TBRNews.org

TBR News August 14, 2006

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., August 13, 2006: “Iam pleased to learn that the transcribed conversation I forwarded last week has had such an enormous viewing! There is a very, very important one that deals with the true background of the 9/11 tragedy that will have an even greater audience. That comes in a week or so but this time, I am sending on a list of members of Congress who received money from AIPAC in the last Congressional election. Of course more and more money has been flowing from AIPAC into Congressional pockets in the mean time but I don’t have the current figures yet. When I get them and put them into order, I will send them on.”

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2004 Congressional Candidates

State	Office	District	Candidate	Party	Status	Contributions	Total	Committees
Alabama	S		Shelby, Richard*	R	I	38,500	193,325	A(FO)
	H	2	Everett, Terry	R	I	6,000	15,000	AS, I
	H	3	Rogers, Michael	R	I	5,000	8,000	AS
	H	4	Aderholt, Robert	R	I	2,000	13,500	A
	H	5	Cramer, Bud	D	I	1,000	44,800	A, I
	H	6	Bachus, Spencer	R	I	2,000	12,500
	H	7	Davis, Artur	D	I	6,500	68,067	B
Alaska	S		Murkowski, Frank	R	N	1,000	65,000
	S		Knowles, Tony*	D	C	5,150	5,150
	S		Murkowski, Lisa*	R	I	34,600	34,600
	S		Stevens, Ted	R	I	1,000	68,200	A(D)
Arizona	S		Kyl, Jon	R	I	1,000	78,525
	H	8	Kolbe, James	R	I	-1,000	43,000	A(FO)
Arkansas	S		Lincoln, Blanche*	D	I	30,500	43,527
	H	3	Delay, Robert	R	C	4,000	5,000
	H	4	Ross, Michael	D	I	2,500	14,000
California	S		Boxer, Barbara*	D	I	73,000	223,794	C, FR(NE)
	S		Feinstein, Dianne	D	I	1,000	114,842	A(D), I
	H	5	Matsui, Robert	D	I	4,000	8,150	W
	H	8	Pelosi, Nancy	D	I	20,650	57,450	I
	H	12	Lantos, Tom	D	I	31,600	107,250	IR
	H	18	Cardoza, Dennis	D	I	0	16,000
	H	20	Costa, Jim	D	C	1,000	1,000
	H	27	Sherman, Brad	D	I	4,500	43,330	IR
	H	29	Schiff, Adam	D	I	6,500	23,417	IR(NE)
	H	30	Waxman, Henry	D	I	1,000	33,832
	H	32	Murray, Kevin	D	C	2,000	5,000
	H	33	Watson, Diane	D	I	2,000	7,500	IR
	H	36	Harman, Jane	D	I	11,500	86,271	I
	H	39	Sanchez, Linda	D	I	4,450	8,450
	H	47	Sanchez, Loretta	D	I	2,000	36,700	AS
	H	52	Hunter, Duncan	R	I	3,000	36,350	AS
	H	53	Davis, Susan	D	I	1,500	8,163	AS
Colorado	S		Campbell, Ben Nighthorse*	R	N	7,000	92,750	A(FO)
	H	2	Udall, Mark	D	I	1,500	11,250
Connecticut	S		Dodd, Christopher*	D	I	38,250	221,178	FR
	S		Lieberman, Joseph	D	I	1,250	227,758	AS
Connecticut	H	2	Simmons, Robert	R	I	2,500	14,500	AS
	H	3	DeLauro, Rosa	D	I	2,000	43,400	A, B
	H	4	Shays, Christopher	R	I	5,500	10,850	B
Delaware	S		Carper, Thomas	D	I	1,000	16,500
Florida	S		Byrd, Johnnie*	R	O	5,000	5,000
