9/11 terrorist's files destroyed by Clinton's pentagon
09.27.05 (5:14 pm) [edit][b]Atta files destroyed by Pentagon[/b]-- http://www.washtimes.com/nati...
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 22, 2005
Pentagon lawyers during the Clinton administration ordered the destruction of intelligence reports that identified September 11 leader Mohamed Atta months before the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, according to congressional testimony yesterday.
A lawyer for two Pentagon whistleblowers also told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that the Defense Intelligence Agency last year destroyed files on the Army's computer data-mining program known as Able Danger to avoid disclosing the information.
Retired Army Maj. Erik Kleinsmith, former director of the Army Land Information Warfare Center, told the panel he was directed by Pentagon lawyers to delete 2? terabytes of computer data -- the equivalent of one-quarter of the information in the Library of Congress -- on Able Danger in May or June 2000 because of legal concerns about information on U.S. citizens.
Maj. Kleinsmith said keeping the data beyond 90 days would have violated an Army directive limiting the collection of information on U.S. citizens.
"Yes, I could have conveniently forgot to delete the data, and we could have kept it," Maj. Kleinsmith said. "But I knowingly would have been in violation of the regulation."
The attorney for two Pentagon officials involved in Able Danger testified that the program did not identify Atta as being in the United States, only that he was linked by analysts to an al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, N.Y.
"At no time did Able Danger identify Mohamed Atta as being physically present in the United States," said Mark Zaid, who represents Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, an intelligence analyst, and J.D. Smith, a defense official, who both claim Able Danger data was mishandled.
"And no information at the time that they obtained would have led anyone to believe that criminal activity had taken place or that any specific terrorist activities were
being planned. All they developed were associational links."
Mr. Zaid said Able Danger-related data, including possibly a chart containing a photo of Atta, that was compiled by Orion Scientific, was destroyed by DIA some time in the spring of 2004 after the official who held the material had his security clearance revoked.
The Senate hearing included testimony from Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, who first went public with information that the Army intelligence unit had uncovered information on Atta in Brooklyn, and three other of the September 11 suicide hijackers in 2000 through the computer-based program that sifted both secret intelligence and unclassified databases for information.
"Over the past three months, I have witnessed denial, deception, threats to [Defense Department] employees, character assassination, and now silence," said Mr. Weldon.
He said that if the information had been handled properly "it might have had an impact on the most significant attack ever against our country and our citizens." He charged that the government commission that investigated September 11 had overlooked the Able Danger material on Atta.
A recent Pentagon inquiry into the matter found no reports linking Atta to a Brooklyn al Qaeda cell. However, investigators uncovered one report linking al Qaeda leader Mohammed Atef, to Islamists in Brooklyn. Atef was killed in Afghanistan in 2001.
Mr. Weldon said he thinks Able Danger was shut down after a "profile" of Chinese weapons proliferation linked two Americans to Chinese students at Stanford University engaged in technology acquisition for China.
During the profile, the names of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, at the time the Stanford University provost, and former Defense Secretary William Perry were mentioned in the data and created "a wave of controversy," he said.
After Congress sought the data, "tremendous pressure was placed on the Army, because this was a prototype operation, and they shut down the Able Danger operation," Mr. Weldon said.
Global warming not the cause of nastier hurricanes-- it's just natural
09.27.05 (2:39 pm) [edit]The problem with most people regarding our weather is that they only believe what they can observe and remember. They don't really care about graphs, charts, data, you know? They look back to when they were a kid and "can't remember so many hot days" or "can't remember hurricanes like this." But history and science does, and that's why we have scientists and historians to give us a freakin' clue. We can choose to believe it or not, but it's always there.
Katrina was another golden opportunity to blame President Bush for somehow "creating" Katrina because he (thank God) wouldn't sign the economy-killer Kyoto Treaty, meaning that he is single-handedly ruining the planet by creating global warming. It's another "gotcha" moment for the eco-nuts, but it's not really true.
"Nasty Hurrican Season is Merely Part of a Cycle"-- Washington Times-- http://washingtontimes.com/na...
Now, there [i]is[/i] global warming out there, it's a natural occurence. But man's affect on global warming has never been proven. In fact, it was reported last year that the sun, not Bush, has the most to do with our global climate change. The sun is burning more brightly now, more intensely, than it has the last 1,000 years. [i]That[/i] is causing Katrina, not W.
"The Truth about Global Warming-- It's the Sun that's to Blame"-- UK Telegraph-- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
Media's shameful coverage of Katrina aftermath the real scandal-- most of it untrue
09.27.05 (2:23 pm) [edit]Raped [i]babies[/i]. Murders. 10,000 dead. Cannibalism. Piles and piles of dead bodies. No food. And all of it George Bush's fault. These are the basic affirmations we were to glean from the media's coverage of hurricane Katrina. And the coverage was a gigantic pack of lies. It didn't help that President Bush took the blame, but he did so [i]because[/i] of the political firestorm the media created.
Don't look to this conservative guy for proof, go to the left-wing LA Times and the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
LA Times "Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy"-- http://www.latimes.com/news/n...,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home-headli nes
Times-Picayune "Rumors of Deaths Greatly Exaggerated"-- http://www.nola.com/newslogs/...
