect a single flaw in him.

This is what we'll call a Beckean Slip: An apparent slip of the tongue that is most likely intentional, and at the bare minimum clearly exposes the desire to confuse the public.

It isn't the first time Beck has slipped and mixed up Osama bin Laden's name with President Obama's. And it certainly won't be the last.

However, it does tend to undermine Beck's subsequent claim to having this high-level, all-seeing mind that is "right" about a whole host of things (that he's actually been wrong about). Indeed, it reveals a confused mind incapable of clearly distinguishing between the president of the United States and a cave-dwelling terrorist.

Beck also adds that "I could be wrong" but "I haven't been before"? Um, yeah, except for the dozens of times he actually has been wrong. (Remember when he was predicting that Americans would eventually go for McCain at the polls? That prediction turned out well, didn't it?)

Clearly, his fans are hoping that he'll be proven right, because then they'll be justified in subsequently mounting a violent assault on the White House or something. But with a mind like Beck's concocting the theories, you might have better luck putting a bagful of cats in a roomful of word processors and hoping that Shakespeare's collected sonnets somehow emerge.

All of which raises a question that Glenn Beck should ask himself: What if you're wrong?

Because then, all you have done is smear a boatload of innocent and decent people, dragged their names through the mud, and ruined their careers.

But hey, that doesn't matter, because Glenn Beck is all about values, right? Like the value of his new mansion in Connecticut ... those are the values that matter to Glenn Beck.

Basic decency? Not so much.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1298)

PLAYS: (11789)

Watching Glenn Beck descend into yet another of his bizarre chalkboard rants earlier this week, it occurred to me I had heard a similar theory once: Miss Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses.

The Wikipedia entry observes:

The skit coined the concept of "Elk Theories" to describe scientific observations that are not theories but merely minimal accounts.

I've also heard the term "Elk Theories" used to describe hypotheses that mean nothing and prove nothing.

Which, you know, is what Beck's bizarre "six degrees" guilt-by-association "theory" comes down to. One can play this game with anyone. It wouldn't take six degrees to connect Glenn Beck to Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden or Timoth McVeigh, if he wants to play that game. But it wouldn't prove anything, would it?

Except, of course, that Glenn Beck is becoming so detached from reality that his programs are now unintentional comedy skits. And no, Glenn, we're not laughing with you. We're laughing at you.

Enjoy the mashup.

Continue reading »

All wars depress me, but this Afghanistan one in particular makes me want to scream. Why are we there? Theoretically, to hunt down Osama bin Laden and stop al Qaeda from using it as a base. But is al Qaeda still there? Is that likely to work? Is it even possible? And if it is possible, is it worth the cost?

Nice to see a high-ranking Democrat asking these questions, too:

The veteran chairman of the House Appropriations Committee posed a series of tough questions Thursday to his colleagues and the Obama administration about the wisdom of further U.S. engagement in that war-torn country.

Rep. David R. Obey , D-Wis., in a statement expressed significant skepticism about the prospects for success of any major effort to stabilize the country, either through additional U.S. troops or by a concerted effort to train more Afghan troops and improve the country’s governance and economy.

“The problem with increasing the number of troops is that we become the lightning rod, and our presence runs the risk of inciting more anti-American sentiment that can become a recruiting tool for the very forces we seek to curtail,” Obey said of one option President Obama is weighing.

“If any adjustment is made in U.S. troop levels, it would be much better if those troops were focused on the job of training Afghani troops and police to take on the job of securing the population and maintaining law and order,” he said. “But even there, we have to ask what is achievable. My understanding is that there have never been more than about 90,000 troops under the sway of the central government. Now we are told that the goal is to train up to 400,000 soldiers and police personnel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether that is a realistic and achievable goal.”

