Supermarket Customer Fights then Captures Armed Robber

This video shows an armed and masked robber walking into a Tulsa supermarket. After shooting at a customer the thugs gun jammed. Craig Stutzman acted. He tackled the armed man and wouldn't allow him to escape. The heroic Stutzman suffered some injuries and got stitches for fighting the robber wearing a spiderman mask.

al Qaeda Behind Rising Threat to China, Olympics

It isn't just the West that needs to fear from Islamic Jihadists. Unfortunately silence from World over human rights abuses by the Communist Chinese rulers has opened the door for extremists.

Police shut down the bustling International Bazaar in the capital of China's restive Muslim region of Xinjiang on Friday amid threats from an Islamic group that attackers might target buses, trains and planes during the Olympics.

A sign at the entrance of the bazaar in Urumqi did not explain why the area, surrounded by mosques with minarets, was off limits as the country prepared to kick off the Summer Games thousands of miles (kilometers) away in Beijing.

But one of the many security guards in the bazaar's plaza, which was marked off with crime scene tape, told an AP reporter, "The area is closed because of a possible terrorist attack. It's just a defensive measure."

Even a KFC restaurant in the shopping area -- filled with touristy shops selling carpets and jade -- was closed, and a guard sitting on the steps shooed people away. A few Chinese tourists lingered in the area, snapping photos.

The sprawling, far-flung western region of Xinjiang has long been a source of trouble for China's communist government. The rugged, mineral-rich territory is populated by the Uighurs, a Turkic Muslim minority that has had tense relations with the Chinese. Many Uighurs favor independence or greater autonomy for Xinjiang, which takes up one-sixth of China's land mass and borders eight Central Asian countries.

On Thursday, a videotape purportedly made by the Turkistan Islamic Party -- a militant group seeking Xinjiang independence -- was released with threats to launch attacks during the Olympics.

"Choose your side," says the videotape's speaker, grasping a rifle and dressed in a black turban and camouflage with his face masked. "Do not stay on the same bus, on the same train, on the same plane, in the same buildings or any place the Chinese are," he warns Muslims, according to a translation by the SITE Intelligence Group, a U.S. operation that monitors militant organizations.

The Turkistan Islamic Party is believed to be based across the border in Pakistan, where security experts say core members have received training from al-Qaeda.

Another threat being ignored by the West is China's spying.

U.S. intelligence officials issued a strong warning Thursday that Americans traveling overseas, particularly visitors to the Olympics in China, face a serious risk of having sensitive information stolen, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

The travel alert is blunt:

"All information you send electronically - by fax machine, personal digital assistant (PDA), computer or telephone - can be intercepted."

"Somebody with a wirless device in China should expect it to be compromised while he's there," Brenner said.

And those who must take phones and BlackBerries with them should remove the batteries.

"The public security services in China can turn your telephone on and activate its microphone when you think it's off," said Brenner.

China is one of a number of countries pushing active cyber-espionage programs aimed primarily at cracking U.S. national security computers and stealing corporate trade secrets. Billions have already been lost.

In addition, cyber-gangs and criminals, many based in Asia, have stolen bank accounts and credit card numbers from an untold number of Americans.

And Bush just pretends he gives a damn.

George Bush kept human rights high on the Olympic agenda today by calling for freedom of expression and religion just hours before he was to attend the opening ceremony.

The US president, who has irked the host nation all week by raising human rights issues, continued to press his message after arriving in Beijing.

"We strongly believe societies which allow the free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful," he declared at a ceremony to open a new American embassy.

"We continue to be candid about our belief that all people should have the freedom to say what they think and worship as they choose."

The Chinese government has rejected what officials and the state media described as an attempt to use human rights to meddle in its internal affairs and ruin the mood of the Olympic festival.

A foreign ministry spokesman said their country has made progress in opening the media, reducing executions and widening freedoms of religion.

Bush is the first sitting president to attend an Olympic opening ceremony outside America. His presence has been criticised by US politicians and human rights groups as an endorsement of the one-party state.

Bush Agrees to a Timetable: U.S. out of Iraq by 2010?

It looks like Bush is ready to eat crow. In the process, he just cut McCain's legs from under him. Wow!

Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed.

The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad's Green Zone — where the U.S. Embassy is located — to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. It would also remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, according to the two senior officials, both close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations.

The officials, who spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone "around 2013." The schedule could be amended if both sides agree — a face-saving escape clause that would extend the presence of U.S. forces if security conditions warrant it.

U.S. acceptance — even tentatively — of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

It is possible the surge did work after all if political debate is replacing political violence in Iraq...or maybe not.

A growing number of Iraqi groups are choosing to pursue their agendas through politics instead of bloodshed, a trend that has helped bring down levels of violence. But as Iraqis leave behind the sectarian cataclysms of recent years, ethnic and regional political disputes in several parts of Iraq are becoming more pronounced.

In the south, the ruling Shiite parties are vying for electoral power against loyalists of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Shiite tribal leaders. In the west, Sunni tribes are challenging the political control of established Sunni religious parties. And in the north, ethnic Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens are in a struggle for control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

"What we have now is people who know how to use weapons and who now want to play politics," said Mithal al-Alusi, an independent Sunni legislator. Even so, some leaders seem unable to decide whether to trust their fortunes to the ballot box.

The fight over Kirkuk is proving to be particularly intense. The dispute over power sharing in the ethnically mixed city triggered an attack by a suicide bomber and ethnic clashes that killed 25 people there last month. This week, Iraqi lawmakers failed to reach an agreement on provincial elections legislation, placing in doubt the timing of the vote and slowing political reconciliation.

"There is no doubt the violence will increase in Kirkuk if its case does not get solved," said Khalaf al-Elayan, a Sunni lawmaker who heads the Iraqi National Dialogue Council, part of the largest Sunni political bloc.

Iraqi lawmakers and U.S. officials say several factors are behind the shaky transition to more robust politics. Militant groups are tired of fighting U.S. forces and are joining the political process as a way to survive. With the Bush administration in its last months, Iraq's political parties, sensing the possible end of the U.S. presence in Iraq, want to consolidate their political standing. Others view political ascendancy as a way to exert pressure on U.S. troops to leave Iraq.

Now McCain will have include George Bush in his list of defeatists along with Obama, and the American people.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has contended that Barack Obama is willing to lose in Iraq to win the election, on Thursday said his rival would forfeit the war as part of an agenda that also promotes big government and high taxes.

McCain told those gathered for a town hall meeting that Obama is a talented orator with an agenda that could be boiled down to simple policies the Arizona Republican opposes.

"Government is too big, he wants to grow it. Taxes are to high, he wants to raise them," McCain said. "Congress spends too much and he proposes more. We need more energy and he's against producing it. We're finally winning in Iraq, and he wants to forfeit."

Ron Suskind on Countdown: Bush Could get Impeached Over This Book

Ron Susskind was interviewed by Keith Olbermann on Countdown. He is the author of the book that claims the Bush White House paid an Iraqi insider to fabricate a letter as a way of pushing for war with Iraq. Read the entire transcript.

Ron Suskind in a moment. First, the details of what he has written in “The Way of the World” published today. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, writing that before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, President Bush already knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, something that did not stop him from ordering the invasion anyway.

Suskind speaking on the record with U.S. intelligence officials, who told him that in early 2003, in secret meetings with British intelligence, Saddam‘s own intelligence chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush, revealed that Iraq, in fact, did not have weapons of mass destruction, information that was passed on to the CIA.

