Can you believe that summer is almost over?

Of course, sitting in my dungeon as I do 12 hours a day, the seasons all seem to run together. Why its seems like only yesterday I was hosting the Bonfire during Super Bowl week. This made for a ready-to-burn Bonfire motif, something sadly missing from this week’s conflagration. I guess what that means is that I’ll have to rely on my wit and wisdom to pull off the snarkiness necessary to make this week’s bunch of Bonfire fodder worth reading. Let’s see who wants to step up and get swatted first…

While not technically a Bonfire post, this Bonfire reminder from Kevin had some guy named Don Surber scheduled to host today instead of me. And this after Kevin had been begging me for months to once again lay my magic pen on his little bonfire project. (I really do hate it when the little people get all gushy on me).

And speaking of Don Surber... Next week’s Bonfire host has a horribly persnickety post about people who don’t tag their links to open in a new window. Well Jeee Zuz Chriminy! What a grouch. And you oughta know by now Don that if you tell someone to do something one way, they’ll make damn sure to do it the opposite.

Andrew at Dodgeblogium goes after Mr. Wills who hosted the Carnival of the Vanities last week and had the temerity to actually rate the posts submitted. I got a “8.” What’d you get Andrew? Andrew?

I can see why Harvey at Bad Example wanted to roast this post…it’s incomprehensible. For instance, what’s a “Numa Numa Dance?” See! I knew you’d hate it too.

This totally worthless piece is from Brian J. Noggle (I heartily distrust anyone who puts their middle initial in the name of their blog). What passes for a “musing” is truly obscure. Who cares about the Cardinals anyway – they will be toast when they meet my beloved White Sox in the World Series.

Bill at Pirates Cove compares Judith Miller to Charles Manson. Nice try Bill. I’m sure Judith Miller does not think she is Jesus Christ (I’m not so sure about her bosses at the Times).

Blog d’Ellision (mmmm…sounds French. I already hate it) gives us a wooden post about Velociman who I take it is another blogger. God, I hate inside blog jokes. Nice picture, though.

This link from Technogypsy is unfair. It leads to another post whose obscurance is matched only by the brevity and incoherence of the writing. But that’s not why it’s unfair. The link also displays last week’s Bonfire that he hosted! Talking about milking your Bonfire for all that it’s worth! Clever, but not quite clever enough! (Note: This link from the gypsy also came in the mail. It seems that I received the tail end of last week’s mail. But it’s okay. I’ll get Surber to link this Bonfire next week too)

Baboon Pirates is in a snit because they’ve banned wood chippers in the “euthanizing” (I prefer “slaughter”) of poultry. This is truly a fowl post – real bird droppings. (Insert stupid pun here.)

The Conservative Cat must be off his meds. Ferdy the cat definitely needs professional help writing about Star Trek and pedophilia in the same post. I know, I know…it was some moonbat psychologist from Huffington Post. But for God’s sake, don’t encourage the witch!

Rusty Shakleford at Jawa Report almost didn’t get this link. How can we throw a post with gorgeous, young (emphasize young as in “jailbait”) nubile, half naked, smiling, innocent girls on the Bonfire? Okay Doc…you got your link (and your traffic no doubt.)

HectorVex has a conversation with Cindy Sheehan and David Duke. I think it’s fictitious but it sounds just a bit too plausible for parody. Next time, try Sheehan and Osama. Now for that I’d click a link to read.

This an actual blog. They call it “AAFFLLAACCKK .” I don’t know quite what to say. Perhaps I could ask for a show of hands to see if we should throw the entire blog on this bonfire? But they’re new at this so let’s give them a second chance.

Josh Cohen at Multiple Mentality is asking if your brain has ever gone into a feedback loop. The way I read it, he’s asking if your brain has ever gone into a feedback loop. From what I gather, the post is about your brain going into a feedback loop. Hey! Just a gol dern minute. This one is insidious. Light that post!

Beth’s entry from My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has the advantage of submitting the briefest post I’ve ever seen. Maybe the next one you can leave blank, Beth. And you’ve only left 14 comments on this site so you have a ways to go to catch up.

