Tweet
Back by popular demand..... 
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="10" cellpadding="0" class="post-message">
<tr valign="top">
<td width="1%"><img src="images/transparent.gif" height="1" width="48" border="0"></td>
<td width="99%">
<div class="medtext"><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259.jpg" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 259</b></font><br /><br />September 11, 2006<br /><i>Fun With Terrorism Edition</i><br /><br />It's been five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We here at Democratic Underground discussed the possibility of taking a break from the Top 10 list this week to observe the anniversary. But when it became apparent that many conservative idiots in government and the media intended to exploit the anniversary for their own cynical purposes, we thought we should probably point them out. Here is the 259th Top 10 Conservative Idiots. As usual, don't forget the <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/key.html" target="_blank">key</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>1.) George W. Bush</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/coveringass.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" <br /><br />Since today is the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it seems fitting that we focus on George W. Bush's efforts in the War on Terror - and if recent speeches by Our Great Leader are anything to go by, we've got a ways to go.<br /><br />But to begin, let's travel back in time to March 13, 2002, when George W. Bush held a press conference at the White House to discuss the nomination of Charles Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Since the press conference took place just six months after 9/11, Bush was inevitably asked whether there was any progress in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Here's his reply:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is - really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.<br /><br />Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just - he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is - as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide - if, in fact, he's hiding at all.<br /><br />So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. </div><br />As if that wasn't enough, Bush then reiterated:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I - I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.</div><br />Now, during the third presidential debate with John Kerry in 2004, Bush <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/175.html" target="_blank">denied</a> ever saying anything like this. But I'm afraid it's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html" target="_blank">right there on the White House website</a>.<br /><br />So how's Bush's "not that concerned about him" plan working out? Well, since the GOP have got absolutely nothing left to run on but "Terror, Terror and More Terror" this fall, Osama is making a comeback.<br /><br />Last week Bush was interviewed - and I use that term loosely - by Katie Couric on CBS's nightly news broadcast. <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06251150.htm" target="_blank">According to</a> Reuters:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">President George W. Bush on Wednesday said capturing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who has eluded a U.S. manhunt since the Sept. 11 attacks five years ago, still mattered.<br /><br />"He's hiding. And we're on the hunt, obviously," Bush said in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News before his speech announcing that 14 high-level terrorism suspects had been transferred from secret CIA custody to the Defense Department's facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.<br /><br />"Of course. It matters. He's, he's the head of al Qaeda," Bush said. "But one thing is for certain, though, he's, he's not moving like he used to. Another thing is ... he's, you know, not communicating like he used to."<br /><br />The hunt continues for bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, as well as others, Bush said. "And we'll get him. It's just a matter of time. We've got a unit in the CIA who is spending a lot of time thinking about these high-value targets," he said.</div><br />Uh, gee, would that be the unit that was <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13699308/" target="_blank">disbanded</a> last year? But anyway - you heard the man. "It matters." "We'll get him." "We're on the hunt." "It's just a matter of time."<br /><br />How much time?<br /><br />Because it's been almost five years since <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/" target="_blank">Bush said</a>, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" And it's been just over four years since <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cp.00.html" target="_blank">Bush said</a>, "In terms of Mr. bin Laden himself, we'll get him running. We'll smoke him out of his cave and we'll get him eventually."<br /><br />Perhaps the Bush administration would have better luck if they started blowing smoke into bin Laden's cave instead of blowing it up each other's asses.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>2.) The Bush Administration</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/fearmongering.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/fearmongering.gif" border="0"><br /><br />But despite ignoring him for five years, the Bushies are bringing Osama bin Laden back with a vengeance this fall. The Rude Pundit <a href="http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/couple-of-numbers-from-bushs-speeches.html" target="_blank">notes</a> that in Bush's three recent terror speeches, bin Laden's name was mentioned 29 times (9/11 was mentioned 65 times).<br /><br />But it's okay, because the Bush administration has come up with a great new way to deal with the Al Qaeda leader - they've given him a web page. You see, terrorism is not just about violence. Terrorists don't just use violent attacks to destroy particular targets - they use those attacks to force us to live in constant fear that they could attack again. I guess that's why it's called "terrorism." And apparently the Bush administration thinks that this isn't such a bad theory, which is why they've <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html" target="_blank">dedicated a whole page</a> to terrorists' statements. Sure, the American homeland hasn't been attacked in the last five years - but it could happen at any moment, people! Be vigilant, and vote Republican!<br /><br />Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the terrorists want - to terrorize us? Is it really necessary for the Bush administration to help them out by posting their statements on the White House website? And more to the point, are you shitting your pants yet?<br /><br />Meanwhile, the <i>Washington Post</i> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901105.html" target="_blank">reports</a> that the bin Laden's trail has gone "stone cold."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world - no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image - has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />After playing down bin Laden's importance and barely mentioning him for several years, Bush last week repeatedly invoked his name and quoted from his writings and speeches to underscore what Bush said is the continuing threat of terrorism.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.