	S		Deutsch, Peter*#	D	O	18,000	45,941
	H	1	Miller, Jefferson	R	I	1,500	2,500	AS
	H	3	Brown, Corrine	D	I	3,000	8,600
	H	5	Brown-Waite, Ginny	R	I	800	2,300	B
	H	8	Keller, Richard	R	I	1,500	5,000
	H	11	Davis, James, III	D	I	500	3,600
	H	12	Putnam, Adam	R	I	1,500	4,500	B
	H	14	Mack, Connie	R	O	1,000	1,000
	H	17	Meek, Kendrick	D	I	4,000	7,000	AS
	H	18	Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana	R	I	36,000	73,490	IR
	H	19	Wexler, Robert	D	I	1,500	11,500	IR
	H	20	Schultz, Debbie Wasserman	D	C	2,500	2,500
	H	21	Diaz-Balart, Lincoln	R	I	5,000	10,000
	H	23	Hastings, Alcee	D	I	2,500	23,850	I
	H	24	Feeney, Tom	R	I	1,000	1,000
Georgia	S		Chambliss, Saxby	R	I	18,500	27,500	AS, I
	S		Majette, Denise*#	D	O	5,000	57,000	B
	H	3	Marshall, James	D	I	1,500	8,000	AS
	H	5	Lewis, John	D	I	2,000	69,250	B, W
	H	6	Price, Thomas	R	O	500	500
Hawaii	S		Inouye, Daniel*	D	I	25,750	200,925	A(D, FO), C
	H	2	Case, Edward	D	I	1,000	2,000
Idaho	S		Crapo, Michael*	R	I	16,000	30,000	B
Illinois	S		Durbin, Richard	D	I	2,500	326,671	A(D, FO), I
	S		Obama, Barack*	D	O	2,500	2,500
	H	2	Jackson, Jesse, Jr	D	I	2,000	3,500	A(FO)
	H	5	Emmanuel, Rahm	D	I	3,000	13,500	B
	H	9	Schakowsky, Janice	D	I	1,000	14,750
	H	10	Kirk, Mark	R	I	17,500	42,068	A(FO)
	H	11	Weller, Jerry	R	I	2,000	26,400	IR, W
	H	14	Hastert, J. Dennis	R	I	18,500	80,850	House Speaker, I
	H	15	Johnson, Timothy	R	I	1,500	4,500
	H	17	Evans, Lane	D	I	5,000	87,379	AS
	H	18	Bean, Melissa	D	C	1,000	1,000
Indiana	S		Bayh, Evan*	D	I	56,500	81,750	AS, I
	H	2	Chocola, Chris	R	I	1,500	8,000
	H	5	Burton, Dan	R	I	3,000	70,000	IR
	H	9	Hill, Baron	D	I	1,000	9,465	AS
Iowa	S		Grassley, Charles*	R	I	32,000	139,823	B
	H	3	Boswell, Leonard	D	I	3,500	19,575	I
Kansas	S		Brownback, Samuel*	R	I	50,850	95,350	A, C, FR(NE)
	H	3	Moore, Dennis	D	I	4,500	26,176	B
Kentucky	S		Bunning, Jim*	R	I	32,900	74,750	B
	H	4	Clooney, Nick	D	C	2,000	2,000
	H	4	Lucas, Kenneth	D	I	1,000	11,000
	H	4	Thoney, Roger	R	C	1,000	1,000
	H	5	Rogers, Harold	R	I	7,500	7,500	A
	H	6	Chandler, Ben	D	O	13,500	13,500
	H	6	Kerr, Alice Forgy	R	O	1,000	1,000
	H	6	Miller, Jonathan	D	O	1,000	1,000
Louisiana	S		Terrell, Suzanne Haik*	R	O	15,000	15,000
	S		Vitter, David*#	R	O	3,500	18,000	A(FO), B
	H	1	Jindal, Bobby	R	O	1,500	1,500
	H	5	Alexander, Rodney	D	I	2,000	7,500	AS
Maryland	S		Mikulski, Barbara*	D	I	36,000	166,599	A(FO), I
	H	2	Ruppersberger, C.A.	D	I	2,500	8,750	I
	H	4	Wynn, Albert	D	I	1,000	10,250
	H	5	Hoyer, Steny	D	I	37,500	92,275	A
	H	8	Van Hollen, Chris	D	I	1,000	4,000
Massachusetts	S		Kennedy, Edward	D	I	1,000	67,120	AS
	H	1	Olver, John	D	I	1,000	19,500	A
	H	7	Markey, Edward	D	I	1,000	6,250