Coffee with CrankyBeach has a post about going to the dermatologist. Yuck! To me, there’s no sense telling everyone you’ve got some unpronounceable skin disease that will eventually cause your limbs to rot and eventually fall off. Of course, Crank didn’t admit to any such thing. But I can read between the lines. I will say not bad for typing one handed. Better get used to it….

Miriam’s Ideas is the name of the blog. And I sympathize with her. She had such a case of writers block she actually did a post on what’s on her nightstand. I don’t have a nightstand. Nor do I wear pajamas to bed. And if there’s anything else personal you’d like to know about me, just ask.

Wunderkraut asks a really, really dumb question. “Who here remembers my post about two and a half weeks ago about putting flow monitors into manholes?” Wouldn’t you be embarrassed to answer yes to that question? I think the boy should get out more.

From the “It’s Never Too Early Department” Maryhunter at TMH Bacon Bits has a post on stopping the ACLU from stopping Christmas. The jumping Santa is nice but the representational figure you’re using for the ACLU isn’t quite demonic enough. Next time, try using a picture of a Cave Troll from LOTR.

Just to show that insipid minds think alike, Jay from Stop the ACLU also has a post on why the ACLU should keep its bloody hands off Christmas. Enough is enough! I want no more Christmas themed posts until November!

Mean ole Meany channels Elvis and celebrates a birthday for someone. Not only that, but Two Dogs links to another post in this Bonfire! Is this incest? Or coincidence? I smell a conspiracy afoot. Either that or my tin foil hat needs adjusting.

Steve Pavlina.com bills his blog as “Personal Development for Smart People.” Well, that let’s just about everyone out who’s posted this week. The post itself – “How to know when to end a long term relationship” takes 1500 words to say what I usually say in about 10.

Northstar at Peoples Republic of Seabrook is a panderer. But that’s okay since he’s pandering to gay people. Now if I were some rightwing whacko, homophobic nut I’d say something really off color and tasteless. Since I’m not, I’ll just think it.

Note: If I missed anyone please let me know. I got some of the emails mixed up so if I didn’t include your entry I apologize. Just leave a comment and I’ll fix it in a jiffy.

I feel so much better knowing that Pat Robertson has proposed a practical albiet illegal solution to our problem with Venezualean President Hugo Chavez; grease the strutting S.O.B.:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a “terrific danger” to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on “The 700 Club” it was the United States’ duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a “launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.”

Before we start hearing barking from the moonbats, I might point to this delectable bit of information that came to us yesterday in which far left communists and Islamists have joined together to oppose “The Great Satan” ... that is, unless you’re a communist. Communists don’t believe in Satan. Or God. Or sanity, for that matter:

On Monday, Sept. 12, 7:30 p.m., Middle East historian Mark LeVine presents his new book Why They Don’t Hate Us: Unveiling the Axis of Evil and engages in conversation with CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans, who has made several trips to Iraq, along with Baghdad-born Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a progressive voice for Muslim Americans based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The evening is moderated by political scientist Suzi Weissman, host of KPFK’s “Beneath the Surface” Monday edition, and is cosponsored by CODEPINK and MPAC.

CODEPINK you may recall is spending the month of August with other all-American moonbats in Crawford babysitting Cindy Sheehan. But of course, the loons in Crawford love America as much as you or I…as they tirelessly keep trying to convince us.

Charles Johnson on this strange marraige between the far left secularists and far right religious nuts:

Salam Al-Marayati is notorious for telling radio station KCRW, within hours of the September 11 mass murder: “If we’re going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”

Quite a “progressive voice,” eh?

Indeed. But getting back to Pat Robertson, one might ask why such a drastic step would be necessary to get rid of Castro’s mini-me?

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

“We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,” Robertson said.

“We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,” he continued. “It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought I was reading some dialogue from Team America except that Trey Parker is much saner than Robertson and has a better sense of humor.

Did anyone ask what the Lord said about all this? As you may be aware, Robertson talks to God quite often. In fact, if there’s one person I’ve heard of who has more than just a passing familiarity with the Almighty its the Reverend Robertson. I mean, he and the Lord are on a first name basis to hear the Reverend tell it.

