This is infuriating. HotAir, Michelle Malkin, and others have covered this and there's not much to add because I think we're all equally outraged at the "rules of engagement" that led to this Clinton style bungle. Kerry Sanders originally broke this story, and has details on the photo release.

Anyway, here's the deal. We had an undetected drone spot over 100 taliban fighters standing in formation at a funeral in Afghanistan. Excited Army officers quickly had the wind taken out of their sails when folks higher up in the chain of command said a strike was a no go because apparently our self imposed rules of engagement forbid attacking terrorists at a funeral.

To be clear, there is nothing illegal or against Geneva Conventions (not that ununiformed soldiers that don't fight for a particular country are entitled to Geneva Convention rights anyway). Judge Napolitano broke it down on Gibson today, and to sum up this was basically a stupid decision in an effort to appear civil to people that don't car about civility! There was nothing that forced us to pass on this massive target, other than our own "let's play nice" rules. This is crap. I just mentioned the other day that this mentallity is our biggest weakness and we need to cut the crap and get tough.

Remember the fiasco in Iraq when terrorists were hiding in hospitals, mosques, and schools. They fired out but we wouldn't fire back in. Actually this is still going on today. These sorts of rules are our weakness and get our military folks killed. It's the same as this funeral incident. We try to play nice with terrorists... why? I don't think anyone wants to argue that we're trying to show good will to the Taliban, in hopes that they'll "see the light" or something. The argument you'll probably hear is that we're trying to be sensitive to everyone in the region, but come on. If they're going to get made about it, you know who's side they're on anyway. There's comes a time when we need to decide if we are trying to win these wars, and stop all these politically correct tactics. How many people will now die at the hands of these 100+ Taliban fighters?

 

*UPDATE* - You know the legitimate outrage over the Bush assassination movie? Well the libs are trying to say that there was a Clinton assassination in "The Path to 9/11". Where you ask? Apparently they think terrorists angrily shooting at Clinton's image on a screen is equivalent to a movie based on the assassination of Bush, and a post-Bush world. Kos, not surprisingly, linked me to that ridiculousness. I would say they can't be serious, but sadly this is all too predictable from these loons

I haven't had an opportunity to post on the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11", and it would have been pointless trying to keep up with the coverage of the folks at HotAir. Even as we speak, AllahPundit has posted a reminder, but also notes that the documentary 9/11 will be airring on CBS. Not sure which one to watch live yet. After my comments I'll post links to all of HotAir's extensive coverage leading up to tonight's program.

By now you certainly know that the Clinton administration and Democrats in general have been freaking out over the ABC miniseries. They're upset about fictionalized scenes that essentially show Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration in general, dropping the ball on killing and/or capturing Bin Laden. The movie is labeled a docudrama, because it isn't supposed to be a documentary, which is why it has actors telling a story. I do understand their outrage, because the original scenes in question do make them look pretty bad.

It seems that the scenes that they're mad about are fictional events happening in Washington, centered around REAL events, like not giving the go to the CIA to kill Bin Laden when they had the chance, and then tipping off the Pakistanis who tipped off UBL before another strike. The problem is, these real "on the ground" events actually happened, but the Dems are ripped about the fictionalized Washington scenes built around them. So while I hate to borrow a term created during Rathergate, this is "fake but accurate". Only in this case, "fake but accurate" is true.

Before I link you to the scenes, that it seems have now been cut, I'd like to say that I actually kind of agree with the Dems, that this film should be pulled... but for different reasons. I think if we really want to examine Clinton's Bin Laden fighting record, ABC should start with a point by point analysis of the contents of the book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror.

After we become fully aware of the facts and all claims made in that book, we should take a look at a speech given by Clinton in 2002 when he unwittingly admitted that he dropped the ball:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Seems pretty straight forward, right? Sudan offered him to Billy Jeff, but he turned them down. Dems will argue all day long that he didn't say "they offered Bin Laden", but that's just word games. Read where Clinton says "so I did not bring him..." He's saying that he had the opportunity to, or else he wouldn't have given a reason why he didn't. And then he says "I pleaded with the Saudis to take him...", again saying that it was his decision to do with UBL what he wished. There is nothing ambiguous about this and no way to spin it. If you have read this comment, and think you have another view about it, you're lying because there's no wiggle room.