<br /><br />That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.<br /><br />"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."'</div><br />In light of these new reports, it's a little confusing to me that the Bush administration is suddenly invoking bin Laden's name at every turn and giving him a whole bunch of free advertising. Unless they've already got him in a deep freezer somewhere ready to drag out three days before the elections, of course.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>3.) The Bush Administration</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/lying.gif" border="0"> <br /><br />Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee declassified a special report on the links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda last Friday. The <i>Washington Post </i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html?referrer=email" target="_blank">reports</a>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.</div><br />My goodness! That almost sounds like the president and his senior officials were lying willfully and repeatedly to the nation in order to get us into a disastrous war in Iraq which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of almost 3,000 American soldiers. Say it ain't so.<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about (Osama) bin Laden."<br /><br />The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.</div><br />Wow. So I guess it wasn't true when George W. Bush <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html" target="_blank">said</a>, "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." Or when Dick Cheney <a href="http://www.bushoniraq.com/cheney8.html" target="_blank">said</a>, "His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." Or <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293" target="_blank">all the other times</a> that they linked Saddam and Al Qaeda. Hmm.<br /><br />Still, at least Our Great Leader hasn't made any recent connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Right?<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">As recently as Aug. 21, Bush suggested a link between Hussein and Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces this summer. But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the report.</div><br />Oh, okay. Er, can we impeach him now?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>4.) ABC</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/lying.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"><br /><br />If you're reading this on Monday, then ABC is halfway through their five-hour "Path to 9/11" crockudrama, despite numerous protests to drop the movie due to its fictionalization of the events leading up to September 11, 2001. Condemnation for "The Path to 9/11" has been almost universal, from <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/" target="_blank">Bill Clinton</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/washington/07path.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">members of his administration</a>, to <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4171409.html" target="_blank">newspaper editorials</a> and <a href="http://suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html" target="_blank">reviews</a>, to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/" target="_blank">consultants</a>, to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/" target="_blank">members of the 9/11 Commission</a>, to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/bozell-edit/" target="_blank">quite</a> <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/08/chris-wallace-slams-abc-on-911-project-i-think-its-slanderous-i-think-its-defamatory-and-i-think-that-abc-and-disney-should-be-held-to-account/" target="_blank">a</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/video-bill-bennett-says-abc-should-correct-those-inaccuracies-in-path-to-911/" target="_blank">few</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/" target="_blank">conservatives</a>. Even <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/harvey-keitel-speaks-out-on-path-to-911-it-turned-out-not-all-the-facts-were-correct/" target="_blank">Harvey Keitel</a> thinks it's rubbish, and he's the star.<br /><br />ABC's response? <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2406097&page=1" target="_blank">Go screw yourselves</a>.<br /><br />But let's back up a little. The controversy over "The Path to 9/11" began when ABC mysteriously provided advance screeners to right-wing bloggers and commentators only. Rush Limbaugh got one, but Bill Clinton did not. And when Bill Clinton asked for a copy, he <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/" target="_blank">still didn't get one</a>.<br /><br />When word leaked that the movie contained <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html" target="_blank">fictionalized scenes designed to make the Clinton administration look like buffoons</a> while puffing up the Bush administration, the shit hit the fan. It's one thing to crank out a drama in order to cash in on 9/11 - hell, I wouldn't expect anything less from our tasteful media conglomerates - but it's quite another to essentially create a phony, five-hour-long, $40 million campaign commercial for the Republican party just months before an election.<br /><br />Things got worse when it was revealed that the writer of the movie, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/" target="_blank">conservative activist</a> who has spoken on panels with titles like "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift," has called Michael Moore "a socialist weasel," and recently gave an <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865" target="_blank">interview</a> to David Horowitz's <i>Front Page Magazine</i> where he said that "The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests." (He also said that "Syriana" is "a recruiting film for suicide bombers.")<br /><br />Those who are interested in learning more about Clinton's "lack of response" to terrorism can read up on the subject <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/84" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />Next, it was revealed that the director of the "The Path to 9/11," David L. Cunningham, is <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/" target="_blank">part of an evangelical Christian organization</a> called "The Film Institute," whose goal is to place activists within the movie industry, "not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out."<br /><br />One can only imagine how quickly ABC would have pulled this movie if bloggers had discovered that it was written, produced and directed by <i>liberal</i> activists with an agenda. But apparently if the right-wing wants to create a flawed and fictional account of the events leading up to 9/11, then ABC will go to the mat for them.<br /><br />Faced with a firestorm of criticism, ABC tried to <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2064148" target="_blank">cover its ass</a> by claiming that portions of "The Path to 9/11" would be re-edited and rewritten, that disclaimers would be shown throughout the movie, and that they would stop advertising it as "Based on the 9/11 Commission Report" and give a fuller description: "The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression." They did all this while <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-assures-bloggers" target="_blank">quietly assuring</a> right-wing bloggers that people who had seen the original screeners would barely notice the edits.