That said, wouldn’t it have been more Christian of Robertson to pray for a bolt of lightening to strike the Venuezalean Dictator rather than a bullet between the eyes? Or maybe something a little less suspicious like a gas explosion in the Presidential Palace? Better yet, the CIA at one time tried to kill Castro by giving him a poisonous cigar. Anything except a gundown in the middle of some street.

This is a man who ran for President in 1988 and was actually taken seriously by some Republicans. I sincerely hope that this outburst is due to the onset of some form of dementia rather than a serious proposal from the biggest albatross going for the Republican party.

The Able Danger story is…well, I don’t know. Frankly, I am at a total loss as to where this story is much less where it’s going And anyone who claims otherwise can safely be ignored. That includes both righty and lefty bloggers both of whom are engaging in wild speculation involving Bush, the Saudis, the 9/11 Commission, the Pentagon, and a conspiracy involving Republicans. Let’s just present the information that came out yesterday and chew on it for a while to see if we can make any sense at all about what the heck is going on.

WHAT WE KNOW (FACTS WITH SOME REASONABLE SPECULATION)

Two more sources came forward yesterday confirming what Lt. Col Shaffer said last week; that Able Danger had uncovered at least one of the 9/11 hijackers names prior to 9/11 and tied him to al Qaeda. The first thing you notice however is a discrepancy in dates. Here’s the “new” source, Navy Captain Scott Phillpott:

The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. “My story is consistent,” said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command. “Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000.”

Col. Shaffer however says that they had ID’d Atta in “the spring of 2000.” Can both be right?

Then there’s the story of a private contractor hired by the Able Danger team to “create a chart in 2000 for the intelligence program that included Mr. Atta’s photograph and name.”

The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta’s name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.

As Laura Rozen rightly asks, “stuck to the wall?” A top secret chart with Mohamed Atta’s face along with God knows what else stuck on a wall like some bank calendar? For what purpose? And he couldn’t remove it when he changed jobs? And is this the same “chart” that Crazy Curt Weldon says he gave to National Security Adviser Steve Hadley immediately after 9/11?

Is your head starting to hurt too?

Then there’s the Pentagon and the case of the missing files. Or destroyed files. Or misplaced files. Or the files that didn’t exist in the first place. Whatever the case, as I predicted here, they’re hanging Col. Shaffer out to dry:

The Pentagon has been unable to validate claims that a secret intelligence unit identified Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist more than a year before the attacks, a Defense Department spokesman said Monday.

Larry Di Rita said that some research into the matter continues, but thus far there has been no evidence that the intelligence unit, called “Able Danger,” came up with information as specific as an officer associated with the program has asserted.

But of course, that doesn’t mean that poor Col. Shaffer is lying:

Di Rita said Pentagon researchers have found no evidence that Able Danger had Mohamed Atta’s name. He said he was unsure whether the unit came up with the identities of the other three hijackers but then said that none of Shaffer’s specific claims had been validated.

Shaffer himself has not provided any documentary proof, Di Rita said, and he said Shaffer has presented his information as second hand.

All that’s missing in that description is the sad shaking of the head and a wistful look on the face as Di Rita cuts Shaffer off at the knees.

And as far as “documentary proof” I daresay if Col. Shaffer did have some files he would promptly be arrested and thrown in the clink for a very long time. The Pentagon does not look kindly on people who steal classified material.

So, is the Pentagon stonewalling? Or stalling for time? Or are they genuinely at a loss as to what Col. Shaffer, Captain Phillpott, and Mr. Smith are talking about?

Beats me. Jack Kelly (whose must read post we’ll get into later) has some interesting thoughts:

ABLE DANGER was established by Special Operations Command in 1999, when Gen. Peter Schoomaker headed SOCOM. Schoomaker retired at the end of 2000. A few months after the change of command, ABLE DANGER was deep-sixed.

There are many in the Pentagon who would like to have the ABLE DANGER controversy go away. But in 2003, Rumsfeld brought Schoomaker back from the retired list to become chief of staff of the Army. If he is still as much a fan of ABLE DANGER as he was when he authorized its creation, Schoomaker would be in a position to prevent a whitewash.