Now if I wanted to get in to the Able Danger angle, we could be here all night. I almost hesitate to link to Wikipedia with that because I haven't read that entire article, but it's too broad of a topic to use anything else. If you aren't familiar, here's the gist - Jamie Gorelick, a senior justice department official under Clinton, may not have erected the wall between law enforcement and intelligence, but she made it the wall it became. She laid each and every brick making the wall much higher than it had ever been. This wall kept a secret intelligence group called Able Danger from passing along information about the 9/11 hijackers to the proper authorities. Specifically they identified ringleader Mohamed Atta, and 3 others.

Able Danger repeatedly tried to get this info to the proper authorities, but the Clinton justice Dept. wasn't having any of it. Then for some unknown reason, no one saw it a conflict of interest to make Gorelick commissioner of the 9/11 commission, and no one seems that curious about what documents Sandy Berger shoved down his pants and socks and later destroyed. For some reason even after he was criminally charged and convicted after denying then admitting his crime, everyone seems to have accepted the "oh, they were just copies" excuse. Why hide them in your pants and socks then sir?

It wouldn't take you more than 10 minutes of Googling to realiz that the real story is much more damning for Bill Clinton and his adminstration than anything ABC was going to show in this docudrama.

That all said, it seems like ABC resisted efforts to force them to pull the program, however it sounds like they've removed the scenes that got the left all in a tizzy. I sort of actually agree with pulling those scenes if they weren't exactly what happened, but I bet it will hurt the story a bit, and I think that there is no excuse for not including the real truth, which would actually be much worse for Slick Willy. If you would like to see the scenes that have been removed (according to British TV viewers who's seen the first half of the program (see HotAir)), you can see them, in 6 parts, at Save the Soldliers and Pointvlog. Again, these seem to just be dramatized scenes of things along the lines of what we can assume must have been going on behind closed doors. Fake but accurate.

(mid-post break PROGRAM ABOUT TO START)

(Program ended)

Okay, I have to say that the movie is really well put together. One of the few things I've seen in recent time that is captivating (for lack of a better word). I missed a good chunk when my brother showed up to check out the bite I got from my neighbor's dog today, but I DVRed it so I can see what I missed later. I do know, from reading the HotAir thread, that part of what I missed was the section where ABC caved in and removed scenes to appease the Clinstapo. AllahPundit has posted two videos as well, one of the unedited (not shown) and one of the edited (shown) versions of that part of the film, whicih I'll be checking out shortly.

Now, much of that was all my rant and take on this whole situation, but as I said others, especially HotAir have blogged the hell out of this thing over the past week. From reporting the insane calls for editing and pulling of the movie, to Thug Democrats threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license, etc. etc. It would be pointless for me to try to catch up on blogging all of this information, but I think it's important to digest all of what went on this week and consider what it may all mean.

I honestly think that the Lewinsky issue being brought back to the forefront, as a possible Clinton distraction, is a huge part of what we saw go down this week. Yes he doesn't want the world to see him asleep at the wheel on UBL, but I think the entire Clinton organization is afraid of the political implications of seeing him asleep with the humidor (yeah, I went there).

Anyway, without further ado, here's the HotAir coverage. Read/watch all of it:

Report: ABC agrees to edit “Path to 9/11" after phone call from Clinton

Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11" Update: Stolen Honor redux?

Miserable failure: More Clinton counterterror catastrophes

Video flashback: U.S. drone had Osama onscreen — in 2000

ABC cancels “Path to 9/11" web ads? Update: Lefties squat on “Path” domain name

Video: Clinton takes strong, principled stand against lying

Meltdown: Dean, Berger, Albright, lefty historians demand “Path” be edited cancelled (Update: Clinton’s lawyers, too)

Video: Red State obtains preview copy of “Path to 9/11"

For now I'm on the edge of my seat for the conclusion tomorrow. So far it's been very interesting and well done.

FEATURED BOOK

 

Looks like it. And it looks like someone dropped the ball by lettin' this one get a way, more specifically, deporting him. Quick review: deport those with ties to 9/11 hijackers, keep 10-20 million illegal immigrants.

Sounds to me like this guy may be a bigger player than Moussaoui ever was.

Senior U.S. law enforcement officials tell NBC News that the FBI is again actively investigating a good friend of the 9/11 hijackers — two years after the U.S. allowed the man to be deported to his home country.

His name is Mohdar Abdullah, a Yemeni student who admits befriending two 9/11 hijackers — Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar — when they lived in San Diego.

