Mood:
loudTopic: Lib Loser Stories
A Year Before 9/11, Diplomat Said U.S. 'not Out to Destroy the Taliban'
WASHINGTON - A year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a U.S. diplomat assured a top official of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime that international sanctions on that country would be lifted if it expelled Osama bin Laden, newly declassified documents show.
A State Department memo dated September 2000 also said the United States did not seek to topple the Taliban despite its record of human rights abuses.
The memo was among documents obtained by the National Security Archive, a private research group based at George Washington University, under a Freedom of Information Act request. The group posted the documents on its Web site Thursday.
"The ambassador added that the U.S. was not against the Taliban, per se," and "was not out to destroy the Taliban," Ambassador William B. Milam wrote in the secret cable to Washington. Milam told the Taliban official, whose name is excised from the declassified document, that bin Laden was the main impediment to better relations between the Taliban and the United States.
"If the U.S. and the Taliban could get past bin Laden, we would have a different kind of relationship," Milam said he told the official.
At the time, Washington had no formal diplomatic relations with Afghanistan because concerns over human rights and other abuses by the militant Islamist Taliban regime.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Bush administration has no comment on the meeting, which took place before President Bush took office.
In his 2000 diplomatic cable, Milam told his bosses that the Taliban official had adopted a "far less obstreperous" tone than usually heard from the Taliban and suggested that the United States do some small favor for Afghanistan to show good will.
The meeting at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, produced no promise from the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, and it is not clear from the material released Thursday what the Clinton administration did next.
Other documents released by the National Security Archive on Thursday chart several years of unsuccessful U.S. attempts to drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan.
At the time of Milam's cable, the United States knew that bin Laden was living under Taliban protection along the Afghan-Pakistani border and running his al-Qaida terror network from Afghanistan. U.S. diplomats had periodic contact with the Taliban to urge his ouster.
The United States had accused bin Laden of orchestrating two embassy bombings that killed Americans in East Africa, but neither he nor his terror network were the household names they became after the jetliner attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.
Shortly after the attacks, U.S. forces helped the Afghan opposition Northern Alliance overthrow the Taliban government and hunt down its leaders. The Bush administration's goal was twofold: Rout bin Laden's protectors and capture bin Laden himself.
Nearly four years after the invasion, a 21,000-member U.S.-led coalition force remains to fight Taliban remnants and keep order despite the emergence of a new U.S.-allied government. Bin Laden is still presumed to be hiding in the same border region.
A surge of violence since winter has killed about 1,000 people - 59 American soldiers among them. Militants have stepped up assaults in the south and east trying to sabotage the country's U.S.-backed recovery.
On the Net: National Security Archive
Tampa Bay Online ~ Anne Gearan - Associated Press ** A Year Before 9/11, Diplomat Said U.S. 'not Out to Destroy the Taliban'
Posted by uhyw
at 7:37 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:43 PM EDT
cheeky
Stats Can: Fewer Americans visiting Canada
OTTAWA - Travel to Canada fell to its lowest level in nearly a year in June, mainly because fewer Americans were making same-day car trips north of the border, Statistics Canada reports.
A slight drop in the number of American visitors more than offset a gain in travel from overseas countries, which rose for a seventh consecutive month.
A total of 3.1 million people visited Canada in June, down 0.1 per cent from May.
Just over 2.7 million Americans visited, down 0.4 per cent from a month earlier.
There were 398,000 overseas visitors, up 1.6 per cent from May.
spacey
"People know the abortion issue is sinking the party," says Carol Crossed, a longtime peace-and-justice activist who helped revitalize Democrats for Life two years ago. "I was going into the voting booth and having trouble voting for Democrats. I asked myself, 'What is wrong with this picture?'"
A member of Queen of Peace Parish in Rochester, N.Y., Crossed says she agrees with the Democrats on almost everything except life issues and disagrees with Republicans on almost everything except life issues.
She has no comfortable political home.
As the 2004 elections neared, she and others feared and predicted just what happened. The Democrats would lose, in large part because of the loss of pro-lifers whose consciences were on alert.
Crossed and many other longtime Democrats say their party has been "bought out" by the pro-choice lobby over the past 30 years.
"I think we are the Democratic party's best friend," Crossed said last week, just after arriving in Portland by train. "Our message is going to help the party recover."
The group opposes capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and abortion — the last being the most politically charged.
"It’s not a religious issue, it's a moral issue religious people care about," Crossed says.
The aim, says Democrats for Life literature, is to "reverse the party's intensely pro-abortion position."
The group's polls say 47 percent of Democrats believe there should be restrictions on abortion. With that critical mass, a team of eight congressional Democrats have proposed legislation for reducing the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years.