<br /><br />And for some reason they seem to have left out the fact that one of the sources they used for the movie, John Miller, is a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004" target="_blank">Bush administration official</a>. (He also happened to review the movie for <i>National Review Online</i>, and guess what? <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzcxNGZkMGQ3Y2E3NjY4NmVlMzBkMWFiMDVkYmUzNWY=" target="_blank">He liked it</a>.<i>)</i><br /><br />But despite ABC's attempt to explain that their mockumentary is a "dramatization," <a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-markets-defamatory-911-show.html" target="_blank">here's</a> how they advertised the movie outside of the U.S.:<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259_911-1.jpg" border="0"></center><br />And <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk" target="_blank">here's a trailer</a>.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259_911-2.jpg" border="0"></center><br />So there you have it. While ABC feeds Americans a line of bullshit about disclaimers and re-writes, they're flogging the movie overseas as the "Official True Story" and "The story of exactly what happened."<br /><br />Can we please now - finally - take the myth of the "liberal media" out into the woods and shoot it?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>5.)Thomas Kean</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Faced with a barrage of criticism over "The Path to 9/11," conservatives have pointed to one man as their savior - Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, who was chief consultant for the movie. "But," they cry, "how can the movie be flawed if the head of the 9/11 Commission was responsible for checking the facts?"<br /><br />Of course, they fail to mention that Commission members Jamie Gorelick, Richard Ben-Veniste, Tim Roemer, and Bob Kerrey have all noted that the movie <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/" target="_blank">contains blatant fabrications which contradict the 9/11 Commission report</a>.<br /><br />They also fail to mention that Thomas Kean's son is the <a href="http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVs N2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTg3NTE1JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRX l5Mg==" target="_blank">Republican Senate candidate in New Jersey</a>, and the propaganda push assisted by ABC's movie will undoubtedly help him out in a tight race there. Kean himself said last week that he hadn't apologized to Bill Clinton for the inaccuracies in the movie, quipping, "No, he was out campaigning against my son yesterday, so I didn't reach out to him at all!" Hilarious.<br /><br />John Aravosis of AmericaBlog also <a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-consultant-tom-kean-lie-to.html" target="_blank">noted</a> last week that Kean previously claimed that he was not paid for his work on "The Path to 9/11," telling radio host Michelangelo Signorile, "Well, first of all, I'm not a paid consultant." But that doesn't seem to jive with a recent <i>New York Times</i> article which read, "Mr. Kean, who called Mr. Clinton a good friend, said it was outrageous to suggest he was being swayed by money or politics, and added that any fee he received would be donated to charity."<br /><br />Hmm. But I thought he wasn't a paid consultant?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>6.)George W. Bush</b></font><br /><br />Spurious George has been on a real roll lately, and last week he made four important announcements. First, he wants Congress to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090700837.html" target="_blank">pass new laws</a> giving him "additional authority" to conduct his warrantless wiretapping operation. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just an admission that he <i>didn't</i> have the legal authority to conduct this program previously? And if that's the case, doesn't it mean that he's been breaking the law this whole time? And if <i>that's</i> the case, then shouldn't the Republicans who control Congress perhaps hold some investigations or oversight hearings or...<br /><br />Ha ha! Yeah, right.<br /><br />Second, remember when the White House was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400867.html" target="_blank">fuming</a> about Dana Priest's <i>Washington Post </i>story on secret CIA prisons? Apparently that wasn't such a big deal after all, because last week Our Great Leader <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090602050.html?nav=rss_world" target="_blank">declared</a> that he was going to "transfer 14 suspected terrorists to a U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from secret CIA detention centers." It seems that George has had these suspected terrorists locked up for a few years now but hasn't actually been able to prosecute any of them.<br /><br />Which brings us to announcement three: the Bush administration has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094_pf.html" target="_blank">revealed</a> that - ta da! - they're going to start abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Which, as previously noted, seems to imply that for the past several years they <i>haven't </i> been abiding by the Geneva Conventions. So much for "<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-07-bush-terror-suspects_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA" target="_blank">We do not torture</a>."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.<br /><br />The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.</div><br />So now that the Bush administration have brought back those "quaint" Geneva Conventions, how's he going to deal with the terrorists? Well, Bush's fourth important announcement last week was that he's going to try the terror suspects in front of military tribunals. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15archive/&entry_id=8671" target="_blank">already said that those tribunals are illegal</a>. It's okay though - Bush's <i>new-and-improved</i> military tribunals will surely do the job!<br /><br />Try telling that to "key Republicans and top military lawyers."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">The Bush administration's proposal to bring leading terror suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance on Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said that some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation's tarnished reputation internationally. - <i><a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4171617.html" target="_blank">Houston Chronicle</a></i><br /><br />The U.S. military's top legal officers on Thursday criticized a White House plan for military tribunals to try foreign terrorism suspects because it would allow convictions based on evidence never seen by the defendants. The military judge advocates general, senior legal advisers to their branches of the armed forces, told Congress the plan failed to give suspects enough legal rights because it restricted their access to evidence. - <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07352722.htm" target="_blank">Reuters</a></div><br />So that's illegal secret prisons, illegal military tribunals, illegal torture, illegal warrantless wiretapping, and no successful convictions. Can't you do <i>anything </i>right, turd-boy?