NBC News has learned that the renewed FBI investigation was triggered, in part, by surveillance videotapes from inside the Los Angeles Airport shot in June 2000 — a year before 9/11.

Law enforcement officials tell NBC the grainy tapes show terrorist Nawaf al-Hazmi with Abdullah and an unidentified man. Sources say the men appear to be scouting out the airport. Some FBI agents believe that one of the men may be holding a video camera and rotates in a circle while secretly videotaping near the security area.

"This is very consistent with what the hijackers did," says 9/11 Commission former co-chair Tom Kean, adding, "if he's on tape here with the hijackers, then this is something that should really be investigated further."

The only reason to think he could be an innocent bystander is because the 9/11 Commission had their eye on him, sense the Commission got virtually everything wrong, protected Clinton's hide, and refused (and continues to refuse) to acknowledge Able Danger. Not going to get off on the Gorelick tangent, but I just want to make the point that the 9/11 Commission was a joke, so anything involving them requires much scrutiny.

The 9/11 Commission says Abdullah had extremist sympathies, helped the two hijackers get drivers licenses and flight training and, after 9/11, "expressed hatred for the U.S. government."

But before the 9/11 Commission could question him, the U.S. deported him.

"He should not have been let out of the country when the 9/11 commission wanted to interview him," Kean says.

The airport tapes were not found until after Abdullah was deported. The grand jury subpoena for the tapes, obtained by NBC news, is dated October 2004 [PDF link].

Some law enforcement officials now regret deporting Abdullah. One official tells NBC he is now "more suspicious" that Abdullah had some prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Again, even though it's not the subject of the post, I can't totally let this go - why are you whining about not getting to interview him, but you all but totally blew off Able Danger, and don't include the explosive truth that they had identified a number of the 9/11 hijackers, including the ringleader Atta, as potential terrorists back during the Clinton administration, but because of the wall that Jamie Gorelick strengthened, intelligence groups couldn't pass information to the proper law enforcement agencies. The left still doesn't have a problem with this senior Clinton justice department official, responsible for building up that wall, being commissioner of the 9/11 commission. But anyone seeking honest finds it suspect at the very least, especially when coupled with Sandy Berger's pants dance.

At any rate, this is an interesting story, hopefully the press will follow it. At least the FBI is on it now, though no one knows what took them so long to find the tapes:

Law-enforcement officials tell NBC News that the FBI is now re-examining all of Abdullah's contacts with friends and associates in the U.S., especially anyone he's contacted since returning to Yemen.

Why didn't they find these tapes until 2004 isn’t known — especially since the FBI knew that on the day these tapes were shot in June 2000, one of the hijackers went to Los Angeles Airport for a flight home to Yemen. Critics are certain to question whether the FBI again missed an important clue, and let a possible accomplice get away.

And a little fun at the expense of the "Truthers".... Pssssssst! You know why it took so long to find the tapes? Because Rove had to learn how to use the video editing software to create them, and up until now they've been busy first making the fake phone calls from 9/11, then the fake videos of the hijackers passing through airport security, then brainwashing the thousands of people who had to be involved to pull off such a conspiracy so that none of them would talk, and of course making all the fake Bin Laden and Zawahiri videos. Rove's had a full plate, and after recently making the fake pre-9/11 video of two of the hijackers meeting with Bin Laden and issuing their video wills, he finally got around to creating this fake LAX tape.......... uh........ yeah, that sounds about right...... um......ILLUMINATI! FREE MASONS! LOOK AT THE OWL HIDDEN ON THE DOLLAR BILL! WASHINGTON DC IS LAID OUT LIKE A PENTAGRAM! GOTCHA BUSH CO.!

 

By now you've seen the headlines: Senate: No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties. What the media isn't telling you is that THIS IS A LIE! Saddam DID have ties to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Yahoo! has been running a link to the story on their home page all day, and virtually all other news sites and television programs have been repeating this "new finding" all day in an attempt to continue the "Bush lied" claim. Aside from the fact that this story is, as Tony Snow and others have said "nothing new", the "conclusion" is A FLAT OUT LIE! This report that concludes no connection was specifically about Zarqawi, and his lack of ties to Saddam. Not about Al Qaeda in general. So virtually every headline you've seen is A LIE, because Saddam DID HAVE TIES to Al Qaeda, but I can't blame you for not knowing. The media has done a great job of ignoring the story.