The package includes family planning, regulating abortion, economic security, child care and adoption support.
Democrats for Life of America is one of more than 200 member organizations of Consistent Life, an international network promoting peace, justice and life.
There are only about 20,000 registered members of Democrats for Life, but they say they represent 47 percent of the party. Forty-one states have formed organizations of pro-life Democrats.
"I am one of the few pro-life people I know who refuses to leave the Democratic Party," says Ward Ricker of Eugene, president of the Oregon chapter's board of directors. "This hemorrhaging from the party can only be plugged by demanding that our pro-life views are heard."
Ricker says that current goals for the Oregon group include outreach and organizing. Members have also contacted state lawmakers to support pro-life legislation.
Jackie Pynes, a 68-year-old member of St. Mary Parish in Eugene, says she has long been tempted to leave the party she has belonged to since the 1950s. Abortion was not a political issue when she cast her first presidential vote for John F. Kennedy.
Now she sometimes votes Republican, but remains a Democrat because of the party's allegiance to workers.
"The Democrats caved in on some principles," she says. "And that needs to change. But I have the feeling we are the party that can work best for the common good."
Pynes has joined Democrats for Life as a way to educate the public about the problems with abortion.
Garth Bachman, a Scappoose electrician and a longtime member of Holy Cross Parish, says he is pro-labor, pro-social programs and pro-life.
"I don’t like to vote for pro-choice candidates," says the Columbia County Democratic precinct committee chairman.
"First, we want to reduce the number of abortions in Oregon," Bachman says. "We'll work to find and elect pro-life Democrats for public office."
Bachman is glad that some Democratic leaders are opening the door to pro-lifers.
"Before, they didn't even acknowledge us," he says. "There are people in their own party who think this has gone way too far. The Democratic party in general has cared about common people. The abortion thing has taken over so much that people don't see the good things the Democratic party still does."
Susan Swander of Waldport wants to work for change in the party from the inside. A novice to party politics, she is appealing to bravery.
"A lot of those folks — the Clintons and Kerry and I'm sure others — are really pro-life, but it's political suicide. They are chicken," says the self-described former hippie.
Swander, a member of St. Anthony Parish and Sacred Heart in Newport, feels embarrassed when people assume she is pro-choice because she's a Democrat.
"My party is supposed to care about the weak and the oppressed," she says. "You can't get more weak and oppressed than a vulnerable human being in the womb."
Leaders among the Democrats aren't sure what to make of their pro-life peers. Kelly Steele, spokesman for the Oregon Democratic Party, had not heard of the group before. After doing some research, Steele said, "The Democratic party is a big tent party. There is room for other voices."
Pressed on whether the party would support a pro-life candidate in Oregon, Steele said the discussion would be welcome, but Democratic leaders will "continue to support a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions." People in line with the Bush administration on abortion would not be likely to get support from the Oregon Democratic Party, Steele said.
Steele made the claim that Republicans have used abortion as a "wedge issue" to draw off voters.
"Democrats are interested in discussing ways to reduce abortion," Steele says.
Steele calls the Catholic vote "critically important" and says that Democrats can rightfully make a claim for it.
"Inasmuch as Catholics stand for social justice and in helping folks in poverty and living by the teachings of the Bible, the Democratic Party is the one that stands for that," he says.
The pro-life wing of the Democratic party made an attempt at national leadership earlier this year. Tim Roemer, former congressman from Indiana, campaigned for the chairmanship.
"We have made more progress in the Democratic Party on the abortion issue in the last six months than we have in the past 30 years," Roemer said at a Democrats for Life dinner this summer.
The former 9-11 panel commissioner told the audience that society "can no longer tolerate a situation where we have as many abortions in this country a year as people dying due to terrorism and war in the world."
silly
American Nazi Idol
By 
CINDY UNLEASHED: 'THE BIGGEST TERRORIST IN THE WORLD IS GEORGE W. BUSH'
"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"
So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at at San Francisco State University.
Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."
Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:
"They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." Sheehan said of the Bush administration.
"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"
"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it's so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."
chatty
Dude, Who Stole My Party?
I have a confession to make. It should be made public now, before Dan Rather and the 60 Minutes Team shows up at my door with documents about my past that, although forged, are still accurate. I admit, now and publicly, that I was a Democrat, for more years than I should have been.
I was born just after World War II ended, so I am in the front line of the ‘Baby Boomer’ generation. Growing up Catholic in Chicago, of Irish and German heritage, I was of course brought up to be a Daley Democrat. The most powerful person in my neighborhood wasn't the Mayor, Governor, or President. Neither was the Alderman, Senator or Congressional Representative. Not even the Parish Priest was the most powerful or influential person to my family and all the others in my near North neighborhood. No, the person most recognized as a person of authority and influence was the ward heeler, our Democratic Precinct Captain.
