from the center for american progress:

iraq
cheney’s pants ‘probably’ on fire

in a terse, one sentence rebuke, the bipartisan 9/11 commission yesterday embarrassed vice president dick cheney, debunking his claims of having more evidence of a purported saddam-al qaeda link. last month, after the commission reported “”no credible evidence”” of a collaborative relationship between iraq and al qaeda, cheney reiterated his claim of having “”overwhelming evidence”” of a connection, then attacked the commission and said he “”probably”” had more information than they did. but yesterday, the commission said “”it had access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al qaeda and iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks”” and that its “”position is firm, unchanged and committed to our previous finding: we have not discovered collaboration-cooperation between al qaeda and iraq in general terrorist activities across the world, against the united states.”” (as john stewart recently joked about cheney’s dishonesty, “”mr. vice president, it’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire.””) with a majority of americans now believing the iraq war was a mistake, the commission’s declaration further undermines the “”central justification the bush administration gave for going to war with iraq.

from the center for american progress:

a general accounting office (gao) report released this week contradicts claims by homeland security secretary tom ridge that u.s. ports are in “”full compliance”” with anti-terrorism standards scheduled to go into effect today. the report alleges that about 7 percent of all u.s. ports and more than half of u.s. ships have not even been reviewed, and that the process for reviewing some other ports is flawed. the big problem, however, is money: the la times reports, “”experts said yesterday that inadequate government funding has slowed efforts”” to secure the nation’s ports. as in many areas of homeland security, president bush has underfunded his own security mandates for u.s. ports, putting americans at risk. american progress’s p.j. crowley writes that as a result of underfunding, “”a lot of the security improvements the bush administration is touting exist on paper and not yet on the pier.””

bush underfunds port security: the implementation of security measures mandated both nationally and internationally since sept. 11 lags behind because the bush administration is underfunding homeland security in general and port security in particular. the coast guard has put the cost of implementing safety regulations laid out by congress at $7.5 billion over the next ten years, but in president bush’s 2005 budget, he proposed spending only $46 million, a substantial reduction from post 9/11 allocations. this means major shortfalls at the local level: north carolina, for example, “”has asked for $14 million in federal security grants and received $7 million. chief of port security doug campen said. “”it sort of tells you we’re halfway where we need to be.

i don’t know how many of you get daily updates from the center for american progress, but you really should. they’re a remarkable organization and they do great work in exposing the truth about the extreme right-wing in the united states.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=bijrj8ovf&b=3750

is the link to sign up to get their reports.
-moby

from the center for american progress(a side note: if you don’t get the center for american progresses daily updates you’re really missing out on some great, factual reporting)- http://www.americanprogress.org

with counterterrorism chief richard clarke set to testify before the 9/11 commission today, president bush defended himself against well-documented charges of negligence before 9/11, saying, “”had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack new york city on september the 11th, we would have acted.”” while there may have been no information pinpointing the terror attacks to an exact day or location, bush’s statement glosses over the fact that he received repeated warnings before 9/11 that an al qaeda attack was imminent. for instance, the president received a cia warning on august 6th, 2001, headlined, “”bin laden determined to strike in u.s.”” noting the “”plot could include the hijacking of an american airplane.”” additionally, the white house was warned in july of 2001 that al qaeda had considered using hijacked airliners as missiles. the vice president himself even admitted this, saying five days after 9/11 that “”there had been information coming in that a big operation was planned”” (see a full list of warnings). yet despite these warnings, the administration deemphasized counterterrorism; never once convened its own counterterrorism task force; threatened to veto bills diverting national missile defense funds into counterterrorism; delayed arming the unmanned predator drone flying over afghanistan; terminated “”a highly classified program to monitor al qaeda suspects in the united states””; and downgraded clarke’s counterterrorism office within the white house.

lie ã? white house did not order iraq plans right after 9/11: white house press secretary scott mcclellan yesterday was asked about clarke’s charges that “”the president was directing the pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of iraq.”” he responded, “”that’s part of his revisionist history.”” the reporter then asked, “”are you saying it’s not true?”” mcclellan again responded, “”yes, that’s right. i am. that’s just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that.”” this denial was echoed by national security adviser condoleezza rice as well. but according to the 1/12/03 wp (which quotes senior administration officials) “”six days after the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon, president bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked ‘top secret'”” that “”directed the pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of iraq.”” this is corroborated by a cbs news, which reported on 9/4/02 ãŠthat five hours after the 9/11 attacks, “”defense secretary donald rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking iraq.”” and it is consistent with the president’s thinking. as he said immediately after the attacks, “”i believe iraq was involved”” and iraq “”probably was behind this in the end”” – despite having no proof and being told that was not the case.

admission ã? president himself proves clarke’s point: the white house has brushed aside clarke’s charges ã? and㊠hard evidence – that it was downgrading and defunding counterterrorism in the lead-up to 9/11, claiming that it really was focused on fighting terrorism. but president bush himself essentially conceded clarke’s point when he told bob woodward, “”i was not on point”” in fighting terrorism before 9/11, and “”i didn’t feel the sense of urgency”” about terrorism before 9/11, despite receiving repeated warnings.

from the center for american progress:

just 96 hours after president bush promised to release every single document related to his national guard service, the white house formally deserted the pledge, once again resorting to its practice of hiding important information from the public. as the wp reports, “”administration officials declined yesterday to commit to releasing further records, despite a statement sunday by bush on nbc that he would open his entire military file.”” while the white house did release records from a dental exam placing bush in alabama in january of 1973, there were “”other medical records it did not release”” that would prove whether ã? or not ã? he actually fulfilled his entire duty. as the new york daily news reports, the white house refused to answer questions about why bush “”missed a physical in 1972 that caused him to be suspended as a pilot”” and the documents not being released may have answers to that.㊠american progress fellow larry korb, a former assistant secretary of defense in the reagan administration said, “”we spent $1 million to train him to fly. you’re supposed to be ready to fly if we need you. if you didn’t show up for your flight physical, good heavens!””

potential missing documents: the boston globe reports “”president bush’s august 1972 suspension from flight status in the texas air national guard – triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical – should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by bush, and perhaps a written report to senior air force officials, according to air force regulations in effect at the time.”” a spokesman for the national guard bureau said those records would most likely be in bush’s personnel file ã? the file the white house yesterday said it was “”reviewing”” and today said it will not release.ãŠ

new absence allegations: the new york daily news reports “”bush left his texas air national guard assignment and moved to alabama in 1972 even though the air force denied his request for a transfer, according to his military records. in fact, bush, did not even ask for an official transfer until nine days after he moved to alabama in may 1972. the air force quickly rejected bush’s request, saying the fighter pilot was ‘ineligible’ to move to the alabama unit bush wanted – a squadron of postal handlers.”” again, the white house is refusing to release documents which would clear up the matter.