Do you remember a few months ago, the push by a few GOP congressman to release some of the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured in Iraq? We got a slow trickle of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the documents, but even they revealed quite a bit, that was quickly burried by the media. While I still want to know when we'll get access to the rest of those documents, I'll set that aside for the moment, as this post is about Saddam's Al Qaeda ties.

Via ABC News March 23, 2006:

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

and

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I've left in ABC's "editor's notes". Regardless of their personal take and editor's notes, doesn't this information deserve mentioning in these LYING articles that claim to prove no connection, that are only based on no Zarqawi/Saddam connection? Of course that's not even getting in to any of this.

Bottom line? You've been lied to by the media...... AGAIN!

 

Everyone's two favorite "allies" are at it again. CBC tells us what America's mohawk thinks about the motivation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.

The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.

And of course, Canada's uncle France weighs in with this, via Reuters:

France issued an implicit criticism of U.S. foreign policy on Thursday, rejecting talk of a "war on terror".

"Let us not forget that these crises play into the hands of all extremists," the prime minister said in a debate on the Middle East. "We can see this with terrorism, whether it tries to strike inside or outside our frontiers," he added.

Don't read the next part with any liquids in your mouth, I can't afford to buy you a new keyboard:

"Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners.

"But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises," he said.

Yeah, let's model ourselves after France. That way we can rapidly be invaded by Muslims and within decades, have a Muslim majority. Of course we can start by having tens of thousands of rioting Muslims, most of whom are unemployed, causing chaos in our streets torching the cars of thousands of innocent people. Thanks for the tips Dumbinique.

"It is the duty of France and Europe to show that the clash of civilizations is not inevitable," he said. "No one retains this wisdom, inherited from our history, as we, French and Europeans, do," he said.

You would think so wouldn't you Dom? You may be claiming to retain that wisdom, but clearly you haven't. Don't worry, no American president could politically let France burn. So in the near future when al-France is totally screwed, Uncle Sam will bail you out once again. Sleep tight.

 

***UPDATE - ALLAH HAS VIDEO***

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

This is big, if it is true. Prepare for "Truthers" to add a new twist to their fairytale. Bush/Rove Productions somehow had to stage this event, and make these "fake" suicide videos by the hijackers...

Arabic TV channel Al-Jazeera has broadcast what it says is unseen footage of Osama Bin Laden meeting some of the 9/11 hijackers.

The channel said it showed al-Qaeda leaders "preparing for the attacks and practising their execution".

The footage also shows the al-Qaeda leader meeting senior figures Ramzi Binalshibh and Mohammed Atef.

Binalshibh was captured in 2002 and Atef was killed by a US air strike in Afghanistan in 2001.

Al-Jazeera also showed "suicide" videos by two of the hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center.

Developing...

***UPDATE***
Michelle Malkin links to Allah's "mega-post".. I'm on my way to dig around...

*UPDATE*
Rusty notices a 9/11 ringleader missing from the video:

Dick Cheney does not appear on the video. No comment from Democratic nominee for Congress Bob Bowman.

Come on Rusty, that's him in the Bin Laden mask!

I'm actually on the edge of my seat here, waiting to see how the "truthers" will spin this. Will it be that this tape was just made recently, because there were no hijackers because we know Bush Co. was behind 9/11? Will it be that Bush/Rove "put them up to it", like they do for every UBL tape when Dubya's polls sink? I really can't wait to see what they say.

***UPDATE***
Check out this screen shot from the New York 9/11 Truth group page:

As you can see from this search, the conspiracy theorists have run wild with this one. First of all, we have to assume that the quote is real, but even if it is, it didn't mean much. It was supposedly in response to someone inquiring as to why 9/11 isn't mentioned on Bin Laden's FBI's Most Wanted page. It makes sense, because there wasn't evidence (to my knowledge) of his "direct" involvement. It was just that the 9/11 terrorists were followers of his. This new video seems to reveal his direct contact and training of them.

This WAPO piece clears up the omission of 9/11 from the FBI's Most Wanted Bin Laden page:

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

The VT Truther group latches on to the quote as well. It appears they are having some sort of gathering Saturday. If I find the time, I may drop by to snap a few photos of moonbattery in action.

***UPDATE***
Earlier I posted the reaction I predict we'll see from the Truthers at HotAir:

Damn you stupid non-Truthers! Don’t you know that sense it was Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the rest of the illuminati skull and bones free mason gang who attacked us on 9/11, that this tape could have been made any time? The guys who are blamed for the attack in the official version are alive and well and this tape was probably made yesterday.