As for a policy bent on counter-insurgency and nation-building, Obey said, “We should be asking not what policy is theoretically the most intellectually coherent, but which policy is actually achievable given the only tools we have in the region; the Afghani and Pakistani governments. Is there sufficient leadership, popular support, and political will, not in the United States but in Afghanistan, necessary for effective governance to take hold? “

Equally important, he said, “Do we really have the tools to overcome language, culture, history and a 90 percent illiteracy rate to sufficiently transform such a country?”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1611)

PLAYS: (1208)

It's one thing for the Bernie Sanderses and Russ Feingolds to openly question the mission in Afghanistan. It's quite another for Dianne Feinstein to do so.

KING: Well Senator Feinstein, you're the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. To the question of where this ends, it is eight years after 9/11. We've paused and reflected on that just the other day. You see the things that we can't see, the intelligence. Are we winning in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, and does the president have a clear strategy, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I can tell you this. A lot of the leadership has been taken out of al Qaeda. I can say and I think you would agree that Afghanistan and the Pakistani border are still the major safe haven, the major safe haven for terrorists in the world. And these are people who will, if they can, come after us, not necessarily the Taliban, but certainly al Qaeda and other affiliated groups.

So we have to consider that. We have about 60,000 troops there, another 8,000 are moving in with our allies, it about equals the force that is in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the president has had no request for additional troops up to this time. My view is that the mission has to be very clear. I don't believe --

KING: Has to be means it is not now?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is not now. I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan. I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

I do believe that clearing out Al Qaida, clearing out the Taliban is a bona fide part one of the mission. I do agree that training Afghan troops, Afghan -- Afghan police is an important piece of the mission.

I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, well, we'll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do. I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.

Feinstein is actually more charitable about the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, who said this week that there are no signs of major Al Qaeda anywhere in the country.

But as far as the wariness of the viability of Constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, you need only look to their recent election, into which the opposition leader is now seeking a criminal investigation. He has accused Hamid Karzai of treason and "state-engineered fraud". Despite this, Karzai will probably win election on the first ballot, and a vote that has been horribly compromised will be made official. We saw in Iran how this can lead to violence and chaos, and Afghanistan is not nearly as stable. Without a viable partner in the government, as Feinstein says we cannot expect an endless commitment. Yet because Karzai is Pashtun the US will likely back him in this fight, alienating the other ethnic groups in the region. Kalashnikovs are flying off the shelves in the Tajik areas. Civil war is not an unlikely scenario at this point.

This further limits the mission, away from state-building and toward dealing with the elements in the country willing to deal. Otherwise we set ourselves up for a decade-long slog that will only end with more dead and more treasure squandered, to little effect. And yes, as Sen. Feinstein says, that process should have an end date.

(h/t Heather)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (56)

PLAYS: (142)

September 12, 2009 News Corp- Fox & Friends

Heather: Shorter Ralph Peters- Killing more brown people solves everything and we need that "decider" W back. Or maybe he meant Dick Cheney. God knows Bush wasn't deciding anything for eight years. We need to be getting the hell out of that country, not sending more troops.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1266)

PLAYS: (3702)

It looks like Tom Ridge's lastest revelations in his book have given Keith a chance to say he was correct when he did his series on the Nexus of Politics and Terror. John Dean weighs in on the criminality of what Ridge has admitted to in his book. He thinks Ridge gave himself some wiggle room since he said he only believed the terrorist threat level was being manipulated for political reasons, and did not say he knew it to be a fact.

It's so nice to see all the dirty f@%#king hippies were right about this, huh? It will be interesting to watch the Villagers try to explain why they didn't report on something as plain as the noses on their faces back when this was going on. Other than Keith, I don't recall any of them speaking out about it other than to repeat the government propaganda. I'd also like someone to ask Tom Ridge why he didn't resign when he first knew this was happening.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1125)

PLAYS: (7961)

Talk about ego and image control. Because of King James and the actions NIKE took, they've created a LeBron-Gate. It's so ridiculous.

The first mistake Nike made in the viral video mess that is LeBron-gate was trying to hide something from Gary Parrish. If you dropped Parrish in the middle of Afghanistan he'd emerge with Osama bin Laden's carcass in one hand, the details of John Calipari's new contract in the other, and a cell phone secured between his teeth. Nice work, Nike. Who did you think you were trying to fool, anyway? ESPN? The second mistake Nike made in LeBron-gate?