Have a streetlight out? Need a job for your brother-in-law, so he and your sister can move out of your attic? Garbage pickup missed your house? Local bully picking on your child? Son needs a recommendation to get into a Union Trade School? All of these problems, and more, were within the purview of the Precinct Captain. He had the ‘clout’ (a Chicago word often misused and misunderstood by persons without a Chicago background) to get things done for you. Your only responsibility was to turn out and vote on every Election Day, and be sure to vote correctly.
Actually, there were three political parties in Chicago back in the forties, fifties and early to mid sixties. You could belong to the Conservative Democrats, Moderate or Centrist Democrats, or Liberal Democrats. I don’t think I heard anything about the Republican Party until I entered High School. Local politicking was fun, because there were so many cat fights between the three Democratic Parties. However, when it came to election time, the votes went to the Democratic candidate for whatever office was being contested, whether he or she was a Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. Accommodation, compromise and reality checks with the actual voters eventually arrived at platforms and candidates that were acceptable to all views within the Chicago Democratic Party.
I was very comfortable while a Democrat, because I could maintain my liberal inclination on social issues, moderate views on fiscal policies, and conservative views on crime, defense and foreign policy. The Democratic Party of my youth and early adulthood was a three winged bird, and had diversity in its makeup long before diversity became just another buzzword. But shortly after the mid sixties, a terrible event occurred that has repercussions that are felt today. Sometime during this period, SOMEONE STOLE MY DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
I don’t know if it was a plot engineered by Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Ed Muskie and the Massachusetts wing of Liberals Gone Wild; but suddenly, the Democrats became an exclusively Liberal Club with a progressive and secular agenda, rather than a representative Political Party. My own doubts began with the Democratic led opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. It was Republican support that enabled these important bills to pass. This was followed by the withdrawal of support for American troops by the Democrats in the late sixties. I then began to evaluate the direction the party was going. After involving America in a war in which I lost friends, the Democratic Administration's lack of a win strategy, and subsequent actions by the Democratic Congress to insure the defeat of South Vietnam while disparaging our military, gave me reason to question the new attitude of the Democratic Party. And this began while a Democrat held the presidency. While Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement certainly had an impact, the change was too rapid for the dramatic shift to the Left to be the result of only those two issues. I'm not sure what other forces drove this turn to the far left, but suddenly, I was disenfranchised from the party in which I was raised. The divorce became final when the Democrats adopted the unrestricted abortion on demand plank in their official platform.
Rapid though this change was, it was not apparent to the media (or at least not reported on) until the unexpected first Reagan election, and his subsequent landslide re-election. The phenomenon of the Reagan Democrat seems to have been a surprise to many, but it shouldn't have. Not since Lyndon Johnson had there been a Democratic candidate for the Presidency who could balance Liberal, Moderate and Conservative tendencies within the Democratic electorate. The swing to radical liberal stances on all issues had become entrenched by 1980. As I recall, that was when the term “knee jerk liberal” came into vogue. The only successful Democratic candidate for President since 1980 was Bill Clinton, and he rode the moderate or centrist vote, never voicing any opinion that might be considered too liberal. Clinton never took a stand on anything without first checking with focus groups and conducting numerous polls.
Lets fast forward to 2004. Why are Zell Miller and Ed Koch considered such oddities? That a Democrat would abandon his Party's Presidential candidate, and support a Conservative Republican (although many Conservatives would say GWB is not a Conservative) should not be a surprise. Like me, Senator Miller and Mayor Koch both came from a Democratic Party that had three wings, so they could work to incorporate the views they held on specific issues, while remaining among the Party faithful. However, like me, Zell and Ed did not abandon the Democrats. The Democrats abandoned us, verbally burning us at the stake for not towing the party line. When the shift to the left became the only acceptable view within the Democratic Party, our own Party disinherited both moderates and conservatives. The most prominent person of the last quarter of a century to travel this route was President Reagan himself. A Democrat when he arrived in Hollywood, and still a Democrat when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild, he became Governor of California as a Republican. When asked why he left the Democratic Party, he replied that he had not. Rather, he said, the Democrats had left him.