***UPDATE***
Video as it appeared on Al Jazeera at CBS, in right sidebar. (h/t Allah)

***UPDATE***
In the event that CBS removes the video, or there are any issues with that link in the future, Ian has posted the video at HotAir.

 

*UPDATE* - Not surprisingly the headline the MSM is running with: Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons. Wasn't surprised at all to see that on the Yahoo! home page when I opened a new browser.

I mentioned earlier that custody of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be transfered from CIA to the DoD (yes liberals, KSM is the mastermind, not that cartoon mascot Osama, who's capture you like to pretend would be some end all to terror simply because you know that name appeals to simple average Americans). President Bush is currently making the expected speech to announce it, but others are expecting 'significant news' based on statements made by Tony Snow this morning. I think we're going to be disappointed that the announcement is nothing more than a detailed elaboration on what we learned already.

He is talking a lot about getting congress to pass some type of military tribunals he's asking for.

I suppose it's somewhat interesting that these guys are actually going to Gitmo now that they've been transferred, but I don't think it's that exciting or surprising. The President also gave detailed explanations of what these guys were all about and their connections to attacks and planned attacks around the world, as well as defended his policies for dealing with these people. Other than that, there hasn't been a whole lot new (but he's still going).

Malkin and Allah are both liveblogging. Check them out for details, as they've been liveblogging from the start.

 

This is an interesting little story from our local paper, the Burlington Free Press. I assume a lot of locals here in Vermont are already familiar with Lt. Col. Scott Baldwin, but considering that 9/11 was actually the day I moved to Nashville (and was only an hour or so outside of NYC when it wall went down), and I just moved back this summer, I hadn't heard this man's story before.

I don't envy this guy for having to have his finger on the trigger, ready to shoot down any plane that may have posed a threat, especially without the FAA being involved.

A preview:

Baldwin, then 47, broke off his approach and asked: "Whaddya got?"

"An airplane just flew into the World Trade Center," he was told. Baldwin was asked to return to base.

The rules of engagement were clear: The pilots were not to allow into New York City any airplane they determined was a threat. That meant shooting it down. That meant their orders, if they had to act, involved killing U.S. citizens.

"It's pretty unthinkable that you'd have to shoot down an airplane of your fellow citizens," Baldwin said. "But you know you got to do what you're ordered to do. I think for everybody, that was the big realization: The times have changed."

I can't help but breifly bring politics in to this, but I wish someone would repeat that last sentence for the American Left, and even many on the right now.

The pilots had the advantage of flying in ideal weather. They had the disadvantage of operating without the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration, which had ceded control of the skies to the military. No one remained in the air-traffic-control towers at local airports to help communicate with and identify unaccounted-for aircraft.

"The FAA has gone home," Baldwin said. "They're seriously not ID-ing anything."

Read all of Lt. Col. Baldwin's 9/11 story here.

As I mentioned, I was in the process of moving to Nashville that day. My brief story follows.

I had flown my sister up from Nashville to drive my moving truck for me, so I could drive my car, and tagging along for the trip was my cousin and her boyfriend. We left early that moring (still dark out kind of early, maybe 4-5 am?), my cousin's boyfriend riding with me and my cousin riding in the moving truck with my sister. Along the way we decided that we'd either take the route where you can see NYC off in the distance or we'd head straight west through NY state and swing by Niagara Falls. Somewhere within an hour or so of NYC, we decided to go to Niagara because I hadn't been since I was a kid, and my cousin and her boyfriend had never been.

Cruisin' along my cousin's boyfriend and I were listening to CDs, but my cousin and sister were stuck with nothing but a radio in the truck. Not long after we'd decided on our route, the girls called us on the two-way radios I'd bought for the trip to ask if we were listening to the radio. We said no, and then they gave us a station to turn on. They said Howard Stern was talking about a plane hitting the World Trade Center, and they thought he must be joking. I said, I can understand not liking Howard Stern, but I don't think he would stage a hoax about it, making fake news.

After flipping around the stations it became clear that it was real, but without a TV we didn't have any clue what was really going on. I remember all the early reports during the chaos that there may be as many as two dozen hijacked planes in the sky. We looked out above us on the interstate to see if we could see any. I don't recall if we saw any or not, but I do remember a lot of emergency vehicles flying by. But they weren't like regular cops, etc. They were like Ford Bronco volunteer firefighter type vehicles, and other non-traditional law enforcement vehicles of fire trucks.