When that information was then passed on to Mr. Bush—author Suskind says—the president became frustrated and said of Habbush, quote, “Why don‘t they ask him to give us something we can use to help us make our case?”

Habbush then held weekly meetings with British intelligence, telling them that Saddam had no WMD stockpiles and no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs.

When all this was shared with CIA Director George Tenet, he said, quote, “They‘re not going to like this downtown,” downtown being the White House. It sounds like a police drama.

“The White House then buried the Habbush Report. They instructed the British that they were no longer interested in keeping the channel open.

Rob Richer, the CIA‘s Near East Division head, telling Suskind again on the record, quote, “Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first few days he was in office. Nothing was going to stop that.”

Now, for the smoking gun about the smoking gun that was never a smoking gun. CIA division head, Richer, is telling Suskind that not only did the order to forge a fake letter come from the White House, but the assignment had been written on creamy White House stationary.

“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ring leader , Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq—thus showing finally that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President‘s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”

Another CIA official, John Maguire who oversaw the Iraq operations group also is confirming the existence of the forged letter to author Suskind, but Mr. Richer backtracking for both of them tonight in a statement to MSNBC, quote, “I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbush as outlined in Mr. Suskind‘s book.

Further, today, (5 August 2008) I talked with John Maguire, who has given me the permission to state the following on his behalf, ‘I never receive any instruction from then Chief/NE Rob Richer or any other officer in my chain of command instructing me to fabricate such a letter. Further, I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter and as to how it circulated in Iraq.”

The letter, whatever its origins, was passed in Baghdad to Con Coughlin, a reporter for the “Sunday Telegraph” of London who wrote it about in the front page of his newspaper on December 14th, 2003, the same day that Saddam Hussein was discovered in his hiding hole in Iraq. That day, Mr. Coughlin describing the significance of his find to Tom Brokaw on “MEET THE PRESS.”

[...]They‘re coming at you kind of forcefully. What‘s your response to that forcefulness and these comments?

SUSKIND: Well, the fact is, a lot of this is expected. I‘m one person who is standing at this point with the sources behind me, those who are holding firm, and, obviously, they‘re under acute pressure—to say this is an action that has constitutional implications along with, you know, the possibility of impeachment proceedings. All this in an odd way, you know, character assassination is what they do when they have nothing else to say.

OLBERMANN: Ask Scott McClellan.

Obama has Big Lead Among Working Class Whites, Women

We've been told for months that working class whites wouldn't support Obama. And That was because the Illinois Senator was an elitist. Pat Buchanan has been making the argument sing Hillary beat Obama soundly during the West Virginia primaries. It turns out that it is not the case. They also said Obama had a woman problem and that's why they needed Hillary as a running mate. The latest poll debunk these theories. Furthermore, McCain is not catching up to Obama overall.

The new CBS poll has an interesting result for all of us who have been thinking about the day-to-day variations of the campaign: The top-line numbers have not changed one bit since their last poll three weeks ago.

The numbers: Obama 45%, McCain 39%, with a margin of error of ±3%. Three weeks ago it was Obama 45%, McCain 39%.

The internals have some interesting demographic numbers. The two candidates are tied 40%-40% among independents. Obama leads 46%-42% among men and 44%-36% with women, and Obama has a 55%-33% lead with voters under age 45 to McCain's 44%-36% lead among voters over 45; And Obama is ahead 44%-32% among working class whites, a demographic that conventional wisdom had held he'd do badly with.

The press still continues to insist that there is trouble for Obama. That people are getting tired of him. Where's the evidence?

After two weeks of sharpened attacks between the campaigns, Barack Obama is maintaining a narrow 5% lead over John McCain in the race for the White House, a new TIME poll shows. Overall, the poll shows Obama leading McCain 46% to 41% when undecided voters with a slight preference are included (the margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points). That gap is the same as the presumptive Democratic nominee held in June.

The CNN lead is 5 percent. It is still a statistically significant lead.

With three months to go before election day, Obama's advantage is largest on atmospheric issues: he is seen as far more likeable and a greater force for change than McCain. Asked which candidate is most likeable, Obama beats McCain 65% to 20%; as for which is the real candidate for change, he leads 61% to 17%. Obama also beats McCain 48% to 35% on who understands voters' concerns best, another key indicator of appeal.

But on specific issues, Obama is treading water or sinking a bit. On the number one issue of the campaign right now, the economy, Obama leads McCain 43%-39%, compared to 44%-37% reported by TIME's poll in June. Despite his highly touted tour of Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan last month, Obama may be in something of a late summer slump. The poll shows that voters have increased their faith in McCain's ability to manage the Iraq war, favoring him over Obama by a margin of 51%-36%, a five point jump since June. And voters boosted their belief that McCain would do a better job in managing the war on terror than they did in June, favoring the Arizona Senator over his colleague from Illinois by a 56%-29% margin, up from 53%-33% in June.

Obama did get good news from some segments of the population. Women now favor him by ten percentage points over McCain, 49%-39%. That seems to quell the notion that women would penalize Obama for beating Hillary Clinton in the primary. And Obama is holding his own with males, as he and McCain split them 43% each. McCain is leading Obama by seven points, 47%-40% among white voters, but that is well short of George W. Bush's 58%-41% edge over John Kerry in exit polls from the 2004 election. Obama, meanwhile, is getting the votes of 85% of blacks to McCain's 6%.

McCain is lagging in enthusiasm. Forty-nine percent of Obama voters describe themselves as "very enthusiastic," compared to just 21% of McCain backers, and a full 27% of the Republican nominee's supporters say they are either "not very" or "not at all" enthusiastic about him, compared with 10% for Obama.

George W. Bush, meanwhile, appears to still be a factor in the race to succeed him. Bush's approval rating hovers steadily at 29%. The percentage of people who disapprove of Bush who are supporting the Republican candidate anyway — a key indicator of the election — reveals how close the race remains. McCain is getting the support of 20% of voters who disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Most pollsters believe that McCain will need closer to 30% of "Bush disapprovers" to beat Obama in November.

If you look at an average of all the polls, Obama continues to maintain a consistent lead (according to realclearpolitics.com). Whereas McCain numbers are inconsistent. He is dropping once again after rising last week. McCain has not been a 46% since early June, when the primaries were still going on. Conversely, Obama has been at 46 percent, and over, since early May! And now McCain is beginning to drop again while Obama is rising. The latest theory that the increased attacks on Obama are succeeding does not hold water.

FBI Case Against Anthrax Scientist Ivins: Where's the Evidence?

The Federal government unsealed documents today in the case against Bruce Ivins. It was supposed to make the case for concluding that the dead scientist was behind the anthrax attacks of 2001. The only problem with their presentation: no evidence. Among the assertions:

_An advanced DNA analysis matched the anthrax used in the attacks to a specific batch controlled by Ivins. It is unclear, however, how the FBI eliminated as suspects others in the lab who had access to it.

_Ivins' purported motive — sending the anthrax in a twisted effort to test a cure for it, according to authorities. Ivins complained of the limitations of animal testing and shared in a patent for an anthrax vaccine. No evidence has been revealed so far to bolster that theory.