The last thing we know for sure is that Col. Shaffer and other members of Able Danger met with members of the Republican leadership before going public and that Shaffer talked to Undersecretary of Defense Mike Cambrone to assess DoD’s attitude:

“I spoke personally to Denny Hastert and to Pete Hoekstra,” Shaffer told United Press International. Rep. Hastert, R-Ill., is speaker of the House, and Rep. Hoekstra, R-Mich., is chairman of that chamber’s intelligence committee.

“I was given assurances by (them) that this was the right thing to do … I was given assurances we would not suffer any adverse consequences for bringing this to the attention of the public,” Shaffer said, adding that the conversations took place before he and members of the Able Danger team spoke to the media anonymously in the offices of Republican firebrand Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, Aug. 8.

Shaffer also said he was given what he interpreted as tacit approval from senior Pentagon officials before going on the record to Fox News and the New York Times last week, thus revealing his identity and adding both credibility and a new twist to the story.

Shaffer he said he had met the previous day with Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steven Cambone and Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, the staff director for outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers.

While the left has tried to spin this as some kind of Republican plot, it makes eminently good sense if you’re a whistleblower about to take on the national security establishment that you line up some pretty powerful people to cover your backside. It showed some smarts on Shaffer’s part not to rely on Weldon for protection. The Pentagon has just started to push back and they will think twice about getting too rough with an officer with the record and experience of Shaffer if they think they’ll have some angry Republicans to deal with.

That said, it should be made clear right here and right now; there are dangers for both the right and left in this story. As Jack Kelly asks “Why was Able Danger stopped in March of 2001?” Republicans may not want to know the answer to that question any more than Democrats would just wish the whole issue would go away and not remind people that the Clinton Administration did precious little to stop al Qadea from planning and executing the biggest terrorist attack (and consequent intelligence failure) in history.

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS

As I mentioned earlier, read this post by Jack Kelly who asks some pretty damn pertinent questions. Here are just a few:

The next question is: WHO KILLED ABLE DANGER? Remember that the program was terminated in the early months of the Bush administration, not the last months of the Clinton administration.

Did Bush’s national security team order ABLE DANGER to be shut down?

Did Bush’s national security team know of, and acquiesce in, a decision to shut down ABLE DANGER made at a lower level?

Was Bush’s national security team even aware of the existence of ABLE DANGER before it was terminated?

The answers to these questions could shed some light on what otherwise seems puzzling behavior.

For those who want to make this a partisan issue – right and left – it’s time to let go of petty bulls**t like that and start thinking about what’s best for the country.

When the 9/11 Commission was holding its very public and very partisan hearings in the middle of an election year, it became an absolute necessity for the right to push back against the smearing and slandering testimony of self-serving lickspittle bureaucrats like Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke. They are both beneath contempt for their efforts to self-aggrandize themselves at the expense of Condi Rice, John Ashcroft, and the President himself. To act that way in public hearings on the biggest terrorist attack in history showed them to be people without honor or scruples. Both went on to advise John Kerry on his campaign and one can only speculate that their nauseating performance before the Committee served as an audition of sorts for getting those positions – not to mention a way to get a huge amount of free publicity for selling their books.

The revelations regarding Able Danger show that at the very least, the 9/11 Commission was so infected with partisan politics that they failed to do their job. I don’t know why the information about Atta and Able Danger was not included in the Commission’s Final Report. But if I were to hazard a guess, I’d say that part of the reason was the necessity to reach a consensus on a narrative with both partisan camps on the Committee. Able Danger’s revelations could very well have upset a timeline we had for Mohamed Atta and when he was in this country. Changing the timeline would have meant substantially changing the narrative, something that was probably carefully worked out between various partisan staffers in the months leading up to the release of the Final Report.

Another possible explanation is that they lost or misplaced the file on Col. Shaffer’s October, 2003 meeting with staffers in Afghanistan. Sometimes, the simplest explanation – stupidity – is the most logical. And since Captain Phillpott was interviewed by a different staffer (Deitrich Snell) it’s barely possible that Able Danger was dismissed because one part of the committee staff didn’t know what the other part was doing. Again, the simplest explanation could apply; incompetence.