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>7.) Donald Rumsfeld</b></font><br /><br />Last week Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, a career soldier since 1977 and the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps, revealed details of the Bush administration's post-war planning in Iraq. Or lack thereof, as the case may be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/15473180.htm" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>Duluth News-Tribune</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.<br /><br />In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.</div><br />According to Scheid, Gen. Tommy Franks told planners to get ready for war in Afghanistan on September 11, 2001. "Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">"The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."<br /><br />Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.<br /><br />Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.<br /><br />"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.<br /><br />"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."</div><br />And here we are, three and a half years later, with 2600+ dead American soldiers, 20,000+ wounded, $300 billion spent, and no end in sight. Perhaps "Phase 5" should be Donald Rumsfeld's immediate resignation.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>8.) Tony Snow</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" border="0"> <br /><br />If you want to know how the administration is planning to con the American people one last time this fall, pay close attention to the words of Tony Snow last week. <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003087485" target="_blank">Here's</a> Snow at a recent White House press briefing:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.</div><br />Pretty good huh? One thing leads to another, and before you know it you're not just opposing Bush's illegal wiretapping program or the Constitution-shredding Patriot Act, you're on all fours in a cave in Afghanistan giving Osama bin Laden a reacharound.<br /><br />Tell you what, why doesn't Tony just take his line of thinking to its logical conclusion and suggest that those unnamed people in the Democratic Party should be locked up in a cage with hungry tigers? After all, following the law and upholding the Constitution is just so <i>un-American</i> these days.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>9.) Bob Beauprez</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/racism.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Time now to check out the <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_4956387,00.html" target="_blank">latest gaffe</a> from Colorado congressman Bob Beauprez. During a recent radio interview, Beauprez claimed that "In some of our ethnic communities, we're seeing very, very high percentages of babies, children, pregnancies end in abortion. I've seen numbers as high as 70 percent, maybe even more, in the African-American community that I think is just appalling."<br /><br />African-Americans abort 70% or more of their pregnancies? You know, I think I'll have to upgrade that from "gaffe" to "ignorant racist bullshit." <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_4956387,00.html" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>Rocky Mountain News</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">That figure was immediately challenged by black legislators, who said the rate of abortion in the black community is nowhere near that high.<br /><br />"Coloradans deserve better than Beauprez's disgusting demonstration of ignorance," state Rep. Rosemary Marshall said in a statement. "Beauprez should stop trying to push his anti-abortion agenda at the expense of African-Americans." </div><br />Beauprez later apologized, saying, "I was wrong about the statistic I quoted in a recent interview with Colorado Public Radio and I apologize to the African American Community and anyone else who was offended. I should have verified the statistic before repeating it."<br /><br />Uh... ya think?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>10.) The RNC</b></font><br /><br />And finally, want more evidence that the GOP has nothing to run on but fear this fall? Then check out this fantastic - and I mean that in the literal sense - new <a href="http://americaweakly.com/" target="_blank">website</a> presented by the Republican National Committee.<br /><br />The RNC is clearly devoid of any achievements that they can trumpet to voters, so instead they've come up with <i>America Weakly</i> - "a satirical publication containing fictional news stories of a fictitious future." If this is the best the RNC can do, then they really must be in trouble.<br /><br />Thrill to stories like, "Democrats: In Charge and Charged Up Back From Break, Dem Majority Ready to Roll":<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Six years ago, President Bush entered office promising to be a uniter, not a divider. The Democrats claimed he was lying, and to their credit, they made no such promises themselves. Reducing the partisan rancor in Washington was simply never part of their agenda. "We're not here to make friends," Speaker Pelosi said shortly after the 2006 election. "We're here to put the brakes on the President, and we'll use every means necessary to do it."</div><br />Swoon with delight to such articles as, "Just Say 'No': Dems End Security Measures":<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Because they are still subject to President Bush's veto pen, the Democrat majorities have made their biggest mark in foreign policy with funding decisions. For example, the Democrats zeroed out any money for the President's missile defense program. "The ability to shoot down missiles launched from South Korea is clearly provocative," House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos said. "If developing a system to shoot down those missiles is provoking them, then we shouldn't do so. Diplomacy is the answer."</div><br />Er, is referring to "missiles launched from South Korea" part of the joke?<br /><br />You know, I can do this too. Try these fictional news stories on for size...<br /><br />"Report: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida tie."<br /><br />"27 are hanged at Abu Ghraib in first mass execution since Saddam's fall."<br /><br />"Number of violent deaths in Baghdad shows no drop from previous month."<br /><br />"Press secretary to the president of Pakistan tells ABC Osama bin Laden will not be captured if he agrees to live 'peaceful life.'"<br /><br />"Wall St bank sees growing risk of U.S. recession."<br /><br />"Bush, GOP hoping terror card can save them from election drubbing."<br /><br />Er, just kidding. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report_12" target="_blank">Those</a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/08/wiraq08.xml" target="_blank">are</a> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-09-07-baghdad-deaths_x.htm" target="_blank">all</a> <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Press_secretary_to_president_of_Pakistan_0905.html " target="_blank">real</a> <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=economicNews&storyID=20 06-09-08T130805Z_01_N08366449_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-WALLST-RECESSION.XML" target="_blank">news</a> <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15441251.htm" target="_blank">stories</a>.<br /><br />No wonder the RNC has to resort to making stuff up. <br /><br />See you next week...<br /><br /><i>-- EarlG</i></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="10" cellpadding="0" class="post-message">