_Why Ivins would have mailed the deadly letters from Princeton, N.J., a seven-hour round trip from his home. In perhaps the strangest explanation to emerge in the case so far, authorities said Ivins had been obsessed with the sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma for more than 30 years. The letters were sent from a mailbox down the street from the sorority's office, which is across the street from Princeton University.

Investigators can't place Ivins in Princeton but say the evidence will show he had disturbing attitudes toward women.

The FBI paints a picture of a monster. Ivins' colleagues, friends, and family remember him as a good man and model employee:

Five eulogists, all of whom worked closely with Ivins, praised him as a scientist and friend. Col. John Skvorak, the commander of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, said that Ivins was a top-notch researcher and generous mentor to younger scientists, always full of questions. Lt. Col. Bret Purcell, another Army scientist, struggled to maintain composure as he spoke of Ivins's unyielding dedication to the lab where he worked and the people who worked with him.

Ivins's wife, Diane, and their two children, Amanda and Andrew, both 24, sat in the front row and were greeted by Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, the commander of Fort Detrick. The family was presented with a dozen red roses by a tearful lab technician who worked alongside Ivins.

Ivins came to USAMRIID in 1980, specializing in the genetics and immunology of Bacillus anthracis. He was a recipient of the Defense Department's highest honor given to a civilian. But at the service he was remembered for the joy he brought others: his juggling; teaching another scientist's son how to ride a unicycle; and giving Patricia Worsham, the deputy chief of the bacteriology division, a purple T-shirt that said, "The Queen Is Not Amused." Mourners laughed as Worsham held up the T-shirt.

Many soldiers and Ivins's fellow researchers filled the pews, including those who found the allegations against him inconceivable. "I'm so angry," one of them said to another, waiting for the service to begin. "I'm so angry." A statement issued later in the day by Ivins's attorneys concluded: "No one who attended [the] service could believe that Dr. Ivins committed any crime."

As for e-mails and envelopes, did the FBI do match the handwriting to Ivins? What about fingerprints or DNA on the envelopes? Who were the emails sent to? And why would he bring suspicion upon himself by writing them? And was the context? Make the emails public just as you made the letters public.

Two weeks after the 2001 attacks, he sent an e-mail warning "Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas" and "have just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans."

That was language similar to the anthrax letters that warned "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX . . . DEATH TO AMERICA . . . DEATH TO ISRAEL," investigators said.

How come he didn't get that stuff on himself or his property?

It's long been claimed that the property that rendered so dangerous the anthrax sent to Daschle and Leahy was that it was airborne. At times it was even claimed that the anthrax was aerosolized. Under all circumstances, in order for it to be inhalation anthrax, it would have to disperse rather easily. Wouldn't one expect that the FBI's swabs would reveal traces of anthrax somewhere on the clothes, in the home or other physical surroundings of the anthrax attacker? Yet apparently those multiple swabbing episodes turned up nothing, at least based on the documents that were released today.

Nor are there any real answers to the question of how Ivins would have manufactured, on his own and without being detected, anthrax grade of the type that was used in the attacks. The numerous hours he spent alone in the lab doesn't address what many of his colleagues said would have been his technological inability to produce anthrax of this type.

How did Ivins get to New Jersey many miles away from where he lived? And there is no proof that Ivins was ever in New Jersey around that time. And how could he have developed airborn anthrax within a week, assuming he used the 9-11 attacks as a pretext? And go undetected?

Long-time anthrax expert Dr. Meryl Nass (Curriculum Vitae here) uses crystal clear rationality to point out just some of the glaring flaws in what the FBI presented today. The fact that the FBI is plainly unable to place him near Princeton, New Jersey on either of the two dates on which the letters were sent -- and, worse, the fact that the FBI included several facts which cut against such a finding -- is, as Dr. Nass points out, by itself an enormous omission:

Put up or shut up: this is the most critical evidence in this case. If Ivins cannot be placed in New Jersey on those dates, he is not the attacker, or he did not act alone.

- Related Posts:

• FBI Tried Coercing Ivins' Children into Accusing Their Father in Anthrax Attacks
• Bruce Ivins was a Scapegoat in the FBI Anthrax Investigation
• Another Victim of the Government Anthrax Witch Hunt?

Bush "Scolds" China en Route to Olympics

Bush went to China to celebrate the Olympics. Don't kid yourself into thinking that his criticism of regime over there is sincere. Mr.Bush has shown himself to be a loyal lapdog for the Communist Chinese. China has been a great cash cow, and the President has devoted himself to furthering big business interests in that country. The Chinese rulers know very well that Bush's words of criticism are pure lip service intended for U.S. domestic consumption.

The same day of his arrival in Beijing for the Olympics, President Bush is carrying a message of "deep concerns" about the state of human rights in China and urging the communist nation to allow political freedoms for its citizens.

"America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates and religious activists," Bush will declare in the marquee speech of his three-nation Asia trip. "We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly and labor rights — not to antagonize China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential."

Bush delivers the address in a Bangkok, Thailand, convention center Thursday morning to a crowd of foreign diplomats, Thai government leaders and business officials, before flying to China later that day.

Of course the comments made by the President are not made on Chinese soil:

Bush arrived in Bangkok on Wednesday evening, and then traveled immediately to a meeting with Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej. The White House released the text of the president's speech earlier Wednesday, nearly 18 hours in advance, as Bush traveled to Thailand from South Korea.

The speech was planned as a summary of what Bush says is the "stronger engagement" with strategically crucial Asia that has marked his presidency. But his remarks on China, among his most directly critical ever in public, stand out.

He might criticize but Bush is still a friend of dictators everywhere, unless they are hostile to Israel and Western oil interests.

Bush's Bangkok remarks devote only a few sentences to criticism for the "tyranny" in Myanmar, Thailand's neighbor, which is ruled by a military junta. He called for the release of the country's democracy icon, Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as other political prisoners.

Though Samak, the Thai prime minister, regards himself as a friend of Myanmar's generals, Bush planned to heap praise on his Thai hosts, calling the country a leader in the region and saluting them for restoration of democracy.

And you won't hear Bush calling for the Chinese authorities to allow in people whom are critical of the government. Where is the praising of people whom are fighting for freedom for the people of Tibet and China?

Former Olympic speedskater Joey Cheek had his visa revoked by Chinese authorities Wednesday, hours before he was set to travel to Beijing to promote his effort urging China to help make peace in the war-torn Darfur section of Sudan.

Cheek, the president and co-founder of a collection of Olympic athletes known as Team Darfur, was planning to spend about two weeks in China, when he received an unexpected call from authorities.

The 2006 American gold medalist said they told him they were denying him entrance into the country and were "not required to give a reason."

Oh, by the way, the Communist China support the genocide in Darfur.

One of Cheek's key initiatives was urging the international community to persuade Sudan to observe the ancient tradition of the Olympic truce during the Beijing Games.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in fighting in the western Sudanese region since ethnic African tribesmen took up arms in 2003.

The Olympic truce dates to the ancient games in Greece, when fighting was halted to ensure athletes had safe passage to travel to and from the competitions. Attempts to revive the truce in modern times have met with only modest success, most notably in the Balkans during the 1992 and 1994 Games.

Cheek said he has been upset by China's treatment of athletes involved in his cause and thinks the International Olympic Committee's rules that prohibit political protest go against the spirit of the games.

[...]Cheek said he has been greeted warmly on his previous trips to China.