What is no longer a possibility is that three different people are lying through their teeth. Which brings us back to the Pentagon and their lack of success in finding any documentary proof of the allegations. Here’s Jack Kelly asking the right questions:

Shaffer says the records of ABLE DANGER are no longer where they were put when the group was shut down. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

Shaffer claims he was ordered by a two star general at the Defense Intelligence Agency to stop trying to bring ABLE DANGER’s findings to the attention of the FBI. Suppose you were that two-star general. If ABLE DANGER did in fact identify Atta’s cell a year before al Qaeda struck, then what you did was the single greatest act of negligence leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Your career and reputation would not survive disclosure. Nor would it be good for the careers of the Pentagon lawyers who blocked the meetings to have their identities disclosed.

The Pentagon purportedly has been carrying out a search for the missing ABLE DANGER documents. Opponents of ABLE DANGER have been predicting for more than a week that a statement debunking ABLE DANGER was imminent. But no such statement has yet been forthcoming. I have a theory as to why.

Was there a shredding party at DoD in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

It wouldn’t be unprecedented. Following the assassination of John F. Kennedy both J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Director John McCone scrambled to cleanse their files of references to Oswald. They didn’t do a very good job as was found out later when thousands of pages of documents were released by the FBI and CIA showing that both agencies showed more than a passing interest in the assassin. These documents were not supplied to the Warren Commission. And while the documents wouldn’t have changed the Commission’s conclusions, it would have showed that the FBI knew all about Oswald and were probably using him as something of an informal informant, spying on the small group of Russian emigres in Dallas that Oswald’s wife Marina had become friendly with. And the CIA was covering up the fact that they suspected Oswald could have been a Soviet spy.

What this suggests is that there may have been more than one shredding party following 9/11. The German police had been watching an associate of Mohamed Atta’s for years prior to 9/11. This associate lived with Atta in Hamburg and his name was also on the lease where Atta lived. While the CIA swears up and down they had never heard of Atta prior to 9/11 there is some evidence – tantalizing and unconfirmed – that Mohamed Atta was known as an al Qaeda operative prior to 9/11 by the CIA:

During the 28 months Atta’s name is on the apartment lease, 29 Middle Eastern or North African men register the apartment as their home address. From the very beginning, the apartment was officially under surveillance by German intelligence, because of investigations into businessman Mamoun Darkazanli that connect to Said Bahaji. [Washington Post, 10/23/01] The Germans also suspect connections between Bahaji and al-Qaeda operative Mohammed Haydar Zammar. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02 – link not available] German intelligence monitors the apartment off and on for months, and wiretaps Mounir El Motassadeq, an associate of the apartment-mates who is later put on trial in August 2002 for assisting the 9/11 plot, but apparently do not find any indication of suspicious activity. [Chicago Tribune, 9/5/02]

So if the CIA knew of Atta as far back as 1999 – admittedly a speculative possibility – it’s also possible that Able Danger would have known of him as well.

All of this doesn’t get us any closer to the truth. For that, it appears to me that we’ll have to re-open the entire investigation. As the Captain points out, even the interrogations of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may have to be viewed in a different light:

How good was the data for the Atta timeline, and how solid did the Commission nail down his movements? Looking at the data on pages 167 and 168 of the report, it appears that all of the information that the Commission used to establish travel timelines for the Atta cell came from interrogations of Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. These two AQ officers later also discounted Atta’s travel to Prague in April 2001, despite the insistence of Czech intelligence that he met with the Iraqi envoy and an IIS agent at that time.

It seems most likely that Atta and his team may have traveled to the US, either under their own names or variants, and performed some scouting for suitable locations before moving themselves to the US for good. The Able Danger squad has insisted that their requests to coordinate with the FBI got denied on the basis that Atta had become a resident of the US. Binalshibh and KSM could have created a disinformation scenario for the FBI; only the interrogators there know for sure how reliable the pair’s information proved to be.

If the 9/11 Commission whitewashed anyone’s incompetence including mistakes by the Bush or Clinton Administrations or even more costly errors by the CIA and FBI, it’s time to find this out now. The 9/11 Commission was the most important investigative body since Watergate and it appears to have dropped the ball. I hope everyone can agree – right and left – that we owe it to the 3000 dead and their grieving families to find out what happened and let the political chips fall where they may.

UPDATE

Here are a couple of other links you should check out.