I am now a Registered Republican, since I seem to favor more Republican candidates then Democrats. I want to be part of both the Caucus system, and the Primary system here in Iowa, so I must choose between Democratic and Republican registration. However, I consider myself more of a Conservative Independent with a slight Libertarian bent, as I have not voted a straight ticket in any election since the Democrats left me with no way to express my beliefs. I wonder how Democrats like Henry (Scoop) Jackson and others of his mien would react to the new Democratic Party of howlers like Howard Dean, anti military propagandists like Dick Durban, and blame America first proponents like Ted Kennedy. Would they also switch to Republican, or perhaps Independent status? An interesting question, but one that I am not qualified to answer. What I do know is that the Republicans seem to have room for Moderates, Liberals and Conservatives, while the Democratic Party does not.
While a three winged bird may appear odd, it is still more likely to fly than a bird with only one wing. That may be why the Republicans have a brighter future than the Democrats.
Limbaugh's lawyers win ruling to fight questioning of doctor
Palm Beach County prosecutors wanted to ask one of Rush Limbaugh's doctors Tuesday morning about the radio host's prescription drug use, but Limbaugh's attorneys won a last-minute court ruling that could jeopardize the future of the investigation.
A Palm Beach County judge ruled Tuesday that prosecutors couldn't question any of Limbaugh's doctors without first notifying Limbaugh. That would give Limbaugh's lawyers a chance to fight the subpoena issued to question the doctor and to raise privacy concerns before a judge.
Limbaugh, 54, a Palm Beach resident, has not been charged with any crimes. He has been under investigation for suspected doctor shopping -- secretly obtaining overlapping prescriptions in a 30-day period.
Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office spokesman Michael Edmondson would not comment on the development. A spokesman for Limbaugh attorney Roy Black said Black would not comment.
The Tuesday ruling goes back to some of the same issues that have swirled around the investigation since it became public in October 2003. Tuesday apparently was the first time prosecutors attempted to interview any of Limbaugh's doctors.
Limbaugh waged an 18-month legal battle to prevent prosecutors from reviewing his medical records, which were seized in late 2003. Prosecutors used search warrants to seize records from three Florida doctors and a California physician. Black contended that prosecutors should have subpoenaed the records, giving Limbaugh a chance to contest it before a judge.
An appeals court ruled for prosecutors, and the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The case was then assigned to Palm Beach Circuit Judge Thomas Barkdull, who issued the search warrants. He reviewed the sealed records last month and turned some of them over to prosecutors.
Those records were limited to a time frame set out by prosecutors in the search warrants. Prosecutors cited prescriptions Limbaugh received between March 2003 and September 2003, when pharmacy records show Limbaugh picked up 1,733 hydrocodone pills, 90 OxyContin pills, 50 Xanax tablets and 40 pills of time-release morphine.
Circuit Judge Kenneth Stern issued Tuesday's ruling in Barkdull's absence.
Black said in a court filing that state law prohibits anyone from questioning a doctor about a patient's medical condition without obtaining the patient's permission. Black also said he should be able to sit in on any questioning of Limbaugh's doctors "to invoke [Limbaugh's] doctor-patient privilege on a question-by-question basis."
Among the options prosecutors can consider are to ask Barkdull to review Stern's ruling or take the case back to the appeals courts.
irritated
United Nations Bankrolled Latest Anti-israel Propaganda
The United Nations bankrolled the production of thousands of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the slogan "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem," which have been widely distributed to Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip, according to a U.N. official.
The U.N. support of the Palestinian Authority's propaganda operation in the midst of the Israeli evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip has provoked outrage from Israeli and Jewish leaders, who are blaming Turtle Bay for propagating an inflammatory message that they say encourages Palestinian Arab violence.
"The intifada worked. That's contextually what this message is saying," the director of U.N. affairs for the Washington-based Jewish organization B'nai Brith, Amy Goldstein, said.
The Arabic slogan, which refers to disputed territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, has become ubiquitous in Gaza, where Israeli soldiers this week are evacuating 21 settlements. It's served as the central message of a Palestinian Arab effort to spin the withdrawal as a victory.
A special representative of the United Nations Development Program in the Gaza Strip, Timothy Rothermel, told Fox News that his office provided financial support for the production of materials that make up the Palestinian Authority's propaganda campaign, timed to coincide with the Gaza pullout. The Palestinian Authority's withdrawal committee developed and produced the posters and other items using U.N. money, Mr. Rothermel said.
In addition to the slogan "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem," many of the materials displayed the logo of the United Nations Development Program, which operates in 166 countries and spends about half a billion dollars a year.
Asked by a Fox News correspondent about one of the banners bearing the words implying an impending Palestinian Arab takeover of the disputed areas, Mr. Rothermel, said, "That particular poster was prepared by the disengagement office with financial support from the United Nations Development Program."
UNDP officials at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, however, denied that money from the program went directly to the propaganda campaign.