"I don't begrudge them the Olympics, I think they'll do well with them," Cheek said. "But there are so many of their government's policies that I find repulsive, especially for athletes who have no intention but to help someone else."

He had planned to attend a United Nations Olympic celebration and some charity events but wasn't planning any big Team Darfur demonstrations. Now he's scrambling to figure out how to draw attention to his cause back home in Washington.

CIA Head Tenet Was Ordered to Fabricate Saddam Letter

Ron Susskind names names in his book accusing the Bush administration with fabricating a letter connecting Saddam and al Qaeda. You would think the press would be all over this incredible allegation. But once they fail the American people. They allowed the neocons to get with the lies leading up to the start of the Iraq War. Now the press is allowing the Bushies to get away impeachable offenses without holding them accountable. This transcript is from CNN's Situation Room program.

A controversial new book is giving President Bush's critics new reasons to believe he went to disturbing lengths to justify the Iraq War, and it's prompting the president's defenders to issue stern denials.

Brian Todd is working this story for us.

And it's got some powerful accusations. The Pulitzer Prize- winning author Ron Suskind delivers a lot of material in there.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's a lot of material in this book, Wolf, and we've got some very powerful pushback from the White House, from the CIA, and from the agency's former director.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (voice-over): Two bombshells on the Iraq War from a controversial author that the White House issued a fake document and that the administration knew well in advance that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. In his new book, "The Way of the World," Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind writes that in 2003, the White House concocted a fake letter from former Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush to Saddam Hussein, backdated to July 1, 2001. "It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq."

In an interview with NBC's "Today Show," Suskind said former CIA director George Tenet got the order to fabricate the letter.

RON SUSKIND, AUTHOR, "THE WAY OF THE WORLD": The CIA folks involved in the book and others talk about George coming back -- Tenet coming back from the White House with the assignment on White House stationery and turning to the CIA operatives who are professionals, saying, you may not like this but here's our mission, and they carried it through step by step.

TODD: Contacted by CNN, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "The notion that the White House would concoct such a letter is absurd."

Tenet issued a statement saying there was no such order from the White House to him. And he said the idea that he'd plant false evidence is ridiculous.

CNN contributor Fran Townsend was Condoleezza Rice's deputy for counterterrorism at the time.

FRAN TOWNSEND, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's just patently ridiculous. I mean, I will tell you that when you think about it, there were 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions that Saddam was flagrantly in violation of. There were reasons that we went to war.

TODD: Suskind also writes that months before the Iraq invasion, Habbush had relayed to the Americans through British intelligence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He quotes a former U.S. intelligence official as saying, when that information was passed to President Bush, "He said, 'F it. We're going in."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: Now, the White House didn't respond to that specific quote, but again pushed back hard on the idea that they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said U.S. and foreign intelligence estimates at the time said Saddam did have such weapons, and Fratto said Saddam had already used them to murder his own people -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And this former Iraqi intelligent chief, they are also casting doubt on his credibility, what he was saying apparently to British intelligence.

TODD: That's right. The White House is doing that and George Tenet is doing that as well.

Tenet says, look, the British themselves had lost faith in this man's credibility. And Tenet says they cut off relations with him. So that -- you know, in Tenet's mind, that shoots down any credibility that Tahir Habbush had in this regard.

BLITZER: All right, Brian. Thanks very much. I know you're working on other material from this book as well.

TODD: Right.

BLITZER: Here is some more information on Ron Suskind. He's a journalist who won the Pulitzer Prize back in 1995 for a series of articles he wrote for "The Wall Street Journal." "The Way of the World" is the latest of his three books he's written, all critical of the Bush administration. Suskind says he spoke to more than 150 sources for his new book, including many of them mentioned by name.

Suskind, by the way, will join us tomorrow live here in THE SITUATION ROOM for a one-on-one interview. That's coming up tomorrow.

Bill Clinton Refuses to Say Obama is Ready to Become President

This is becoming a tired act. Bill Clinton (see the video of interview given to ABC news, transcript below) is a bitter man and isn't hiding it very well. He is jealous of Barack Obama and won't do much to get him elected president. That's ok. Mr.Clinton has a track record of not getting other people beside himself elected to anything. He and Hillary are a curse on the Democratic Party. Incredibly most Dems don't understand that yet. If it were not for Bill Al Gore would've become President in 2000. And there are still some smart people that think that Obama would be stupid enough to choose Hillary as a running mate. Bill Clinton's latest comments will insure that won't happen. Here is a part of the transcript of the ABC interview:

BILL CLINTON: I'm not. And I never was mad at Senator Obama. I think everybody's got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution. And I would be the last person to ever begrudge anybody their ambition. And he was a superbly gifted candidate in this election and had a great operation. They thought this thing through. And it's a contact sport. And, you know, he hit her hard a couple times. And they hit us a few times and weeks before she ever responded in kind. The only thing I ever got mad about was people in your line of work, pretending that she had somehow started negative stuff. It's a contact sport.

[...]SNOW: Yeah. Well, people are already studying it. And a lot of people, including your supporters, your donors, say that they blame you at least in part, for her loss. I know you've heard this.

BILL CLINTON: No -- I've heard it from --

SNOW: Do you blame yourself at all?

BILL CLINTON: I've heard it from the press. And I will not comment on this because it interferes with the issue, which is who should be elected in November. I made hundreds and hundreds of speeches, Kate. I bragged on Senator Obama hundreds of times. Now, I will be glad, as soon as this election is over in January, to have this conversation with you and everybody else. I have very strong feelings about it.

SNOW: But, I don't understand why you say it's bad for him to go over --

BILL CLINTON: I live out here in the fact based world -- Well, first of all, you say I don't like this type of modern reporting that says, so-and-so anonymous says this. You know they all say this.

SNOW: Jim Clyburn. Not anonymous. New York Times came out--

BILL CLINTON: Not my supporter. Jim Clyburn

SNOW: A long friend of yours. A longtime friend.

BILL CLINTON: Used to be. He is not my-- He was not Hillary's supporter. Never. Not ever. Not for a day.

SNOW: He said you said you lost a lot of African-American support?

BILL CLINTON: No. The people who were--

SNOW: He said you severely damaged your standing with African-American support?

BILL CLINTON: First of all-- Yeah. That may be by the time he got through working on it, that was probably true. But that's not the same thing. You said I hurt her.

SNOW: I said, your supporters are saying --

BILL CLINTON: No, you said my supporters and then you cited Jim Clyburn.

SNOW: I take your point. But there are supporters of yours who are saying --

BILL CLINTON: You did. But here's what you can do since I don't want to talk about it.

SNOW: Okay.

CLINTON: Go get yourself a map. Look where I went and look what the vote was. Look at Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky.

SNOW: You helped in a lot of places.

BILL CLINTON: Yes.

SNOW: Rural places.

BILL CLINTON: No, not just rural places. Cities. Indiana. So, I got bad press. Why? Because I told the truth. That there was a different standard applied to the finest candidate I ever supported.

SNOW: Pretty simple question. And maybe you don't want to answer it right now and I respect that fully. But, if you want to answer it, do you personally have any regrets about what you did campaigning for your wife?

BILL CLINTON: Yes, but nothing like you think. And it would be counterproductive for me to talk about it. There are things that I wished I urged her to do. Things I wished I had said. Things I wished I hadn't said. But I am not a racist. I never made a racist comment and I didn't attack him personally.