Anyone with a basic whiff of Louisiana politics and a desire to know the truth should have realized early on the New Orleans has been forever hopelessly corrupt and the Governor hopelessly inept. Those left-wingers who have a childish appreciation of the federal government-- one minute the government should not infringe upon your rights, the next they should establish martial law at every natural disaster-- chose to ignore the role of the first response to the hurricane. And that had nothing to do with the federal government. As the beleagured former FEMA director Michael Brown accurately testified to Congress today, FEMA is not a first responder and neither is the national guard. The city of NO and Louisiana were responsible for the initial response and anything else the feds did had to be cleared by the people of the state of Louisiana. If you look at how well the government in Mississippi worked with the feds and contrast it with Louisiana and the feds it may dawn on you that Louisiana, to use Brown's words, is truly "disfunctional".
But now, because of this, we have Bush prepared to spend billions we don't have and won't sacrifice to get (thanks, libs) and increase the power of the government by giving the military a greater role when a disaster like Katrina hits. Soon, when this dies down, we'll hear the libs complaining about Bush the power-hungry, squasher of states' rights who increased the deficit another 200 billion because he didn't raise taxes.
The real scandal here is the shameful media's coverage of Katrina-- it made us a laughingstock of the world and a scapegoat out of our president.
How feminism objectifies women
09.25.05 (3:38 am) [edit]An excellent column by Rich Lowry, "Female Chauvenist Pigs". An excerpt:
"No lustful man would have looked at Gloria Steinem in the 1970s and thought, “She is going to help fulfill my most absurd voyeuristic fantasies.” But the currents unleashed by feminism, especially the drive to have women behave like men, have done just that. The mother of the hyper-sexualized pop star Christina Aguilera has said of her daughter, “She’s a wonderful role model, trying to change society so that a woman can do whatever men do.” Since women don’t have the same interest in seeing members of the opposite sex expose themselves and dress in skimpy bunny costumes as men do, acting like men effectively means objectifying women, too, playing along with the sweaty teenage fantasies. Levy describes going to a gathering of a group called CAKE, devoted to female sexuality” and experiencing “feminism in action.” It devolves into women performing Sapphic sex acts for the men in the crowd."
Read more- http://nationalreview.com/low...
There is no cure for the UN
09.15.05 (1:46 pm) [edit]Mark Steyn has written his best column in some time. Very good-- http://www.spectator.co.uk/ar... .
Frankly, we're living in the best time in history
09.14.05 (11:46 am) [edit]A wonderful column by John Stossel. It puts things in perspective-- http://www.townhall.com/colum...
Flight 93 Memorial: Monumental Surrender
09.14.05 (11:36 am) [edit][b]Monumental surrender[/b]
Michelle Malkin - http://www.michellemalkin.com...
September 14, 2005
I am not an architect, but here is my 9/11 architectural philosophy: War memorials should memorialize war. If you want peace and understanding and healing and good will toward all, go build Kabbalah centers.
Please, for the sake of those who have sacrificed, let's put the design of war memorials in the hands of creative people committed to erecting monuments of courage over capitulation.
This past weekend, to mark the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Discovery Channel aired a searing documentary on Flight 93. It was the "Flight That Fought Back" against al Qaeda hijackers who crashed the United Airlines plane into a field outside of Shanksville, Pa. -- 15 minutes' flying time from the nation's capital and the killers' likely target, the White House.
The movie fleshed out many of the heroes of Flight 93 through actual cell phone recordings and interviews with relatives. One was Alice Hoglan, mother of Mark Bingham, who encouraged her son not to sit back and surrender. These are excerpts from a voice mail message Mrs. Hoglan left for Bingham during the hijacking:
"Mark, this is your mom. It's 10:54 a.m. [Eastern time]. The news is that it's been hijacked by terrorists. They are planning to probably use the plane as a target to hit some site on the ground. So if you possibly can, try to overpower these guys if you can -- 'cause they will probably use the plane as a target. I would say go ahead and do everything you can to overpower them, because they're hell-bent. You know the number here. OK, I love you sweetie. Bye."
Throughout the documentary, family members recounted the take-charge, can-do attitudes of their loved ones. These were Americans who refused to sit down and be quiet and allow Islamic terrorists unfettered control over the flight stick of history. These were doers, not hand-wringers, who engaged in a violent and valiant struggle against evil.
I remind you of all this because the official Flight 93 memorial unveiled last week is now embroiled in overdue public controversy. Funded with a mix of public money and private cash (including a $500,000 grant from Teresa Heinz's far-left Heinz Endowments), the winning design, titled the "Crescent of Embrace," features a grove of maple trees ringing the crash site in the shape of an unmistakable red crescent. The crescent, New York University Middle East Studies professor Bernard Haykel told the Johnstown, Pa., Tribune-Democrat, "is the symbol of ritual and religious life for Muslims."