Bryan Preston (subbing for Michelle Malkin) has a great way to find out if Mr. Smith’s story is true:

This is truly one strange saga we have on our hands. But his story should be easy enough to confirm with a quick road trip to the base with Smith in tow. Someone has to remember a large chart stuck to a wall with Mohammed Atta’s easily noticed scowl, if it’s not actually still there.

AJ at the Strata-Sphere has some react to Slade Gorton’s appearance on Fox last night:

I was watching Sen Slade Gorton on O’Reilly make a complete fool of himself by getting out on a limb and saying there is nothing at all to the Able Danger story, and had to come post an update. I believe there is something here because of all the strange responses in 200o and now. But I am not willing to say one way or the other whether Able Danger is a real issue or not. No one should be saying that until all three criteria for burying this story are met, as I posted earlier. Slade is taking a huge risk coming out and basically calling Lt. Col. Schaffer a liar, or at least an extreme exaggerator.

AJ also has the observation of the day:

It looks like this will come to a head quite soon. I find it hard to believe these career people would go out on a limb if there was nothing to the Able Danger story?

Additional thoughts by Captain Ed here and here.

I don’t usually respond to every blogpost on the left that spews out a bunch of nonsense about me. If I did that, I’d never get to post much of anything else on this site and you wonderful people would be denied my wit, wisdom, and sleep-inducing prose.

That said, this guy’s post about me was too good to pass up. It started on Saturday when I left a drive-by comment about this ignorant peaen to Cindy Sheehan:

Cindy Sheehan is passionate, but her commonality is what truly frightens those that oppose and attack her. Career activists and academic dissenters have, like it or not, become extremely easy to marginalize, their language too remote. But Sheehan’s language is not. Her language makes her a threat because of its commonality. Millions of mothers across the United States identify with Sheehan, and millions besides support her single demand, the simplicity of which is stunningly powerful.

Cindy Sheehan wants to meet with the President and ask him some very basic questions, the sorts of questions that the majority of Americans can understand. Bush’s advisors know how dangerous this situation is, and not just for the current administration, but for the Republican candidate in 2008. That would be why they have chosen to use the media to defame Sheehan. For were the answers to Sheehan’s questions strong enough to stand on their own merit, President Bush would have met with Sheehan days ago. That, in itself, should say something to those watching this drama unfold.

Cindy Sheehan’s “commonality” of course, includes some of the most nauseating anti-semitism this side of the Third Reich. And anyone who thinks that this conspiracy mongering fantasist is anything except a disturbed, suffering woman being used by her fellow conspiracy mongering fantasists on the far left to advance a true anti-American agenda better think again. And the meme that “Cindy Sheehan wants to meet with the President and ask him some very basic questions” is believed only by 5 year old children who eagerly await the arrival of Santa Claus on Christmas and the Easter Bunny on Easter Sunday. What Cindy Sheehan wants is the “Chief Brody Slap” picture – a moment that she devoutly wishes to have replayed over and over like the Howard Dean scream that doomed that worthy’s candidacy after Iowa.

No-one is “afraid” of Cindy Sheehan except the far left who harbor the fear that when the press packs up and goes home, the media circus will end and they’ll have to scout out their next “Rosa Parks” to try and jump start a movement that simply is not resonating with the American people – a movement to cut and run in Iraq and allow the enemies of the United States to claim victory on the field of battle.

They are not interested in Sheehan. They are not interested in Bush, except as he represents what they hate most – the United States. Their goal is not to save the Iraqi people but to humiliate the country. They have made that quite clear, believing that a full fledged humiliation in Iraq will assist them in their ultimate goal of electing far left candidates to office.

“Bush Advisers” don’t need to shame Sheehan. She has done that all by herself. Every time she opens her mouth (and this despite a slew of PR flaks and media consultants) she says something else so outrageous that even what’s left of the sane left has abandoned her.

For God’s sake, stop trying to make this anti-semitic conspiracist into an anti-war icon. Just let her be. Just let her be…

UPDATE

Received this email from the moonbat who was upset with my comment on Mrs. Sheehan that I left on his blog.