SNOW: Clinton insists the hard-fought primary season made Barack Obama a stronger candidate. Is he ready to be president?

BILL CLINTON: You could argue that no one is ever ready to be president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year. You could argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office. And that everyone learns something, and something different. You could argue that. He's shown a keen strategic sense in his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire and motivate people and energize them which is a very important part of being a president. And he's smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn.

SNOW: He won't comment on whether he thinks his wife ought to be Obama's running mate.

BILL CLINTON: It's up to him. It's none of his business. This is my life now.

Here's the NYDaily News' take on Clinton's comments:

Bill Clinton regrets some things he said - and didn't say - on the campaign trail. But there's one thing he still can't utter: Barack Obama is ready to be President.

Book: Bush Administration Forged Iraq War Intel

If true, the claims in this book is definitive proof that the Bush White House started the Iraq war under false pretenses. If the Congress refuses to impeach on this ground they are derelict in their duty.

The book, by author Ron Suskind, charges that the Bush White House faked a letter from Saddam Hussein's intelligence chief connecting Iraq with 9/11 and an ongoing nuclear program - neither of which was true.

This letter, in the handwriting of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, is dated July, 2001. It says that Iraqis hosted Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, who, "displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."

The letter goes on to suggest that Iraq was importing uranium from Niger for a nuclear program.

The book alleges that Habbush, Saddam's intelligence chief, was in CIA protective custody after the 2003 invasion, that the White House ordered CIA officials to have Habbush write and backdate the letter, and paid him $5 million. The author quotes two former CIA officials who claim to have seen a draft of the letter on White House stationery.

Suskind writes: "The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraqi government stationery to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media."

The letter was released, and published in Britain in December 2003. At the time, U.S. intelligence officials called it a forgery.

FBI Tried Coercing Ivins' Children into Accusing Their Father in Anthrax Attacks

The more we learn about the Ivins Anthrax investigation the more we see an attempt by the feds railroad an innocent man. In this case the NY Times questions the dubious tactics employed used by the FBI:

After four years of painstaking scientific research, the F.B.I. by 2005 had traced the anthrax in the poisoned letters of 2001 to a single flask of the bacteria at the Army biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., according to government scientists and bureau officials.

But at least 10 scientists had regular access to the laboratory and its anthrax stock — and possibly quite a few more, counting visitors from other institutions, and workers at laboratories in Ohio and New Mexico that had received anthrax samples from the flask at the Army laboratory.

Does sound like a man who would murder people in order to make money. Certainly not the homicidal maniac he's made out to be:

Dr. Ivins had been a respected microbiologist for three decades at the United States Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. He was a popular neighbor in Frederick, Md., a Red Cross volunteer and an amateur juggler who played keyboards for Sunday services at his church.

These are tactics used by totalitarian governments. The FBI is desperate and will apparently do anything to find someone to blame for an investigation they've botched from day one. It is a classic case of prosecutorial misconduct. It reminds me of the 1996 Olympics bombing case in where the FBI also falsely accused a totally innocent man of the crime, Richard Jewel. This is just as outrageous and frightening.

They had even intensively questioned his adopted children, Andrew and Amanda, now both 24, with the authorities telling his son that he might be able to collect the $2.5 million reward for solving the case and buy a sports car, and showing his daughter gruesome photographs of victims of the anthrax letters and telling her, “Your father did this,” according to the account Dr. Ivins gave a close friend.

As the investigation wore on, some colleagues thought the F.B.I.’s methods were increasingly coercive, as the agency tried to turn Army scientists against one another and reinterviewed family members.

One former colleague, Dr. W. Russell Byrne, said the agents pressed Dr. Ivins’s daughter repeatedly to acknowledge that her father was involved in the attacks.

“It was not an interview,” Dr. Byrne said. “It was a frank attempt at intimidation.”

Dr. Byrne said he believed Dr. Ivins was singled out partly because of his personal weaknesses. “They figured he was the weakest link,” Dr. Byrne said. “If they had real evidence on him, why did they not just arrest him?”

Another former co-worker, Dr. Kenneth W. Hedlund, who collaborated on anthrax research with Dr. Ivins in the 1980s, had a similar theory.

“The investigators looked around, they decided they had to find somebody. They went after all of them but he looked the most susceptible to pressure,” Dr. Hedlund said. “It is like prisoners of war: if they are harassed enough, they will be driven to do anything. But I don’t believe he would have done what they say he did.”

- Previous Related Post:
Bruce Ivins was a Scapegoat in the FBI Anthrax Investigation

Transcript: Obama Energy Speech (8-4-08)

Read the entire transcript of Obama's speech on his energy proposals given in Lansing, Michigan:

OBAMA: We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges greater than any we've seen in generations. Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack. Our changing climate is placing our planet in peril. Our economy is in turmoil and our families are struggling with rising costs and falling incomes; with lost jobs and lost homes and lost faith in the American Dream. And for too long, our leaders in Washington have been unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

That is why this election could be the most important of our lifetime. When it comes to our economy, our security, and the very future of our planet, the choices we make in November and over the next few years will shape the next decade, if not the century. And central to all of these major challenges is the question of what we will do about our addiction to foreign oil.

Without a doubt, this addiction is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced -- from the gas prices that are wiping out your paychecks and straining businesses to the jobs that are disappearing from this state; from the instability and terror bred in the Middle East to the rising oceans and record drought and spreading famine that could engulf our planet.

It's also a threat that goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation, and who we will be. Will we be the generation that leaves our children a planet in decline, or a world that is clean, and safe, and thriving? Will we allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of tyrants and dictators who control the world's oil wells? Or will we control our own energy and our own destiny? Will America watch as the clean energy jobs and industries of the future flourish in countries like Spain, Japan, or Germany? Or will we create them here, in the greatest country on Earth, with the most talented, productive workers in the world?

As Americans, we know the answers to these questions. We know that we cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing. Not when we purchase $700 million worth of oil every single day from some the world's most unstable and hostile nations -- Middle Eastern regimes that will control nearly all of the world's oil by 2030. Not when the rapid growth of countries like China and India mean that we're consuming more of this dwindling resource faster than we ever imagined. We know that we can't sustain this kind of future.

Despite Crackdown Violence Threatens to Disrupt China Olympics

Just when China's rulers thought that they would get away with Nazi-style Olympic propaganda (thanks to the U.S. media) freedoms rears it's ugly head.

Chinese police says a grenade assault that killed 16 police in restive western Xinjiang region on Monday was a "suspected terrorist" attack.

The violence comes four days ahead of the opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympic Games.

The Xinhua news agency said two assailants drove a truck towards exercising border police officers in Kashgar, home of many Muslim Uighur people resentful of Chinese control on the region.

The authorities sould like Bush using fear of terrorism to bring the population in line and gain world sympathy. Could the administration decide to send military aide to help Beijing? After all, isn't Mr. Bush attending the Olympics as a sign of unity?

Chinese officials have thrown an almost smothering blanket of security across this capital of 17 million in preparation for the start of the Olympic Games on Friday. Above all else, Chinese leaders say, these Olympics will be “safe.”

[...]Even before that raid, Chinese officials had transformed Beijing into a giant fortress. Surface-to-air missiles take aim at the sky above the Olympic stadiums here. Surveillance cameras mounted on light poles scan sidewalks. Police officers search thousands of cars and trucks entering the city.