Despite the fact that everyone in all the rest stops were talking about it all day, we never fully grasped what went down without an image to put with what we'd heard. We tried to stop at Niagara Falls but it was closed, as I understand all National Parks and such were on that day. We got back on the road and wound up getting a hotel in I think Ohio or Indiana (maybe northern Kentucky, not sure). That's when we saw all the live coverage and President Bush's speech. Even then news was still chaotic and it took weeks to really comprehend what went down, especially sense I was in the middle of a cross-country move. Anyway, that's my story.

 

Everyone's favorite Ameri-Qaeda member Adam Gadahn (a.k.a "Azzam the American") joined Ayman al-Zawahiri in this month's Al-Qaeda's Funniest Home Videos, essentially begging for everyone to convert to Islam. It's really odd actually, because rather than threatening the way he has previously done, he's asking Christians, Jews, and everyone else to convert. I see this as a desperation move, that obviously won't do anything for them, but they're trying everything they can.

Let me start off with the first paragraph of the AP article, that I find annoying because of how they refer to this 'tard:

CAIRO, Egypt - An American thought to be an al-Qaida activist appeared in a videotape with the terror group's deputy leader Saturday and called on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Activist!? Are you fricken' kidding me? It's annoying when they're called resistence fighters, etc. but activist? Come on.

A few more hightlights:

Gadahn delivered a lecture on Islam and the "errors" in Christianity and Judaism. He also said the United States is losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and told U.S. soldiers they are fighting President Bush's "crusades."

"Instead of killing yourself for Bush ... why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late," he said.

Here's one for ya:

The CIA said it had conducted a technical review on the videotape and concluded the voice is al-Zawahri's. A CIA spokeswoman said the agency is not authorized to conduct such analysis on U.S. citizens such as Gadahn.

Great policy. I have no doubt that liberals would fight to the death to preserve it.

"You know that if you die as an unbeliever in battle against the Muslims you're going straight to Hell without passing 'Go,'" Gadahn said on the video, addressing American soldiers. "You know you're considered by Bush and his bunch of warmongers as nothing more than expendable cannon fodder ... You know they couldn't care less about your safety and well-being."

Without passing 'go'? This ain't Monopoly dude. "Go directly to your mass grave, do not pass Mecca, do not collect 72 virgins". Yeah, I went there!

"We send a special invitation (to convert to Islam) to all of you fighting Bush's crusader pipedream in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else 'W' has sent you to die. You know the war can't be won," he said, using Bush's nickname.

You know what, I'm starting to come over to your side Adam. You know, because by saying "W", you make me feel like I can relate to you. Sign me up.

"It is time for the unbelievers to discard these incoherent and illogical beliefs," he said. "Isn't it the time for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists and atheists to cast off the cloak of the spiritual darkness which enshrouds them and emerge into the light of Islam?"

Is it that time already? My watch must be broken, because it says it's time to slap the shiite out of you.

Read the rest here.

 

The religion of peace activists terrorists who captured and held Fox News journalist Steve Centanni and freelance cameraman Olaf Wiig for almost two weeks have issued a new threat online.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Palestinian militants who held two Fox News journalists hostage for nearly two weeks threatened in a statement posted online Saturday to abduct non-Muslims visiting the Palestinian territories and kill them unless their demands were met.

The statement, posted in the name of the Holy Jihad Brigades on a Web site frequently used by militants, said the group would kill any hostages it takes unless they converted to Islam, paid a ransom or Muslim prisoners were exchanged for their release.

"Any infidel blood will have no sanctity," the group said in the statement.

You might recall that they forced Centanni and Wiig to convert before releasing them, and then saying:

"Nothing but Islam gave their blood sanctity and prevented their slaughter," the group said.

And if you watched Greta's interview with the two men, you'd know that Centanni came about as close as you can get to becoming an offering in the name of the "religion of peace". The terrorists were set to free Wiig because they believed that as a New Zealander, he was neutral, but planned on killing Centanni as an American (who they also at some points thought was CIA, IDF, etc.).

*UPDATE*
Atlas Shruggs is all over this.

 

*UPDATE* - They've arrested 2 others in Manchester, not linked to the 14 in London. Suzie has more.

The Associated Press

LONDON - Fourteen people were arrested in London overnight on suspicion they were involved in training and recruiting for acts of terrorism, police said Saturday.