<tr valign="top">
<td width="1%"><img src="images/transparent.gif" height="1" width="48" border="0"></td>
<td width="99%">
<div class="medtext"><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259.jpg" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 259</b></font><br /><br />September 11, 2006<br /><i>Fun With Terrorism Edition</i><br /><br />It's been five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We here at Democratic Underground discussed the possibility of taking a break from the Top 10 list this week to observe the anniversary. But when it became apparent that many conservative idiots in government and the media intended to exploit the anniversary for their own cynical purposes, we thought we should probably point them out. Here is the 259th Top 10 Conservative Idiots. As usual, don't forget the <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/key.html" target="_blank">key</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>1.) George W. Bush</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/coveringass.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" <br /><br />Since today is the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it seems fitting that we focus on George W. Bush's efforts in the War on Terror - and if recent speeches by Our Great Leader are anything to go by, we've got a ways to go.<br /><br />But to begin, let's travel back in time to March 13, 2002, when George W. Bush held a press conference at the White House to discuss the nomination of Charles Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Since the press conference took place just six months after 9/11, Bush was inevitably asked whether there was any progress in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Here's his reply:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is - really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.<br /><br />Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just - he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is - as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide - if, in fact, he's hiding at all.<br /><br />So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. </div><br />As if that wasn't enough, Bush then reiterated:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I - I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.</div><br />Now, during the third presidential debate with John Kerry in 2004, Bush <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/175.html" target="_blank">denied</a> ever saying anything like this. But I'm afraid it's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html" target="_blank">right there on the White House website</a>.<br /><br />So how's Bush's "not that concerned about him" plan working out? Well, since the GOP have got absolutely nothing left to run on but "Terror, Terror and More Terror" this fall, Osama is making a comeback.<br /><br />Last week Bush was interviewed - and I use that term loosely - by Katie Couric on CBS's nightly news broadcast. <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06251150.htm" target="_blank">According to</a> Reuters:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">President George W. Bush on Wednesday said capturing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who has eluded a U.S. manhunt since the Sept. 11 attacks five years ago, still mattered.<br /><br />"He's hiding. And we're on the hunt, obviously," Bush said in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News before his speech announcing that 14 high-level terrorism suspects had been transferred from secret CIA custody to the Defense Department's facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.<br /><br />"Of course. It matters. He's, he's the head of al Qaeda," Bush said. "But one thing is for certain, though, he's, he's not moving like he used to. Another thing is ... he's, you know, not communicating like he used to."<br /><br />The hunt continues for bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, as well as others, Bush said. "And we'll get him. It's just a matter of time. We've got a unit in the CIA who is spending a lot of time thinking about these high-value targets," he said.</div><br />Uh, gee, would that be the unit that was <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13699308/" target="_blank">disbanded</a> last year? But anyway - you heard the man. "It matters." "We'll get him." "We're on the hunt." "It's just a matter of time."<br /><br />How much time?<br /><br />Because it's been almost five years since <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/" target="_blank">Bush said</a>, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" And it's been just over four years since <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cp.00.html" target="_blank">Bush said</a>, "In terms of Mr. bin Laden himself, we'll get him running. We'll smoke him out of his cave and we'll get him eventually."<br /><br />Perhaps the Bush administration would have better luck if they started blowing smoke into bin Laden's cave instead of blowing it up each other's asses.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>2.) The Bush Administration</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/fearmongering.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/fearmongering.gif" border="0"><br /><br />But despite ignoring him for five years, the Bushies are bringing Osama bin Laden back with a vengeance this fall. The Rude Pundit <a href="http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/couple-of-numbers-from-bushs-speeches.html" target="_blank">notes</a> that in Bush's three recent terror speeches, bin Laden's name was mentioned 29 times (9/11 was mentioned 65 times).<br /><br />But it's okay, because the Bush administration has come up with a great new way to deal with the Al Qaeda leader - they've given him a web page. You see, terrorism is not just about violence. Terrorists don't just use violent attacks to destroy particular targets - they use those attacks to force us to live in constant fear that they could attack again. I guess that's why it's called "terrorism." And apparently the Bush administration thinks that this isn't such a bad theory, which is why they've <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html" target="_blank">dedicated a whole page</a> to terrorists' statements. Sure, the American homeland hasn't been attacked in the last five years - but it could happen at any moment, people! Be vigilant, and vote Republican!<br /><br />Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the terrorists want - to terrorize us? Is it really necessary for the Bush administration to help them out by posting their statements on the White House website? And more to the point, are you shitting your pants yet?<br /><br />Meanwhile, the <i>Washington Post</i> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901105.html" target="_blank">reports</a> that the bin Laden's trail has gone "stone cold."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world - no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image - has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />After playing down bin Laden's importance and barely mentioning him for several years, Bush last week repeatedly invoked his name and quoted from his writings and speeches to underscore what Bush said is the continuing threat of terrorism.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.<br /><br />That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.