Even civilians have been called on to strengthen the motherland: Tens of thousands of middle-age and elderly residents wearing red armbands, reminiscent of the zealous Red Guard youth from decades ago, now patrol neighborhoods looking for even a slightly suspicious act or person.

But human rights advocates accuse the Chinese government of using the pretext of terrorism to silence dissent and clamp down on ethnic minority groups that chafe at rule by ethnic Han Chinese, who dominate the Communist Party leadership. Some security experts say many of the surveillance measures will probably stay in place after the Games, to bolster the reach of the authorities.

To hear Chinese officials tell it, the threats come from a dizzying array of malcontents: groups advocating independence in the western autonomous regions of Xinjiang and Tibet, followers of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, Al Qaeda, and unstable individuals.

We can't allow human rights and terrorism to get in the way of huge profits.

Never before has an Olympics been staged in a market so big — and so underserved. Though capitalism has been a fact of life in China for years, no brand category has been captured the way, say, Wal-Mart dominates the U.S. retail market. Which means: Olympic sponsors are staring at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to engage and snare the Chinese consumer. Do it right, and the payoff could be massive.

Never mind such a minor details as the fact that the Chinese government cannot be trusted.

A senior White House official says staffers accompanying President Bush to China have been told to leave their BlackBerries at home, reports CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer.

The mobile e-mail blackout is the latest sign of U.S. concerns over Chinese cyber-spying. Sensitive presidential communications are always encrypted, but government cyber-security experts are worried about electronic eavesdropping on the BlackBerries, which are difficult to protect from snooping.

But despite the repression it is inspiring to see people fighting for their basic rights. We could be seeing the seed for a future revolution that will bring democracy to China. And the people there will do it without the help of Western politicians and media.

About 20 people angry about being evicted from their homes in central Beijing demonstrated Monday not far from Tiananmen Square, saying the Olympics should not curb their legal rights.

Uniformed police quickly surrounded the residential street where AP Television News video showed the group shouting about being kicked out of their homes and not getting proper compensation.

"We don't oppose the Olympics. But it's wrong for them to demolish our house. It's wrong," said protester Liu Fumei. AP Television News footage showed her screaming and scuffling with women in civilian clothes.

The police officers did not interfere, but women who said they were members of a neighborhood committee pushed and led the protesters away from the area. Neighborhood committees are not officially part of the government but work closely with police and other departments.

Hope lies with the people of the world to not buy into the propaganda.

Concerns about China's human rights record and its polluted air have dampened public interest around the world in the Beijing Olympics, a research group said.

The survey by Sport+Markt -- based on 1,000 telephone interviews with people aged between 16 and 69 per country -- showed the level of "interest" in the Olympics had decreased across the world over the last four years.

"The event in Tibet this spring as well as protests regarding the torch relay was a worldwide negative campaign for the Olympics in Beijing," Hartmut Zastrow, executive director at Sport+Markt, said in a note released on Friday.

Is John McCain Playing the Age Card?

Turnaround is fair play. You can't have it both ways, Mr.McCain.

“It is code; there is no question it is,” Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist who helped lead President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign, said when age surfaced as an issue. “They are trying to raise doubts.”

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough repeatedly argued on his show last week that the Obama campaign was portraying McCain as a “doddering, old, confused fool. He needs to go to Miami Beach and play checkers.”

To Democrats, however, Republicans are imagining slights and smears where there are none as part of an attempt to silence any discussion of McCain’s vigor.

“They are definitely trying to just put a lid on the kind of language we use,” said Democratic consultant Jonathan Prince.

[...]The issue is no small matter for McCain. Polls in recent months found voters more likely to take into consideration his age than Obama’s race, which explains why the McCain campaign has turned into ersatz word police, calling foul on even the slightest hint of a reference to the Republican’s age.

His supporters certainly use the age card:

Former presidential candidate Bob Dole, 85, has cut off communication with John McCain, 71, so that McCain cannot be accused of taking advice from someone older than himself.

“I feel like I can’t even talk to McCain because it’ll be an issue,” Dole told The Examiner in an interview. “You know how the press would be. They’ll say this is a guy who lost because of his age and now he’s out there trying to tell McCain what to do."

“They’re already playing the age card,” the Republican added. “So what do you do? You have a friend running, but you can’t communicate.”

[...]Still, Dole acknowledged there are parallels between himself and McCain.

“We had the same age thing,” he said. “It’s sort of the same thing I went through. I’m a different generation than Bill Clinton, and McCain’s a different generation than Barack Obama.

“And we weren’t articulate enough for the media,” he added. “Let’s face it. I wasn’t the speaker that Clinton was and McCain’s not the speaker that Obama is. But are we going to elect a speech or we going to elect a president?”

McCain has been joking about his age for years; using it as a political weapon:

Back on November 30, 2006, future Republican presidential nominee John McCain joked, "I'm older than dirt." A year and a half later, DNC research director Mike Gehrke was reprimanded for agreeing with him.

[...]When asked by Reader's Digest in February 2007 "how are you going to answer the question when people say, 'I just think he's too old?'" McCain trotted out his old reliable response:

"I think I would say that I'm older than dirt. That I have more scars than Frankenstein. That I've learned a few things along the way. Anyone who has accompanied me in the two months before the last election, or while I was hiking in the Grand Canyon or doing many of the things that I do regularly, can attest to the fact that I'm capable of keeping a very rigorous schedule."

The next month, USA Today featured McCain offering the same "older than dirt" rim shot. Then during a December 2007 MTV/MySpace event broadcast live, McCain stumbled and bumbled his way through the joke to a very forgiving youth audience:

"I'm older than Frankenstein. I gotta few scars. I'm older than dirt and I've got more scars than Frankenstein...Screwed up that line."

And let's not forget that Reagan used age effectively when running against Walter Mondale:

Back in 1984, then 73-year old Ronald Reagan dispensed with the age question by standing it on its head. During a debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan joked, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." But having already made himself the subject of the punchline, self-proclaimed Reagan foot soldier John McCain has guaranteed the issue of his age (50% of those surveyed in a 2007 Pew poll said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate in his 70's) won't go away.

How is this not using the age card:

McCain, 72, has said publicly that he's "older than dirt." He deadpanned on "Saturday Night Live" that he's "very, very, very old." He's even turned the tables on the Democrats' presumptive nominee -- 47-year-old Barack Obama -- by saying that "for a young man with very little experience, he's done very well."

This from Huffington in May:

John McCain said that Barack Obama is the candidate from Hamas.

Barack Obama said the comment was a sign that McCain is "losing his bearings as he pursues the nomination."

Which is more straightforward: That McCain was saying terrorists like Obama, or that Obama was saying that McCain is old?

So why is it that the McCain campaign has managed to frame the spat about Obama's remark?

To say that the race has caused McCain to lose his bearing is to be charitable. The Arizona senator talks about running a positive campaign (as does his wife, but of course she's not the candidate); he used to talk about wack-job preachers being agents of intolerance; he used to respect campaign finance law; I could go on. So the McCain who says his opponent is the terrorism candidate, cozies up to the Hagees and Parsleys of the world, and spins in and out of the public campaign finance system is either a straight-shooter who has lost his bearings or a calculating pol doing whatever he has to to win.

But again: How is it that the Obama campaign has let the debate become about whether he transgressed rather than whether McCain did. (Possible answer: The focus currently keeps the age issue in voters' minds.) I fear the campaign may be losing its bearings.