Police said the arrests were not linked to last month's alleged plot to bomb U.S.-bound passenger jets or to the July 2005 attacks on London's transport network.

Twelve suspects were arrested at a Chinese restaurant in south London that caters to Muslims, the British Broadcasting Corp. said.

About 40 officers raided the restaurant shortly after 10 p.m. Friday, when it was packed with diners, the BBC said. Police would not comment on the report but said the raids followed months of surveillance and investigation.

Peter Clarke, head of Metropolitan Police anti-terror efforts, said police and intelligence agents were now attempting to track thousands of people believed to be directly or indirectly involved in terrorism, according to comments made public Friday.

Read the rest...

*UPDATE*
Allah has a nice link round-up on this.

More from Suzie, Old War Dogs, Cake or Death, and Liberty and Justice

 

Will you make it happen now Washington? 60% of Americans support profiling.

The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute said 62 percent of Americans were "very worried" or "somewhat worried" that terrorists would strike the nation in the next few months while 37 percent were "not too worried" or "not worried at all."

The poll of 1,080 voters, conducted August 17-23, comes as many Americans are jittery after British authorities foiled a plot to blow up planes but is broadly in line with other surveys on expectations for another attack since September 11.

By a 60 percent to 37 percent margin, respondents said authorities should single out people who look "Middle Eastern" for security screening at locations such as airports and train stations -- a finding that drew sharp criticism by civil liberties groups.

Translation for liberals: When Bush forced his poodle Blair to create anoher fake terrorist plot in London a few weeks ago, it worked perfectly. The evil administration run by Cheney and Rove have succeeded in scaring us so that they can now turn America in to a police state.... oh, and your phone is tapped.

By the way, does anyone ever wonder why it's okay to profile in serial killer cases? Remember, they even did it in the Beltway Sniper case. They were profiling a white man in his 30s. Where was Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, or the ACLU out there protecting all of us poor white people being victimized? Of course in this case they turned out to be wrong because those who actually were killing people were shockingly Muslims, who were actually black. (I know the MSM has hidden this fact from you, but the Beltway Sniper killings were acts of Islamic terror).

But profiling is just good police work, when not abused, and in this world we can't operate on the assumption it will be abused. I'd rather have more focus paid to people named Muslim men named Mohammad at the airport than eighty year old grandmothers. Who is, statistically, more likely to commit a terrorist attack? Obviously this is not a total solution, but it's a helpful law enforcement tool.

 

********THEY'VE BEEN RELEASED******** Jerusalem Post, Sky News...

***UPDATE*** - CENTANNI WAS LIVE ON THE PHONE WITH SHEP ON FNC (ALSO AIRED ON CNN) SAYING THEY WERE FORCED TO CONVERT TO ISLAM AT GUNPOINT

***UPDATE - TIME FOR BED... STAY UPDATED WITH MICHELLE MALKIN AND HOTAIR***

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES ON DETAILS ABOUT THE NEW VIDEO***

*UPDATE* - VIDEO STILLS*

Breaking on Fox and Drudge already had links up....

Obviously forced, kidnapped journalists Steve Centanni of Fox News and freelancer Olaf Wiig apparently blame America and read Islamic writing (not sure if it's the Koran) and have apparently converted to Islam! At the same time we're getting reports that they will be released within hours.

Reuters

GAZA (Reuters) - Two kidnapped Fox journalists appeared on a new videotape released by their captors on Sunday in the Gaza Strip, in which the reporters said they had converted to Islam, the Fox News Channel said.

Both Fox correspondent Steve Centanni, a 60-year-old American, and New Zealand-born cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, appeared to be in good health. They were seized on August 14.

Associated Press

Two Fox News journalists kidnapped in Gaza two weeks ago are expected to be released later Sunday, a senior Palestinian official said, as the kidnappers released a new video of the hostages.

The official, Interior Ministry spokesman Khaled Abu Hilal, said the two hostages, cameraman Olaf Wiig of New Zealand and correspondent Steve Centanni of the U.S., are unharmed.

Abu Hilal said the kidnappers have promised Palestinian Interior Minister Said Siyam of Hamas they would not harm the journalists. "We hope their release will be within hours," Abu Hilal told The Associated Press.

The kidnappers, meanwhile, released new video of Wiig and Centanni. In one segment, Wiig was seen sitting cross-legged on the floor, dressed in a beige robe and reading from notes.

