Replies

Kristen Breitweiser blog - Commenting on the NOW PROVEN FAKE KORAN FLUSH STORY

Flush Bush - May 18, 2005

How do we have an Administration lecturing Newsweek about "journalistic standards"--the failure to get on the record confirmation before printing a story -- when we went to war in Iraq on similar sloppy standards. Anybody remember Curveball? Or have we all forgotten the Senate Intelligence Report on WMD that discusses how our entire Intelligence Community and President Bush were duped by one bad allegedly "crazy" source who provided "dead wrong" intelligence?

Oh, that's right, I forgot that when the story of Curveball hit the media we were overwhelmed with steroids in baseball and the Schiavo debate. Remember the Schiavo debate--the "preservation of life" debate. How ironic. We couldn't discuss the fact that we were wrongly taken into a war where thousands have been killed and wounded--a war that has made the entire world less safe-- because apparently we needed to publicly debate a family's private decision whether a feeding tube should be removed from an incurably sick woman.

But, now we find ourselves overwhelmed by the debate over a story written by Mike Isikoff.

Anybody who has looked into some of the allegations floating around about the torture and homicides being carried out by our interrogators must realize that it is a possibility that something like flushing a Koran down a toilet could happen. What do you expect when you have interrogators basically given carte blanche to do whatever they want to detainees.

We all recall Alberto Gonzales commenting that the Geneva Convention was quaint, right? Or did he say it was cute? Doesn't matter. You get the point.

But, instead of immediately stopping these abuses, investigating them and coming up with clear instructions for our interrogators to stop them from re-occurring, what does this Administration do?

Nothing.

No discussion. Swept under the carpet, until journalists like Mike Isikoff write stories.

Now, 17 people are dead in riots stirred up by Islamic extremists for their own ends. And what does our Administration do? Hold hearings? Demand an independent investigation? Nope. Our Administration blames Newsweek for reporting the story and not getting a source to confirm the allegation on the record.

Here is a thought. What if the Administration had thoroughly investigated and cleared up the human rights abuses being committed by interrogators when they first learned of it so that (gasp) there was no story left for Mike Isikoff to write about?

Better yet, what if our leaders had actually sat down years ago and planned what they were going to do with "enemy combatants". Not just sat at a conference table and decided that they would hold people as "enemy combatants" for as long as they wanted and torture them at their own whim. What if our leaders actually thought about the consequences of their actions prior to making those actions?

We have major human rights abuses being carried out by our military and intelligence officers. Such human rights abuses are on their face morally reprehensible and wrong. Moreover, in the long run they put this nation at huge risk. Why? Because every person that is wrongfully held, tortured, and then wantonly released by us, immediately returns to their homeland, tells their story and becomes the poster child for why everybody should hate the Americans.

And these people do not forget.

They have long memories. The truth is that fifteen years from now when the current chain of command is long gone (sitting in the old folks home) people like you and me will suffer the consequences because it will be our kids and loved ones who will be in the wrong place at the wrong time when an emboldened "enemy combatant" or his daughter decides to blow up a building as payback for their treatment at gitmo.

If Newsweek holds Isikoff accountable, then I would like similar accountability in the Bush Administration. Afterall, how many thousands have died as a result of our President's bad executive branch standards--whether they be for taking us into a pre-emptive war in Iraq based on an erroneous source named Curveball or not providing clear instructions and training to interrogators of enemy combatants? All of these issues continue to further alienate us from the rest of the world and continue to make us less safe.

My take? Don't flush the Koran, Flush Bush.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/flush-bush_b_1215.html

Kristen Breitweiser blog

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11" - June 23, 2005

Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true “understanding of 9/11” knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks.

In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a “legitimate” excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug “rat line” parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)

Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.” Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.

Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that “moderation and restraint” don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I digress.)

More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.

It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.

For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."

Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)

Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?

To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems. Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home. Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years. Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.

Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?

Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.

It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-understandin_b_3103.html

Kristen Breitweiser blog - COMMENTING ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Taking It to the Streets--A.M.E.N. - April 10, 2006

I am sitting home watching cnn international and witnessing the illegal immigrant marches being staged across our country. Impressive.