Also losing their bearings: The media and the candidates for focusing on this stuff at all.

UPDATE: As I do too often, I wrote this without precision. To be clear -- I think it's obvious that Obama was talking about McCain having flipped, flipped and flipped again from the straight-shooter to the typical pol. Trapper John over at Daily Kos lays out a good case for why the McCain campaign is trying to paint it as age-ism. I still am not sure why the Obama campaign has let the McCain camp define the debate.

Meet The Press Transcript: Kerry vs. Lieberman (8-3-08)

Read the entire transcript of the debate between Senator surrogates John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman:

MR. BROKAW: And just this past week you said to the Palm Beach Post, "There's a problem in Washington. That problem is partisanship, grown people going to Washington acting like children having a mud fight." Do you think running a campaign ad in which you feature Britney Spears and Paris Hilton with Barack Obama is respectful?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I do. First off, you know, we all ought to relax a little bit. It's, it's a bit of humor. It's a way to draw people into the ad. Incidentally, the McCain campaign has another ad up in which they seem to be comparing Obama to Moses. So, in my book, that's about a good comparison as you can ask for. I should say, in "The Book," it's about a good a comparison as you should ask for. But, look, there's a very serious point to that ad, and it, and it gets right to it, which is, is, notwithstanding his celebrity status, is Barack Obama ready to lead? And my answer is no, that Barack Obama is a gifted, eloquent, young man who can and I hope will give great leadership to America in the years ahead. But the question is who's ready to be president on January 20th, 2009 with the economy in a crisis and facing dangerous enemies abroad. It's clearly John McCain. We only have two choices here: John McCain, Barack Obama. John McCain is ready to lead.

[...]Senator Kerry, by using the language that he did, saying, "I don't look like the president on a dollar bill or a five dollar bill," wasn't he, in effect, saying, "They're picking on my because I'm black"?

SEN. KERRY: No. What he was saying is they're trying to scare you. They're trying to scare the American people. And, believe me, I'm an expert on how they do that. They are engaged in character assassination, even John McCain's partner in a number of initiatives in the Senate, Russ Feingold, said yesterday, "They've decided they can't win on the issues, so now they're going to try to destroy his character." And that is exactly what this ad is calculated to do.

MR. BROKAW: But it's not, it's not just...

SEN. KERRY: The New York Times--well, but let me just...

MR. BROKAW: Yeah.

SEN. KERRY: Tom, The New York Times said this is the low road express. John McCain himself, you just quoted him, John McCain said, "I want to have a campaign not of insults, but of ideas."

I mean, Joe, what's the idea in that?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well...

SEN. KERRY: What is the idea--no, wait, let me just finish. What is the idea...

SEN. LIEBERMAN: The idea is that Barack Obama's not ready to lead, and he's against offshore drilling.

SEN. KERRY: Well, I'm going to come to that. I'm going to come to that.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: That's pretty direct and clear.

SEN. KERRY: No, it doesn't mention not ready to lead...

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yes it does.

SEN. KERRY: ...and it doesn't mention offshore drilling. What it talks about--it tries to insinuate that his celebrity is somehow all he has. Now, I'm going to get to the other, but this is, you know, this is a complete contradiction in John McCain. John McCain has said he wants a campaign of ideas, not insults. John McCain has said the American people want a campaign that's respectful.

Even you, Joe, 10 years ago, you went to the floor of the United States Senate, and you said that our public life is coarsening. You said that the society's values are shrinking. That's an ad that plays to the worst instincts in America, which is to diminish someone's character.

US Auto Sales Slump to 16-Year Low

This isn't just a recession. It is economic collapse.

U.S. auto sales slumped to a 16-year low in July as automakers failed to keep up with consumers' growing demand for smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. While production changes may help that problem, trouble in the credit and auto leasing markets will continue to take a toll on sales.

[...]Automakers were expecting a slide in July as high gas prices continued to cut into sales of trucks and sport utility vehicles and new troubles in the auto leasing sector further wrecked consumers' confidence. July's seasonally adjusted sales rate — which shows what sales would be if they continued at the same pace for the full year — was 12.5 million vehicles, according to Autodata Corp. That's down from 17 million as recently as 2005.

Automakers expect things to get worse before they get better.

A big part of the problem is consumer's have no money to purchase cars:

Low-wage workers in the United States are gripped by increasing financial insecurity as they inch along an economic tightrope made riskier by pervasive job losses and rising prices. Many struggle to pay for life's basics -- housing, food and health care -- and most report having virtually no financial cushion should they stumble.

[...]"A lot of issues that have long confronted low-wage workers are now increasingly facing middle-income workers," who more than ever face the prospect of jarring income declines, and the lack of health care and pensions to support them, said Beth Shulman, a scholar with the Russell Sage Foundation's Future of Work Project.

If those growing concerns translate into political action to bolster the social safety net, she said, it would disproportionately help low-wage workers. "I don't think we want to live in a country where people are working and doing what they are supposed to do but yet they can't get the basics," Shulman said.

Meanwhile, George Bush plays political games and tries to do favors for his oil buddies:

President Bush chastised Democrats on Saturday for refusing to allow a vote on whether to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling before lawmakers departed for their summer recess.

"To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home," Bush said in his weekly radio address. It was the fourth time this week that he has called for Congress to end the drilling restrictions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Bruce Ivins was a Scapegoat in the FBI Anthrax Investigation

The Feds have failed from the beginning to find those responsible for the anthrax attacks. One of the main reasons being their penchant for using profiles that were intended for common criminals. The problem is profiling does not work with international terrorism. That anthrax attacks was committed by al Qaeda. That simple. The failure of the FBI in finding the truth behind the anthrax terror is the same reason they failed in preventing 9-11 in the first place. The FBI is not equipped to investigate or prevent international terrorism.

For nearly seven years, scientist Bruce E. Ivins and a small circle of fellow anthrax specialists at Fort Detrick's Army medical lab lived in a curious limbo: They served as occasional consultants for the FBI in the investigation of the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks, yet they were all potential suspects.

They hounded Ivins to death:

[...]colleagues and friends of the vaccine specialist remained convinced that Ivins was innocent: They contended that he had neither the motive nor the means to create the fine, lethal powder that was sent by mail to news outlets and congressional offices in the late summer and fall of 2001. Mindful of previous FBI mistakes in fingering others in the case, many are deeply skeptical that the bureau has gotten it right this time.

"I really don't think he's the guy. I say to the FBI, 'Show me your evidence,' " said Jeffrey J. Adamovicz, former director of the bacteriology division at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, on the grounds of the sprawling Army fort in Frederick. "A lot of the tactics they used were designed to isolate him from his support. The FBI just continued to push his buttons."

Congress needs to investigate this matter. Don't let the FBI get away with closing the case without proving they had one:

Once the case is closed, the FBI and Justice Department will face questions -- and possibly public hearings -- from congressional oversight committees, which have been largely shut out of the case the past five years. The investigators have cited the ongoing nature of the case, as well as accusations of leaks to the media, for the information blackout to Capitol Hill.

Ivins did not have the wherewithal to make airborne anthrax:

[...]others, including former colleagues and scientists with backgrounds in biological weapons defense, disagreed that Ivins could have created the anthrax powder, even if he were motivated to do so.