<br /><br />"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."'</div><br />In light of these new reports, it's a little confusing to me that the Bush administration is suddenly invoking bin Laden's name at every turn and giving him a whole bunch of free advertising. Unless they've already got him in a deep freezer somewhere ready to drag out three days before the elections, of course.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>3.) The Bush Administration</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/lying.gif" border="0"> <br /><br />Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee declassified a special report on the links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda last Friday. The <i>Washington Post </i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html?referrer=email" target="_blank">reports</a>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.</div><br />My goodness! That almost sounds like the president and his senior officials were lying willfully and repeatedly to the nation in order to get us into a disastrous war in Iraq which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of almost 3,000 American soldiers. Say it ain't so.<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about (Osama) bin Laden."<br /><br />The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.</div><br />Wow. So I guess it wasn't true when George W. Bush <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html" target="_blank">said</a>, "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." Or when Dick Cheney <a href="http://www.bushoniraq.com/cheney8.html" target="_blank">said</a>, "His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." Or <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293" target="_blank">all the other times</a> that they linked Saddam and Al Qaeda. Hmm.<br /><br />Still, at least Our Great Leader hasn't made any recent connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Right?<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">As recently as Aug. 21, Bush suggested a link between Hussein and Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces this summer. But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the report.</div><br />Oh, okay. Er, can we impeach him now?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>4.) ABC</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/lying.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"><br /><br />If you're reading this on Monday, then ABC is halfway through their five-hour "Path to 9/11" crockudrama, despite numerous protests to drop the movie due to its fictionalization of the events leading up to September 11, 2001. Condemnation for "The Path to 9/11" has been almost universal, from <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/" target="_blank">Bill Clinton</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/washington/07path.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">members of his administration</a>, to <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4171409.html" target="_blank">newspaper editorials</a> and <a href="http://suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html" target="_blank">reviews</a>, to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/" target="_blank">consultants</a>, to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/" target="_blank">members of the 9/11 Commission</a>, to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/bozell-edit/" target="_blank">quite</a> <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/08/chris-wallace-slams-abc-on-911-project-i-think-its-slanderous-i-think-its-defamatory-and-i-think-that-abc-and-disney-should-be-held-to-account/" target="_blank">a</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/video-bill-bennett-says-abc-should-correct-those-inaccuracies-in-path-to-911/" target="_blank">few</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/" target="_blank">conservatives</a>. Even <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/harvey-keitel-speaks-out-on-path-to-911-it-turned-out-not-all-the-facts-were-correct/" target="_blank">Harvey Keitel</a> thinks it's rubbish, and he's the star.<br /><br />ABC's response? <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2406097&page=1" target="_blank">Go screw yourselves</a>.<br /><br />But let's back up a little. The controversy over "The Path to 9/11" began when ABC mysteriously provided advance screeners to right-wing bloggers and commentators only. Rush Limbaugh got one, but Bill Clinton did not. And when Bill Clinton asked for a copy, he <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/" target="_blank">still didn't get one</a>.<br /><br />When word leaked that the movie contained <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html" target="_blank">fictionalized scenes designed to make the Clinton administration look like buffoons</a> while puffing up the Bush administration, the shit hit the fan. It's one thing to crank out a drama in order to cash in on 9/11 - hell, I wouldn't expect anything less from our tasteful media conglomerates - but it's quite another to essentially create a phony, five-hour-long, $40 million campaign commercial for the Republican party just months before an election.<br /><br />Things got worse when it was revealed that the writer of the movie, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/" target="_blank">conservative activist</a> who has spoken on panels with titles like "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift," has called Michael Moore "a socialist weasel," and recently gave an <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865" target="_blank">interview</a> to David Horowitz's <i>Front Page Magazine</i> where he said that "The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests." (He also said that "Syriana" is "a recruiting film for suicide bombers.")<br /><br />Those who are interested in learning more about Clinton's "lack of response" to terrorism can read up on the subject <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/84" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />Next, it was revealed that the director of the "The Path to 9/11," David L. Cunningham, is <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/" target="_blank">part of an evangelical Christian organization</a> called "The Film Institute," whose goal is to place activists within the movie industry, "not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out."<br /><br />One can only imagine how quickly ABC would have pulled this movie if bloggers had discovered that it was written, produced and directed by <i>liberal</i> activists with an agenda. But apparently if the right-wing wants to create a flawed and fictional account of the events leading up to 9/11, then ABC will go to the mat for them.<br /><br />Faced with a firestorm of criticism, ABC tried to <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2064148" target="_blank">cover its ass</a> by claiming that portions of "The Path to 9/11" would be re-edited and rewritten, that disclaimers would be shown throughout the movie, and that they would stop advertising it as "Based on the 9/11 Commission Report" and give a fuller description: "The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression." They did all this while <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-assures-bloggers" target="_blank">quietly assuring</a> right-wing bloggers that people who had seen the original screeners would barely notice the edits.