"It is Apache helicopters firing hellfire missiles made in America that kill the residents in Gaza," he said in a halting voice, his face expressionless.

Pray that they let these guys go soon, after rumors of a release yesterday never panned out.

Others who commented on reports of an imminent release yesterday, prior to this latest announcement and video:
Michelle Malkin, The Political Pit Bull, The Jawa Report, Protein Wisdom, Wizbang, A Blog For All, A Lady's Ruminations, Misunderestimated, Anwyn

***UPDATE***

Shep just broke in and tossed to Amy Kellogg who reported that the men are claiming to have chosen to convert on their own and that they weren't forced and apparently spoke the praises of the "peaceful" religion, etc. Of course I'm not buying it, I think they are trying to stay alive, but we'll let them tell us the story when they're released.

More From Reuters:

They were shown separately sitting cross-legged, reading a statement which Fox said was an announcement that they had converted to Islam. At times in the video they were wearing long Muslim robes.

Wiig called on leaders of the West to stop "hiding behind the 'I don't negotiate with terrorists' myth". He then read some words in Arabic.

More from the AP as well...

In another segment, Centanni said he has converted to Islam and raised his index finger in an oath of allegiance to the religion.

Others:
Blue Star Chronicles, Assorted Babble of Suzie, Joe's Cafe

***UPDATE***
If you haven't already seen it, here's the "conversion video" (via Malkin & HotAir)

Malkin is also praising some straight talk out of Brit Hume, via a transcript by Ms Underestimated, about how finding a political solution to the Middle East situation is a nice dream, but pretty much impossible.

One of Malkin's readers emailed her with the following comment:

Everybody so far is talking about how the 'Conversion' card is an easy way out of Islamic Terrorists' hands... but it is a career ender for Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. You see, you can kidnap an infidel; but the Koran dictates that a muslim in good standing must kill an apostate.

If Steve Centanni ever announces that he is not a Muslim, he signs his own death warrant... can he ever be assigned to a Muslim nation again without the knowledge that he is now legally a target for death because of his own actions?

Keep praying, it's not over yet.

What this reader isn't aware of is that Centanni already did announce that he wasn't a Muslim when he was on the phone with Shep, shortly after his release. He said he was forced to convert at gun point, but is not Muslim, even though he has a great respect for it, etc. and said he "learned" a lot about it, etc. I don't know if that does end his career of reporting in the region or not, but just wanted to let everyone know that he has already commented on this.

 

Everytime we bust a terror cell in the United States, the left always comes out and says that they were just a bunch of nobodies and they weren't really terrorists, etc. etc. We've heard it time after time. The extreme libs will even claim that the busts are just Rove's attempt to bring up Dubya's poll numbers.

Anyway, the "Miami Seven" were no exception to the "no big deal" claims by libs, but now we've got video of them talking terror via CBS 2 in Chicago. Free ACLU lifetime membership to the first lib who claims "entrapment or coercion"!

Libs will continue to shrug their shoulders at the claims of wanting to take out the Sears Tower and the Empire State Building, and running around with "machine gun pistols". They'll say, that these guys were just a bunch of clowns and not really capable of anything. Are you willing to take the chance? Was that chance taken with the 9/11 terrorists including ringleader Atta who was identified by Able Danger, years earlier?

By the way, what ever happened to the investigation in to why Able Danger's information was and continues to be all but completely ignored?

 

Remember Naveed Haq, Seattle's lone gunman terrorist in chief? He's plead not guilty to the murder and attempted murder charges against him, as well as kidnapping charges stemming from the fact that he held a gun to a 13-year-old girl's head to gain access to his shooting gallery.

Associate Press

SEATTLE - A man accused of storming Seattle's Jewish Federation offices, killing one woman and wounding five others in a fit of rage over U.S. foreign policy, pleaded not guilty Tuesday to murder and other charges.

Haq faces either life in prison or execution if convicted in the death of Pamela Waechter, 58, director of the Jewish charity's annual fundraising campaign. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng has not yet announced whether he will seek the death penalty.

Haq pleaded not guilty to five counts of attempted first-degree murder in the July 28 shooting at the federation's downtown offices.

Read on...

The article leaves me a bit confused. Apparently Haq had indicated that he wanted to plead guilty at one point. The judge allowed the arraignment to go on and during that time lawyers met with Haq to determine if he could defend himself, and it seems he must have been advised to plead not guilty. It's not clear exactly what happened, but that's the best I can make of it.