It underestimated the angry mood of the country toward arrogant mega-corporations who think they can do what they want, when they want. Nike believes that because it runs cute commercials and pals around with handsome athletes, it's no different from a sniveling credit card company or predatory bank.

To many people, Nike is the sports equivalent of those entities. By confiscating video of LeBron James getting his muscled-up head dunked on and subsequently acting like the release of the video is a threat to national security, the company confirmed what many have long believed: Nike is a ruthless corporation no different from other cutthroat companies.

Nike has, after all, been repeatedly accused of running sweatshops. More on that in a moment.

I mean, I'd like LeBron to sign on with the Knicks because they've stunk for so long, but this is Cheneyesque behavior.

There's something about James and Nike that makes this story more stringent than it ordinarily would be. There wouldn't be as much outrage if there were video of Dwyane Wade or Kobe Bryant getting dunked on. There'd be interest, of course, but James is the most arrogant and guarded superstar in the NBA and Nike is the most arrogant and guarded company in sports. That combination has turned this story from pedestrian to interesting and, until Nike releases the video, it'll stay that way.

It's Nike's corporate-ness which is at the center of this entire fiasco. It's not just the public enjoying watching a giant company feel the pain of stepping on the wrong end of a rake. No rational human being would ever be this angry over a simple dunk video. This isn't about the dunk. This is about rage over the actions of the wealthy and powerful.

What harm would it have done to King James' image? Nothing. Who cares if he got dunked on? John Starks had an incredible dunk on Michael Jordan. Who remembers that now?

Did that dunk hurt his marketing image? Of course not. People should not buy their products until they release the footage so they never do this again. It wasn't a crime scene. The way they handled this situation is Gestapo-like. Only NBA fans would watch it and nobody would care at all. It was just fine for James to have 60 Minutes film him doing amazing things and making him out to be, well, a King, but this is somehow unacceptable to him.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1339)

PLAYS: (7014)

Good God. They really are wishing and hoping for a terrorist attack.

Michael Scheuer, on Glenn Beck's show last night:

Scheuer: The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Beck: Which is why, I was thinking this weekend, if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

I guess the wingnuts have given up the pretense of decency and normalcy. Now they're rooting for another terrorist attack, so that we stoopid Americans will finally WAKE UP! to the nature of the evil that conspires against us ...

Actually, we're becoming quite awake indeed. And it isn't bin Laden who scares us right now. More like Glenn Beck and his guests.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (980)

PLAYS: (2856)

Trotta: ...and now we have what some are reading---as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, umm, ah... Obama, well both, if we could...haha...

She was forced to apologize on the air by the liberal blogosphere shortly after. In March, she maintained another lie:

Fox analysts: Obama is manipulating the librul press in a 'historic' way?

Greg Mitchell tweeted this and we grabbed it.

Liz Trotta on Fox just now bashing NBC coverage of Obama -- one year after she seemingly endorsed killing him "if we could."

I guess working for the Washington Times as she did in the past sure does seem to cause a severe "pundit insanity" syndrome. In this segment, she is furious with the media's coverage of President Obama's Middle East trip.

Trotta: It's the Obama glut and if you add that, another couple of hours of Brian Williams on NBC doing inside the Obama White House. I mean he's now up for the prize for Pet poodle in the Obama media kennel. Just unbelievable sycophancy.

Who, Brian Williams?

Oh, my goodness. The softball questions and the running up and down the hallways. Somebody compared the scenes of running up and down the hallways it to a scene from Goodfellows where one of the gangsters takes his girlfriend back through the kitchen in order to get to the secret night club.

Brian Williams, I've known him for 15 years. He's a decent, I think objective professional.

You're wrong, you're wrong. This is a network that has totally cast it's lot with the Obama White House.

We've heard that.

Trotta: They're of course the ugly rumors and reports about how Jeffrey Immelt, the chairman and CEO of G.E., the parent company, has sent the word down that we're going to be nice to Obama, because we want some of the government contracts.