<br /><br />And for some reason they seem to have left out the fact that one of the sources they used for the movie, John Miller, is a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004" target="_blank">Bush administration official</a>. (He also happened to review the movie for <i>National Review Online</i>, and guess what? <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzcxNGZkMGQ3Y2E3NjY4NmVlMzBkMWFiMDVkYmUzNWY=" target="_blank">He liked it</a>.<i>)</i><br /><br />But despite ABC's attempt to explain that their mockumentary is a "dramatization," <a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-markets-defamatory-911-show.html" target="_blank">here's</a> how they advertised the movie outside of the U.S.:<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259_911-1.jpg" border="0"></center><br />And <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk" target="_blank">here's a trailer</a>.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259_911-2.jpg" border="0"></center><br />So there you have it. While ABC feeds Americans a line of bullshit about disclaimers and re-writes, they're flogging the movie overseas as the "Official True Story" and "The story of exactly what happened."<br /><br />Can we please now - finally - take the myth of the "liberal media" out into the woods and shoot it?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>5.)Thomas Kean</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Faced with a barrage of criticism over "The Path to 9/11," conservatives have pointed to one man as their savior - Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, who was chief consultant for the movie. "But," they cry, "how can the movie be flawed if the head of the 9/11 Commission was responsible for checking the facts?"<br /><br />Of course, they fail to mention that Commission members Jamie Gorelick, Richard Ben-Veniste, Tim Roemer, and Bob Kerrey have all noted that the movie <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/" target="_blank">contains blatant fabrications which contradict the 9/11 Commission report</a>.<br /><br />They also fail to mention that Thomas Kean's son is the <a href="http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVs N2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTg3NTE1JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRX l5Mg==" target="_blank">Republican Senate candidate in New Jersey</a>, and the propaganda push assisted by ABC's movie will undoubtedly help him out in a tight race there. Kean himself said last week that he hadn't apologized to Bill Clinton for the inaccuracies in the movie, quipping, "No, he was out campaigning against my son yesterday, so I didn't reach out to him at all!" Hilarious.<br /><br />John Aravosis of AmericaBlog also <a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-consultant-tom-kean-lie-to.html" target="_blank">noted</a> last week that Kean previously claimed that he was not paid for his work on "The Path to 9/11," telling radio host Michelangelo Signorile, "Well, first of all, I'm not a paid consultant." But that doesn't seem to jive with a recent <i>New York Times</i> article which read, "Mr. Kean, who called Mr. Clinton a good friend, said it was outrageous to suggest he was being swayed by money or politics, and added that any fee he received would be donated to charity."<br /><br />Hmm. But I thought he wasn't a paid consultant?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>6.)George W. Bush</b></font><br /><br />Spurious George has been on a real roll lately, and last week he made four important announcements. First, he wants Congress to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090700837.html" target="_blank">pass new laws</a> giving him "additional authority" to conduct his warrantless wiretapping operation. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just an admission that he <i>didn't</i> have the legal authority to conduct this program previously? And if that's the case, doesn't it mean that he's been breaking the law this whole time? And if <i>that's</i> the case, then shouldn't the Republicans who control Congress perhaps hold some investigations or oversight hearings or...<br /><br />Ha ha! Yeah, right.<br /><br />Second, remember when the White House was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400867.html" target="_blank">fuming</a> about Dana Priest's <i>Washington Post </i>story on secret CIA prisons? Apparently that wasn't such a big deal after all, because last week Our Great Leader <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090602050.html?nav=rss_world" target="_blank">declared</a> that he was going to "transfer 14 suspected terrorists to a U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from secret CIA detention centers." It seems that George has had these suspected terrorists locked up for a few years now but hasn't actually been able to prosecute any of them.<br /><br />Which brings us to announcement three: the Bush administration has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094_pf.html" target="_blank">revealed</a> that - ta da! - they're going to start abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Which, as previously noted, seems to imply that for the past several years they <i>haven't </i> been abiding by the Geneva Conventions. So much for "<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-07-bush-terror-suspects_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA" target="_blank">We do not torture</a>."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.<br /><br />The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.</div><br />So now that the Bush administration have brought back those "quaint" Geneva Conventions, how's he going to deal with the terrorists? Well, Bush's fourth important announcement last week was that he's going to try the terror suspects in front of military tribunals. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15archive/&entry_id=8671" target="_blank">already said that those tribunals are illegal</a>. It's okay though - Bush's <i>new-and-improved</i> military tribunals will surely do the job!<br /><br />Try telling that to "key Republicans and top military lawyers."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">The Bush administration's proposal to bring leading terror suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance on Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said that some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation's tarnished reputation internationally. - <i><a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4171617.html" target="_blank">Houston Chronicle</a></i><br /><br />The U.S. military's top legal officers on Thursday criticized a White House plan for military tribunals to try foreign terrorism suspects because it would allow convictions based on evidence never seen by the defendants. The military judge advocates general, senior legal advisers to their branches of the armed forces, told Congress the plan failed to give suspects enough legal rights because it restricted their access to evidence. - <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07352722.htm" target="_blank">Reuters</a></div><br />So that's illegal secret prisons, illegal military tribunals, illegal torture, illegal warrantless wiretapping, and no successful convictions. Can't you do <i>anything </i>right, turd-boy?