He has now taken down the post I linked above because “I don’t want you getting traffic.” Why he linked to me in the first place remains a mystery. I guess at that time he did want to send me traffic…or he didn’t…until did. I think.

He also explained why he had to delete my comment:

Any comment that espouses violence, hatred, racism, sexism, and/or
generally abusive language is subject to removal. Any comment that
aims to silence other points of view through intimidation, ad hominem
attacks, and/or other methods is subject to removal.”

I guess when decrying anti-semitism, you’re practicing hate. Against whom again remains a mystery. Perhaps other anti-semites may get upset in which case, judging by the agreement with Mrs. Sheehan’s well known comments about Israel and the Jews and the conspiracy theories that involve the “neocons” and Jews that appeared in the comments on his website, maybe he should think about shutting himself down.

Also, I guess ad hominem attacks against conservatives are perfectly alright. And hate. But I guess this is what passes for political discourse on the left these days.

My point in posting it was to
illustrate the sort of baseless, unintelligent rhetoric spewed by
those that conduct themselves as if 40 years younger than they are.
Your views don’t even rate mention, your conduct has stripped you of
even that.

First, what my age has to do with anything is beyond me. Perhaps he’s likening me to all those “children” he and Mrs. Sheehan are talking about who are serving in Iraq. You know…the ones who volunteered to serve in the military, many of whom are in their 20’s and 30’s. This is an outgrowth of the left’s desire to take care of all of us as if we were infants. Maybe I should start referring to this fella as my nanny.

Secondly, if my views don’t even rate mention, why mention them? Just wondering.

Finally, this:

Please do not contact me again or visit my website. Thank you.

Well…that’s the ultimate dagger. I guess I’m going to have to scratch him off the list of sites that I’d never visit in a million years. I found it originally through a Technorati search of Cindy Sheehan. I was looking for people like this guy who believe that “Mother Sheehan” is some kind of catalyst for the anti-war movement.

As I made clear in this post, it’s a fantasy to believe such nonsense. And to elevate someone whose diatribes drip with anti-semitic venom and anti-American bilge to the level of saint says more about the left than anything my poor abilities could possibly relate.

Every time I see Chuck Hagel I feel sorry for Nebraskans.

After all, people in Nebraska are generally friendly, nice, and sane (except on the 7 Saturdays when the Cornhuskers are playing at home). They exude the kind of wholesome, all-Americanism that drives liberals crazy. And anyb0dy who drives liberals nuts can’t be all bad. They’re devoutly religious and sport the most productive agricultural economy in the history of human civilization. Despite it’s small population, the state contributes more than 13% of all US beef output with a value of almost $6 billion.

Anyone who’s ever visited Omaha knows that Nebraskans like most Midwesterners are eminently practical in their politics and policies. The city is one of the friendliest, best run cities in the United States. This is an outgrowth of the good sense and good humor that can generally be ascribed to Nebraskans in general.

Which makes their embrace of Chuck Hagel all the more mystifying. Since his arrival in the Senate, Hagel has chosen to be something of an idiotarian. And while Nebraska has always been something of a maverick when it comes to government (they have a unicameral legislature – the only state in the country to have one) the independent streak demonstrated by such luminaries as James Exxon (D) and Carl Curtis( R ), didn’t extend very much beyond an occasional straying from party orthodoxy.

Hagel, however is different. And what makes him different is that he wants to be President of the United States – badly. His campaign has purchased the domain names “hagel2008.com and “ChuckHagel2008.com.” And his calculated effort to distance himself from the President on Iraq has paid huge dividends. I mean, who would have ever paid attention to a Senator from Nebraska unless he received glowing, fawning attention from the New York Times who wrote a puff piece on he and other Republican “moderates” last spring?

However, if I were Senator Hagel, I’d just go ahead and sell those domain names because after statements like the one he made yesterday, he doesn’t have a ghost of a a chance to win the Republican nomination:

“We should start figuring out how we get out of there,” Hagel said on “This Week” on ABC. “But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur.”

Hagel said “stay the course” is not a policy. “By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning,” he said.

We used to call this sort of thing “defeatism.” Now we call it “analysis.” But the good Senator wasn’t through:

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

“We’re past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam,” Hagel said. “The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have.”