Some design contest jury members reportedly raised concerns about the jarring symbol of the hijackers' faith implanted on the hallowed ground where the passengers of Flight 93 were murdered. But their recommendations to change the name of the memorial (to "Arc of Embrace," or some such whitewashing) were ignored. Memorial architect Paul Murdoch, whose firm emphasizes "environmental responsibility and sustainability," did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment, but he did emphasize to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that his creation was about "healing" and "contemplation." He is also proud of his idea to hang a bunch of wind chimes in a tall tower at the site as a "gesture of healing and bonding."
Wind chimes? Hey, why not add pinwheels and smiley face stickers and Care Bears while we're at it, too?
Let's set aside the utter boneheaded-ness of using a symbol that, inadvertently or not, commemorates the killers' faith instead of the victims' revolt. The soft-and-fuzzy memorial design of "Crescent of Embrace" still does injustice to the steely courage of Flight 93's passengers and crew. It evokes the defeatism embodied by those behind a similar move to turn the 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero in New York City into a pacifist guilt complex.
This is no way to fight a war. Or to remember those who have died fighting it.
A proper war memorial stirs to anger and action. We all remember passenger Todd Beamer's last heard words as he and his fellow Americans prepared to take back the plane from al Qaeda's killers, don't we?
No, the phrase wasn't "Let's meditate." It was "Let's roll."
(View the memorial design at http://www.flight93memorialpr... Voice your concerns by e-mailing FLNI_Superintendent@nps.gov.)
Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at michellemalkin.com.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Flight 93 Memorial: a Memorial to the victims or the hijackers?
09.10.05 (10:49 am) [edit]The Shanksville, Pa. memorial to flight 93 has been picked- http://www.post-gazette.com/p... , and it's a doozy. The "Crescent of Embrace" is designed to memorialize those who fought back with a tower, windchimes, and maple trees, but its general shape has caused cries of outrage.
The crescent is the traditional Islamic symbol, and since monuments are all about symbols, it seems to be either a massive architectural mistake, or intentional (as in some sort of morally equivalent slap in the face).
Why would the architect choose a crescent in the first place? Was it a mistake? I don't think so. Architects know what they're doing, and they know symbolism. The crescent symbol is not prevalent in US architecture-- but it is in "other" parts of the world.
What a horrific, obscene insult.
Michelle Malkin has more-- http://michellemalkin.com/arc...
Mark Steyn: Katrina proves the failure of local, national govt. post 9-11
09.05.05 (8:00 am) [edit]Not so sure I totally agree with this, but he has some good points. Worth reading-- http://www.suntimes.com/outpu... .
What's wrong with these people?
09.05.05 (7:40 am) [edit]From David Frum's Diary- http://frum.nationalreview.co... , on the Left wing's madness re: Katrina and Bush:
[i]To review the wild, contradictory, and utterly opportunistic charges from the administration's critics is to enter a realm of madness. . . .Is there not something bizarre about their willingness to fire off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the environment from global warming .... no, no, it was caused by the administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more levees to control the Mississippi River .... it's Iraq, no it's budget cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.
Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political opportunity?[/i]
My answer? Nope. These guys are completely bonkers.
World's reaction to US Katrina disaster naive at best
09.02.05 (3:32 pm) [edit]Apparently, the world thinks that the chaos in New Orleans is somehow an indication of US divisions and character-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20... .
Of course, no one batted an eye when thousands upon thousands died in Europe last year during their heat wave. No one wondered how people could be left to die by vacationing French bureacrats in their apartments. When a mine explodes in China on a routine basis, no one cares. When mudslides kill 50,000 in India or Vietnam or Central America, that's life. But somehow the US is supposed to just take on everything-- including mother nature-- and win.
That is an image we didn't create. That is an image the rest of the world created for us in their hatred of us.
It is ironic, too. This one nation that helps so many others when tragedy hits gets sneered at when it has trouble encountering a situation that has never happened before. None of these nations, to my recollection, have responded in any better way to natural disasters. When there was a massive earthquake in Iran a couple of years ago, tens of thousands died. No one rebuilt. When there was massive flooding throughout Europe five or six years ago, everyone sat back helpless and watched Europe flood. And you didn't hear the US jeering because of it.
No one can stop a natural disaster. No one could stop New Orleans, or Europe, from flooding. These things happen. We need to learn from them and adapt and prepare. But the last thing we need is resentment from the rest of the world. Lord knows we spend enough US money to help them. If they're not going to help us, the very least these civilized folk can do is shut the hell up.
And one more thing: for Jessie Jackson to be throwing his girth around calling this a race issue is beyond sick. I know that's how he keeps himself amply fed, but the truth is that most of the poor people in New Orleans were black. And, unfortunately, they could not evacuate. And, most unfortunately, no one thought the levies would break. We would not even be discussing race or America's bungling of the rescue effort if the levies had held.
You learn and you move on.
BONUS: Wonder who probably ended up saving hundreds of thousands of lives in New Orleans? Try President Bush who appealed for the unprecedented mandatory evacuation of the city in the first place-- http://www.nola.com/newsflash... . I know that those civilized Europeans never had to evactuate anyone like that, but that's the point. They have no right to criticize something they've never had to deal with (like feed the world, peacekeep the world, save the world, etc....)