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>7.) Donald Rumsfeld</b></font><br /><br />Last week Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, a career soldier since 1977 and the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps, revealed details of the Bush administration's post-war planning in Iraq. Or lack thereof, as the case may be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/15473180.htm" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>Duluth News-Tribune</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.<br /><br />In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.</div><br />According to Scheid, Gen. Tommy Franks told planners to get ready for war in Afghanistan on September 11, 2001. "Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq."<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">"The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."<br /><br />Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.<br /><br />Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.<br /><br />"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.<br /><br />"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."</div><br />And here we are, three and a half years later, with 2600+ dead American soldiers, 20,000+ wounded, $300 billion spent, and no end in sight. Perhaps "Phase 5" should be Donald Rumsfeld's immediate resignation.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>8.) Tony Snow</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" border="0"> <br /><br />If you want to know how the administration is planning to con the American people one last time this fall, pay close attention to the words of Tony Snow last week. <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003087485" target="_blank">Here's</a> Snow at a recent White House press briefing:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.</div><br />Pretty good huh? One thing leads to another, and before you know it you're not just opposing Bush's illegal wiretapping program or the Constitution-shredding Patriot Act, you're on all fours in a cave in Afghanistan giving Osama bin Laden a reacharound.<br /><br />Tell you what, why doesn't Tony just take his line of thinking to its logical conclusion and suggest that those unnamed people in the Democratic Party should be locked up in a cage with hungry tigers? After all, following the law and upholding the Constitution is just so <i>un-American</i> these days.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>9.) Bob Beauprez</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/racism.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Time now to check out the <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_4956387,00.html" target="_blank">latest gaffe</a> from Colorado congressman Bob Beauprez. During a recent radio interview, Beauprez claimed that "In some of our ethnic communities, we're seeing very, very high percentages of babies, children, pregnancies end in abortion. I've seen numbers as high as 70 percent, maybe even more, in the African-American community that I think is just appalling."<br /><br />African-Americans abort 70% or more of their pregnancies? You know, I think I'll have to upgrade that from "gaffe" to "ignorant racist bullshit." <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_4956387,00.html" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>Rocky Mountain News</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">That figure was immediately challenged by black legislators, who said the rate of abortion in the black community is nowhere near that high.<br /><br />"Coloradans deserve better than Beauprez's disgusting demonstration of ignorance," state Rep. Rosemary Marshall said in a statement. "Beauprez should stop trying to push his anti-abortion agenda at the expense of African-Americans." </div><br />Beauprez later apologized, saying, "I was wrong about the statistic I quoted in a recent interview with Colorado Public Radio and I apologize to the African American Community and anyone else who was offended. I should have verified the statistic before repeating it."<br /><br />Uh... ya think?<br /><br /><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>10.) The RNC</b></font><br /><br />And finally, want more evidence that the GOP has nothing to run on but fear this fall? Then check out this fantastic - and I mean that in the literal sense - new <a href="http://americaweakly.com/" target="_blank">website</a> presented by the Republican National Committee.<br /><br />The RNC is clearly devoid of any achievements that they can trumpet to voters, so instead they've come up with <i>America Weakly</i> - "a satirical publication containing fictional news stories of a fictitious future." If this is the best the RNC can do, then they really must be in trouble.<br /><br />Thrill to stories like, "Democrats: In Charge and Charged Up Back From Break, Dem Majority Ready to Roll":<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Six years ago, President Bush entered office promising to be a uniter, not a divider. The Democrats claimed he was lying, and to their credit, they made no such promises themselves. Reducing the partisan rancor in Washington was simply never part of their agenda. "We're not here to make friends," Speaker Pelosi said shortly after the 2006 election. "We're here to put the brakes on the President, and we'll use every means necessary to do it."</div><br />Swoon with delight to such articles as, "Just Say 'No': Dems End Security Measures":<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Because they are still subject to President Bush's veto pen, the Democrat majorities have made their biggest mark in foreign policy with funding decisions. For example, the Democrats zeroed out any money for the President's missile defense program. "The ability to shoot down missiles launched from South Korea is clearly provocative," House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos said. "If developing a system to shoot down those missiles is provoking them, then we shouldn't do so. Diplomacy is the answer."</div><br />Er, is referring to "missiles launched from South Korea" part of the joke?<br /><br />You know, I can do this too. Try these fictional news stories on for size...<br /><br />"Report: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida tie."<br /><br />"27 are hanged at Abu Ghraib in first mass execution since Saddam's fall."<br /><br />"Number of violent deaths in Baghdad shows no drop from previous month."<br /><br />"Press secretary to the president of Pakistan tells ABC Osama bin Laden will not be captured if he agrees to live 'peaceful life.'"<br /><br />"Wall St bank sees growing risk of U.S. recession."<br /><br />"Bush, GOP hoping terror card can save them from election drubbing."<br /><br />Er, just kidding. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report_12" target="_blank">Those</a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/08/wiraq08.xml" target="_blank">are</a> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-09-07-baghdad-deaths_x.htm" target="_blank">all</a> <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Press_secretary_to_president_of_Pakistan_0905.html " target="_blank">real</a> <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=economicNews&storyID=20 06-09-08T130805Z_01_N08366449_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-WALLST-RECESSION.XML" target="_blank">news</a> <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15441251.htm" target="_blank">stories</a>.<br /><br />No wonder the RNC has to resort to making stuff up. <br /><br />See you next week...<br /><br /><i>-- EarlG</i></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
Comment