This sort of nonsense has been fisked to death so I’m not going to do that here. Suffice it to say that Republicans have a very long memory and you can be sure any political opponent of Hagel’s will use those statements to great effect.

The 2 hour conclusion to the National Geographic Channel’s gripping documentary “Inside 9/11 will be shown tonight at 8:00 PM central time. If you missed the first 2 hour installment, you can see it starting at 6:00 PM central.

The first part of this extraordinary documentary left me saddened beyond words. The show makes absolutely clear that culpability for 9/11 lies with both Democrats and Republicans. And trying to parse which party is more to blame is an exercise in sophistry. You are beyond redemption if you watch this program and come to any other conclusion except that our policy makers for the last 15 years were all smug, arrogant, self-deluding fools. For a variety of reasons – political correctness and overconfidence stand out – everyone missed clear and unmistakable signs of the attack.

I found it interesting that the documentary included a brief 30 second snippet on Able Danger, alluding to the operation being run at Special Forces Command in Tampa as having a chart that unearthed 2 of the hijackers names and correctly tying them to al Qaeda in July of 2000. One wonders if this information was a late edition to the program or whether they had independent verification of Able Danger months ago.

This really is a don’t miss moment in television history. The program is eminently watchable with unbelievable graphics, photos, and footage with a storytelling style that emphasizes repeating the relationships between the hijackers, the radical mosques that they were recruited at, the major al Qaeda players, and other aspects of the attacks several times so that the viewer can easily follow the convoluted and confusing movements of the principals.

Commentary from experts is also fascinating although the reporter for al Jazeera is way too smug. At one point he asks “How do you impress a German? By being perfect,” in talking about Mohamed Atta’s student career in Germany.

I daresay the reporter didn’t impress too many Germans with that remark.

Don’t miss this show. And as soon as it’s available on DVD, I’m buying it.

UPDATE

I’m not the only one who noticed the reference to what could have been Able Danger in last night’s show. Rich Lowrey received this email at the Corner:

The National Geographic channel is running a two part miniseries on events leading up to and including 9/11. The first part was on this evening and did a wonderful job of tracing the rise of OBL and what is know about those involved in 9/11. It was a truly fascinating 2 hour show and was very informative.

You may want to contact the producers of the show and ask what info they have on this chart. They must have something because they included it in the program. Having followed the Able Danger story over the past few weeks I was taken aback by the casual and brief mention of the “chart” given to the special ops group.

Mr. Lowrey is looking for anyone else who might have noticed that bit or who might have additional information that would shed some light on this.

I think there’s a pretty good chance that they added the info in the last week or so once Able Danger came to light. However, there’s a chance that one of the commentators – several of which have written books about the intel leading up to 9/11 – may have gotten wind of the operation and put the information in their book, not knowing it was Able Danger.

The Able Danger story just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser…

Due to my hosting this week’s Bonfire of the Vanities, the deadline for entering this week’s Carnival of the Clueless has been extended to Tuesday evening 10:00 PM eastern.

Last week was the best yet with 36 entries from both the right and left side of the political spectrum hammering those individuals and groups among us who are truly clueless.

Here’s what we’re looking for:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT..

You can enter by emailing me, leaving a link in the comments section, or by using the handy, easy to use form at Conservative Cat.

The results for this week’s Watcher’s vote are in and the winner is Dr. Sanity for her Able Danger post “A Motive for Berger’s Bizzare Behavior?” Finishing in a tie for second was AJ from the Strata-Sphere’s Able Danger article “Able Danger Busting Loose” and The Glittering Eye for “Has Television Changed Everything?”

In the non-Council category, there was no contest. Mohammed from Iraq the Model won with “A Message to Cindy Sheehan.”

If you’d like to participate in this week’s Watcher’s vote, go here and follow instructions.

Go. Read. Weep.

Blog bud Jay at Stop the ACLU is in great need of donations so that they can run a full page ad in the Washington Times.

We need volunteers and eventually paid clerks to help kick the Stop the ACLU Coalition in high gear. We have no choice now. We must fully fund this operation if we are to have success in thwarting the ACLU. If you can help in any way or know someone who will, please let me know today. Thank you and God Bless America!

Why not go over there now and give Jay a hand.