Eric: do you really believe that? do you really believe that?

Trotta: I believe it's perfectly possible. I'm not saying it's so, but this is widely reported on the Internet. And then we have the stockholders meetings in which, where the questions were -- where people tried to ask can these questions and, of course, everybody's mic was cut. That aside, no, there wasn't even coverage of Obama. Again, he commanded the airwaves all week. And again, the press, which is his personal, you know, fan book, just play ball.

I always find it silly when FOX News people complain about other networks being propagandists when that's been their entire role for the GOP since its inception. I assume they know the FOX audience will bite, but it's still strange to see FOX complain about another network about this subject matter. And then they wrapped up the segment by attacking Williams because he gave a little bow to the president as he left him.

There it is. I mean it's just a little head nod.

Grovel, grovel, grovel.

No, it's a little thank you. It's a sign of respect. Thank you, Mr. President.

Did you see the entire thing? It was a grovel.

Listen, I'm no fan of Williams overall, but this is just creepy coverage of NBC and Obama by Trotta. I'm sure she's trying to get booked on Bill O'Reilly's show this week with this performance.

Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation:

By the now, it's maddeningly familiar. A scary terrorist plot is announced. Then it's revealed that the suspects are a hapless bunch of ne'er-do-wells or run-of-the-mill thugs without the slightest connection to any terrorists at all, never mind to Al Qaeda. Finally, the last piece of the puzzle: the entire plot is revealed to have been cooked up by a scummy government agent-provocateur.

I've seen this movie before. In this case, the alleged perps -- Onta Williams, James Cromitie, David Williams, and Laguerre Payen -- were losers, ex-cons, drug addicts. Al Qaeda they're not. Without the assistance of the agent who entrapped them, they would never have dreamed of committing political violence, nor would they have had the slightest idea about where to acquire plastic explosives or a Stinger missile. That didn't stop prosecutors from acting as if they'd captured Osama bin Laden himself.

Of course, as has been pointed out, we know that--irrespective of facts--this case will be held up as some great triumph in the War on Terror™, a frighteningly close call thwarted by those (implicitly, in the previous administration) who understood the nature of the threat. Mmmm'kay....

Preying on these losers, none of whom were apparently actual Muslims, the "confidential informant" orchestrated the acquisition of a disabled Stinger missile to shoot down military planes and cooked up a wild scheme about attacking a Jewish center in the Bronx.

It gets even more pathetic:

The only one of the four suspects who appears to have aroused any suspicion was Payen, a Haitian native who attended the Newburgh mosque. Assistant imam Hamid Rashada said his dishevelment and odd behavior disturbed some members, said the assistant imam, Hamid Rashada.

When Payen appeared in court, defense attorney Marilyn Reader described him as "intellectually challenged" and on medication for schizophrenia. The Associated Press said that when he was asked if he understood the proceedings, Payen replied: "Sort of."

Despite the pompous statements from Mayor Bloomberg of New York and other politicians, including Representative Peter King, the whole story is bogus. The four losers may have been inclined to violence, and they may have harbored a virulent strain of anti-Semitism. But it seems that the informant whipped up their violent tendencies and their hatred of Jews, cooked up the plot, incited them, arranged their purchase of weapons, and then had them busted. To ensure that it made headlines, the creepy informant claimed to be representing a Pakistani extremist group, Jaish-e Muhammad, a bona fide terrorist organization. He wasn't, of course.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1554)

PLAYS: (2130)

There's just so much garbage in this clip, it's hard to sort it all out. But garbage it is and sort we must. I think that it's instructive to remember as we wade through this textbook example of fallacious logic that Newt Gingrich is considered the great scholar of the GOP. No wonder the GOP doesn't seem able to think their way out of the tea bag they put themselves in.

Still holding the talking points given to him by the Bush administration's Revisionist History Tour™, Newtie tries to muddy the waters by simultaneously claiming that the Clinton and Obama administrations did or do not take the War on Terror™ as seriously as the Bush administration, but also find that the tactics used by the Bush administration in their pursuit of against terrorism are so acceptable that they haven't tried outlawing them yet. HUH????