What I find ironic is that these men, women, and children are not even American citizens, and yet they have galvanized, mobilized, and organized their sentiments to create quite a movement. Even more impressive is that these protestors are here illegally and risk the real threat of being herded up, detained, and deported while participating in such mass protests.

And yet, they are out there in the streets having their voices heard. Without taking a stand on the immigration issue in this blog, I will say that I admire their incredible unity and courage.

As a 9/11 activist who has tried in vain for the past four years to wake Americans up to the sad and dangerous state of affairs in this country, I have never seen such a well organized and massive turnout.

To me, it is a shame that so many American citizens seem to have lost the passion of their beliefs. Our country is literally going to hell in a handbasket and nobody takes to the streets, nobody organizes a rally/march/sit-in/walkout, etc.

Frankly, I would love to know who organized and got the illegal immigrant population out into the streets of America practicing our democracy. Because, to me, we Americans have a few things to learn from them.

They are willing to make their collective voices a force to be reckoned with. They will be heard by our Congress and President. And most likely Congress and President Bush will be forced to reconcile the immigration issue. When that happens, the immigrant population will have had a much larger effect on our country and our president than any of the rest of us full-blooded American citizens who only seem to be able to cobble together piecemeal activist platforms.

My thoughts? I think we should all come together and have our voices heard. If you are unhappy about healthcare, come join us. If you are unhappy about social security, come join us. If you are unhappy about education issues, come join us. If you are unhappy about foreign policy and national security, come join us. If you are unhappy about environmental issues and alternative energy issues, come join us. If you are unhappy about corruption, secrecy, and lack of accountability in government, come join us. If you are unhappy about campaign finance reform, come join us...

The time has come for all American citizens who are unhappy with this current Congress and Administration to join together in our one common belief--that our country needs to change and that we must spark that change. A. M. E. N. *

But hey, since we are in the habit of "outsourcing" our nation (think port security, debt, etc.), maybe we should just outsource our protests, too? Because, demonstrably, they seem to be doing a much better job than us.

* Americans Must Engage Now-->to be continued...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/taking-it-to-the-streets_b_18843.html

Kristen Breitweiser blog - BASHING RUDY GIULIANI

Giuliani's Deadly Impact? - April 5, 2006

Can someone please explain to me why Rudy Giuliani gets to give a victim's impact statement at the Moussaoui penalty phase hearing? Which family member did Guiliani lose in the attacks?

Forgive me, but Giuliani is the person responsible for deciding to locate NYC's emergency command center in the World Trade Center along with a diesal fuel tank (against the advice of certain FDNY officials) before 9/11.

Locating the city's emergency command center in a known al Qaeda target (the towers were struck in 1993 and al Qaeda publicly promised to return to finish the job) was a colossal failure in judgment on his part that cost hundreds of lives on 9/11.

During the attacks, because the command center was rendered inoperable, NYC had no clear chain of command and no physical command structure in place to coordinate the emergency response. Frankly, the whole reason Giuliani was on television all day and available for interviews was because he was scrambling around the streets trying to set up a command post since the one he had designed and located was paralyzed during the attacks.

Anyone who wants to witness the results of NYC's abysmal emergency response to the attacks need only listen to the recently released 911 tapes that chillingly reveal a total lack of coordination and flow of vital life-saving information plaguing the city and its emergency response apparatus that day. (By the way, Mayor Bloomberg has yet to fix the 911 system--even five years later.)

Furthermore, Giuliani is also responsible for giving the FDNY inoperable Motorola radios. This, too, cost hundreds of lives when firemen did not hear the order to evacuate the towers prior to their collapse. (By the way, those radios are still not fixed--blame this on Bloomberg, too.)

How is a man who is responsible for such horrific and deadly judgments invited to give a victim's impact statement as to how 9/11 impacted him?

By these standards, should I expect Condoleezza Rice (Ms. "Nobody knew planes could be used as missiles"), George Tenet (Mr. "I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks"), and perhaps, George Bush (Mr. "I was reading a story about a pet goat while thousands of people perished and burned alive in the World Trade Center because I didn't want to alarm the school children.") to provide victim's impact statements, as well?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/giulianis-deadly-impact_b_18564.html