"USAMRIID doesn't deal with powdered anthrax," said Richard O. Spertzel, a former biodefense scientist who worked with Ivins at the Army lab. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it. You would need to have the opportunity, the capability and the motivation, and he didn't possess any of those."

Then there is the nonsense about Ivins profiting from an anthrax attack:

[...]sources familiar with details of the Army's patent process said it was unlikely that Ivins or the other scientists would reap a big financial windfall from VaxGen's vaccine production. They say the government restricts income from inventions produced in its laboratories to no more than $150,000 per year, but the amount is often considerably less.

Ivins erratic bahaviour during his final days can be directly attributed to the strain of having the government hounding him for months for something he hadn't done.

Court records obtained yesterday shed further light on the concerns of a mental health professional who met Ivins during his final months -- a period when, friends say, he fell into depression under the strain of constant FBI scrutiny. The records also suggest that a Frederick social worker, Jean Duley, passed on her concerns to the FBI after receiving death threats from Ivins.

Let's have the press interview this woman and have explain her charges. Her description of Ivins sounds very suspicious to me.

Duley became so worried that she petitioned a local judge for a protective order against Ivins. According to an audio recording of the hearing, she said she had seen Ivins as a therapist for six months, and thought he had tried to kill people in the past.

"As far back as the year 2000, [Ivins] has actually attempted to murder several other people, [including] through poisoning," she said "He is a revenge killer, when he feels that he's been slighted . . . especially towards women. He plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killings," she told a judge.

And if Ivins was the culprit why didn't the government focus on him first. They instead hounded another scientist, Steven Hatfill. Hatfill sued the government for defamation and won.

He accused investigators of alerting the news media in advance to the search of his home, and later of conducting constant surveillance of him. His home phone was wiretapped, he said, and agents followed him wherever he went.

Five years ago in the Georgetown section of Washington, he approached the car of an F.B.I. agent who had been trailing him, wanting to take the agent’s picture. The agent drove off, and his car ran over Dr. Hatfill’s foot. The police later issued a ticket to Dr. Hatfill for “walking to create a hazard,” and he was fined $5. No ticket was given the agent.

Declaring that his life was being destroyed by harassment, Dr. Hatfill went to court to try to clear his name.

The NY Times understood back in November of 2001 that the FBI was screwing-up the investigation into who was behind the anthrax attacks. Ever since then they've been desperate to find anyone to blame:

WRONG TURNS -- The federal inquiry into the anthrax attacks has stumbled in several key areas and may have missed opportunities to gather valuable evidence as investigators have been unable to fully grasp the scientific complexities of the case.

There are some prominent figures involved in the case who also doubt the FBI's case:

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whose office was a target of the anthrax attacks in 2001, said Sunday the suicide of the government's main suspect does not mean the case is over.

Daschle said the FBI has not given him any new updates. He also raised questions about the quality of the investigation, noting that the government recently paid out almost $6 million to a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, who accused authorities of unfairly targeting him in the anthrax case.

"From the very beginning I've had real concerns about the quality of the investigation," Daschle said in a broadcast interview. "Given the fact that they already paid somebody else $5 million for the mistakes they must have made gives you some indication of the overall caliber and quality of the investigation."

Update:
This comes from Salon/Glenn Greenwald:

The unanswered questions in the anthrax case are literally too numerous to chronicle. It is so vital to emphasize that not a shred of evidence has yet been presented that the now-deceased Bruce Ivins played any role in the anthrax attacks, let alone that he was the sole or even primary culprit. Nonetheless, just as they did with Steven Hatfill, the media (with some notable and important exceptions) are reporting this case as though the matter is resolved.

Given the significance of the anthrax attacks, it would be unconscionable for there to be anything other than a full-scale Congressional or independent investigation -- with a full airing of all the facts -- regarding everything that happened here. Those issues should include exploration of the following questions, many of which might well have perfectly reasonable and benign explanations, and some of which may not, but until there is a full airing, it will necessarily be the case -- and it should be the case -- that this episode will only serve to further erode whatever lingering trust there is in media and government institutions

Obama Press Conference Transcript (8-2-08)

Read the transcript.

Q: 60 miles off of the Florida coast for drilling is a huge shift in where we are now. Are you going to do anything to discourage or oppose that element of the bill?

BO: You know, again, we don't have legislation yet. So I don't want to prejudge what's out there. I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Democrats and republicans in the senate on this issue. So I applaud them on that. But I'm not ready to sign off on any particular approach or proposal, because I think that these are very important issues. the one thing that I have said consistently when it comes to the Florida coastline is that as dependant as this state is on tourism, as important as that coastline is, we've got to proceed with extreme caution when it comes to anything that would have an impact on that extraordinary treasure, not just of Florida's, but of the country as a whole.

[...]Q: Senator, you said you are not injecting race into the campaign race. Your surrogates have said that your comments about not looking like other presidents on the dollar bill is not about your race. But you did say that, back at a fund-raiser in Jacksonville, that they are going to try to make you afraid of me, that he is young and inexperienced, he's got a funny name and did I mention that he is black. How do you reconcile that?

BO: I don't think it is accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race. Let me make this first point. Most of the people here here at this event in Union, Missouri. Almost none of you, maybe none of you, thought that was making a racially incendiary remark or playing the race card. It wasn't until John McCain's team started pushing it that it ended up being on the front page of the New York Times two days in a row.[...]

Video: U.S. Cops Arrested in Mexico for Smuggling Firearms

This is not good. The greatest threat to fighting crime, especially when it comes to drugs, are corrupt police. The situation along the Mexican border is becoming a serious threat.

Newsweek: "Where Have You Gone," John McCain?

This article from Jonathan Alter wonders whatever happened to the 'Maverick' John McCain. Now he's just become another establishment Republican.

In the middle of John McCain's dopey Britney & Paris attack ad, the announcer gravely asks of Barack Obama: "Is He Ready to Lead?" An equally good question is whether McCain is ready to lead. For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician—erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure from the last knucklehead who offers him advice. The youthful insouciance that for many years has helped McCain charm reporters like me is now channeled into an ad that one GOP strategist labeled "juvenile," another termed "childish" and McCain's own mother called "stupid." The Obama campaign's new mantra is that McCain is "an honorable man running a dishonorable campaign." Lame is more like it. And out of sync with the real guy.

Of course, it might work. Maybe depicting Obama as a presumptuous and vaguely foreign presence will resonate. (Why else would one of McCain's slogans be "An American president for America"?) Maybe voters will agree with McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, who played the fussy card last week by arguing the central importance to the future of the republic of Obama's taste for "MET-Rx chocolate roasted peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew called Black Forest Berry Honest Tea." (Davis somehow forgot to mention McCain's own preference for $520 Ferragamo shoes.) Maybe convincing nervous white voters that Obama is another Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in his use of racial grievance politics will carry McCain to the White House.

But this is not 1988, when Vice President George Bush turned Michael Dukakis into an unpatriotic coddler of criminals. (Bush that year had a popular president and a strong economy behind him.) And it's not 2004, when his son Swift-Boated John Kerry. (The president would have likely won anyway by playing on post-9/11 fear.) This year, McCain is running under a tattered Republican banner, with more than 80 percent of the public thinking the country is on the wrong track. Without some compelling vision beyond support for offshore drilling, the negativity may well boomerang. "It's hard to imagine America responding to 'small ball' when we have all these problems," says John Weaver, McCain's chief strategist in 2000 who was pushed out of the campaign last year.