(S)ince 1993 when seven people were killed at the World Trade Center, we’ve had two cycles. We had a Clinton administration that thought this was a criminal problem, that issued -- that refused to allow the CIA and the FBI to cooperate, that refused to pressure Saudi Arabia or Yemen to go after people who were killing our folks. And then you had a Bush administration that said this is a war.

Hmm...interesting revisionism. Let's recall, Newtie, that the Clinton administration actually caught and prosecuted the "blind sheik" responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, unlike the Bush administration, who declared war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and killed millions of Iraqis but left Osama Bin Laden uncaught. That's a successful strategy, innit?

WALLACE: I want to ask you about one other aspect of this. Pelosi says even if she was briefed on this that there was nothing she could do because these were classified briefings. She and the Republican chairman of the committee got this information. There’s nothing they could do.

You as House speaker received these kinds of briefings back in the ‘90s. If you objected to a secret operation, was there something you could do?

GINGRICH: Sure. I mean, the first thing you do is call the president and tell him you will feel compelled to pass a law cutting off the money. I mean, there are lots of things you can do if you want to do it. The Congress is pretty powerful if it wants to be.

And second, you know, they’ve had control since January of 2007. They haven’t passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven’t gone into any of these things and changed law. In fact, they’ve had several -- they -- recently, you find that Attorney General Holder’s own Justice Department is saying, “Well, you know, some of these memos are actually right. They’re not wrong.”

Um, Newt? You do know that waterboarding is already illegal, don't you? Oh great historian of the GOP, can you tell me what happened to those Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American GIs during WWII? So Congress should make waterboarding illegal again otherwise they condone the act? Astonishing lack of logic there.

So this is -- what we’re seeing now in a very sad way is as bitter a partisan attack on the Bush people as we’ve seen since the McCarthy era. The degree that they’re putting specific people at risk for criminal prosecution is unprecedented in modern America.

Never let be said that today's GOP isn't the most persecuted bunch of privileged white folk in the history of mankind. Jeez. Here's another way to look at it, Newt: Specific people are at risk for criminal prosecution because of THEIR UNPRECEDENTED CRIMINAL ACTS. "Rule of Law" party, my aunt Fanny.

Which brings me to my final point, the implied slur against AG Eric Holder for his firm's representation of Yemeni detainees at Gitmo. Somehow this is siding with terrorists to actually respect our legal system. While Holder himself did not actually work on those Gitmo cases, the fact remains--and I'm sure that this comes as a shock to Gingrich--but not all attorneys think their clients are innocent. They are just interested in making sure that justice is served by a fair trial.

Obviously, the concepts of fairness and justice are alien to Gingrich.

Transcripts (courtesy of CQ Politics) below the fold

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (89)

PLAYS: (185)

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zadari believes Osama bin Laden is dead. "I don't think he's alive," Zadari told NBC's David Gregory. "I have a strong feeling and reason to believe that."

Coming just days after the Obama administration released the OLC memos which justified the Bush administration's regime of detainee torture, a 200 page Senate Armed Services Committee report is producing a new wave of shocking revelations. As it turns out, intelligence and military officials were preparing the brutal interrogation program eight months before its approval by the Bush Justice Department. And in trying to sell the invasion of Iraq, the Bush torture team ordered the abuse of detainees to manufacture a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. But despite their failure to do so, President Bush and his water carriers continue to perpetuate that myth to this day.

As McClatchy reported, "the Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime." The effort to establish ties between Bin Laden and Saddam was ramped up in 2002 and early 2003 to provide "proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there," according to according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist:

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA...and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies"...

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

For her part, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted a month ago that "No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11." Of course, Rice wasn't the only one in the Bush White House contending "there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime," as she insisted as late as September 2006. Echoing President Bush's farewell address in January, former press secretary Ari Fleischer made the Saddam - September 11 connection just the previous week.

Continue reading »

April 10, 2009 MSNBC