A UNDP spokesman, William Orme, said his office gave money to the Palestinian Withdrawal Committee to "help the Palestinian Authority communicate to the populace about the withdrawal and its economic and social impact."
The money was funneled to the committee through a subagency called Program of Assistance to the Palestinian People. U.N. officials were not told about the propaganda campaign or about the slogan, he said.
The director of international affairs for the American Jewish Congress and a Sun op-ed columnist, David Twersky, criticized the UNDP for failing to better track their funds.
"How come they don't know what's happening to their money?" he said. "Where's the audit? Where's the transparency? How could responsible U.N. officials living off of tax dollars have the chutzpah to say I don't know what they're spending their money on?"
New York-based U.N. officials learned of the slogan, Mr. Twesky said, when they received a letter of complaint on Monday from the American Jewish Congress. The letter, signed by the chairman of the American Jewish Congress, Jack Rose, said the United Nations "has no business paying the costs of this propaganda." The letter was addressed to the development program's new administrator, Kemal Dervis.
Mr. Orme, who said his office was investigating the details of the letter, refused to say whether the United Nations stands behind the slogan printed on the propaganda materials.
He said: "We are emphatically neutral ...We do not lend ourselves to political messaging in favor of any particular faction or ideology."
Mr. Rothermel, in the Fox News interview, argued that the slogan, which predicts an Israeli disengagement from the West Bank and, presumably, East Jerusalem, is a message that is "consistent with the relevant U.N. resolutions and Security Council resolutions about the status of Palestine."
A former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dore Gold, said the funding of the propaganda campaign is "simply outrageous."
"The West Bank is disputed territory under U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. The U.N. has no business getting involved in sloganeering to call on the Palestinians to also take tomorrow the West Bank and East Jerusalem," Mr. Gold told Fox News.
The Palestinian Authority's top leaders have echoed the slogan in recent public comments. "The process of national struggle will continue until we reach Jerusalem and celebrate there and in the West Bank," its prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, said. according to a report in the Jerusalem Post.
Fans On 'Billgrimage' to Arkansas
The summer travel season is in full swing, the Clinton Presidential Library is drawing 2,000 visitors a day, and a new tourism phenomenon - the "Billgrimage" - is being seen 115 miles away in the town of Hope, Arkansas.
"People are coming from the library saying they're making a Billgrimage to Arkansas; it's so cute," giggles Crystal Altenbaumer, director of the Clinton Birthplace museum in Hope.
Among those on a recent "Billgrimage" was Ava Carter, a Democrat from Dallas, who convinced her Republican travel partner, James D. Stearns, to give their summer trip a Clinton theme.
"I'd never even been to Arkansas, but last year we planned to go to Clinton's birth home in Hope, up to Hot Springs (where Clinton grew up) and here," Carter said. "James said, 'Sure, let's go."'
They and other pilgrims to all-things-Clinton are helping to put the Clinton Birthplace back in the black after a period of financial uncertainty.
Clinton lived in Hope in a white foursquare house until he was 4 with his mother and his grandparents, Eldridge and Edith Cassidy. The house is now owned by the birthplace museum and is open for self-guided tours.
But the birthplace museum ran deficits eight years in a row before finally generating its first operating surplus in the 2003-04 year - a mere $806, but a big improvement from the $51,000 shortfall the year before. Buzz related to the November 2004 opening of the presidential library in Little Rock apparently increased interest in - and contributions to - the birthplace museum.
Gary Johnson, who runs the city-owned Hope Visitor Center & Museum down the road, said visitation to the center has increased on average about 40 percent since the library opened.
"These are the best numbers we've had since 1999 or the year 2000," said Johnson.
Most of Hope's visitors have already been to the library or are en route, said Johnson, whose mother, Elaine, chairs the Birthplace Foundation. "I've actually had people come in here complaining that there were too many people at the library," he added. "But I knew it would only help us."
Altenbaumer said the birthplace museum brings in many, but not all of those stop at the visitor center. Many, she said, simply drive by the house and slow down, but don't have time to see the memorabilia, the house's 1946 decor, rotating photograph exhibits on loan from the library archive and the gift shop.
The Clinton Library, meanwhile, has drawn more than 400,000 visitors since opening in November, with some 2,000 a day in the summer and 1,500 a day on average.
Visitors are coming from all over the country, with the top 10 out-of-state markets being Memphis, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore, Kansas City, New York City, St. Louis and Atlanta.
Clinton Foundation president Skip Rutherford attributes the strong attendance to interest in Clinton and his wife Hillary; the location near two major interstates, I-30 and I-40, providing easy access for travelers passing through; and the growth of the convention business in Little Rock, which is bringing in travelers from around the country.