Michigan	H	3	Ferguson, John, Jr.	D	C	1,500	4,500
	H	7	Smith, Bradley	R	O	250	250
	H	8	Rogers, Michael	R	I	1,500	2,250
	H	9	Knollenberg, Joseph	R	I	1,000	23,750	A(FO)
	H	11	McCotter, Thaddeus	R	I	5,000	10,000	B, IR(NE)
	H	12	Levin, Sander	D	I	3,200	113,727	W
Minnesota	S		Coleman, Norm	R	I	8,000	34,980	FR(NE)
	S		Wellstone, Paul (dec'd)	DFL	N	-1,000	18,472
	H	2	Luther, Bill	DFL	C	1,000	27,913
Missouri	S		Bond, Christopher*	R	I	17,000	149,200	A(D,FO), I
	S		Talent, James	R	I	1,000	12,500	AS
	H	3	Carnahan, John	D	O	1,000	1,000
	H	4	Skelton, Ike	D	I	1,000	65,450		AS
	H	5	Metzl, Jamie	D	C	2,000	2,000
	H	6	Graves, Sam, Jr.	R	I	1,500	5,000
	H	7	Blunt, Roy	R	I	11,600	30,850
Montana	H		Rehberg, Dennis	R	I	1,500	1,500
Nevada	S		Reid, Harry*	D	I	64,999	318,801	A(D)
	H	1	Berkley, Shelley	D	I	35,100	201,455	IR(NE)
New Jersey	S		Lautenberg, Frank	D	I	-272	433,806	C
	S		Torricelli, Robert	D	N	-3,000	163,052
	H	1	Andrews, Robert	D	I	4,000	35,250
	H	3	Saxton, H. James	R	I	11,000	71,900	AS
	H	4	Smith, Christopher	R	I	7,000	51,750	IR
	H	6	Pallone, Frank, Jr.	D	I	5,150	50,550
	H	7	Ferguson, Mike	R	I	8,000	14,500
	H	9	Rothman, Steven	D	I	8,500	42,503	A(FO)
	H	10	Payne, Donald	D	I	500	21,750	IR
	H	11	Frelinghuysen, Rodney	R	I	1,000	6,250	A(D)
	H	13	Menendez, Robert	D	I	15,875	35,483	IR
New Mexico	S		Domenici, Pete	R	I	1,000	50,600	A(D), B
	H	1	Wilson, Heather	R	I	-1,000	15,500	AS
New York	S		Schumer, Charles*	D	I	24,000	56,635
	H	1	Bishop, Timothy	D	I	1,000	2,000
	H	2	Israel, Steve	D	I	8,000	17,000	AS
	H	7	Crowley, Joseph	D	I	23,000	41,500	IR(NE)
	H	8	Nadler, Jerrold	D	I	1,000	19,000
	H	9	Weiner, Anthony	D	I	1,000	14,000
	H	14	Maloney, Carolyn	D	I	4,500	22,000
	H	17	Engel, Eliot	D	I	19,000	137,918	IR(NE)
	H	18	Lowey, Nita	D	I	20,650	109,738	A(FO)
	H	20	Sweeney, John	R	I	1,000	2,000	A
	H	24	Boehlert, Sherwood	R	I	1,000	6,500	I
	H	25	Walsh, James	R	I	1,000	15,550	A
North Carolina	S		Bowles, Erskine*	D	O	13,500	23,500
	S		Burr, Richard*#	R	O	7,000	8,250
	S		Dole, Elizabeth	R	I	1,000	26,000	AS
North Dakota	S		Conrad, Kent	D	I	5,250	201,939	B
	S		Dorgan, Byron*	D	I	30,750	131,850	A(D), C
Ohio	S		Voinovich, George*	R	I	27,000	37,500	FR(NE)
	H	3	Turner, Michael	R	I	0	1,250	AS
	H	11	Jones, Stephanie Tubbs	D	I	1,500	4,500	W
	H	12	Harmon, Phillip	Ind	C	1,000	1,000
	H	13	Brown, Sherrod	D	I	2,000	28,750	IR
Oklahoma	S		Carson, Brad*#	D	O	1,000	11,000
	H	4	Cole, Tom	R	I	1,500	5,000	AS
Oregon	S		Wyden, Ronald*	D	I	55,000	255,562	B, C, I
	H	1	Wu, David	D	I	5,500	22,427
Pennsylvania	S		Santorum, Richard	R	I	2,000	47,750
	S		Specter, Arlen*	R	I	80,350	461,973	A(D, FO)
	S		Hoeffel, Joseph*#	D	C	2,000	24,454	IR(NE)
	S		Schwartz, Allyson*	D	C	1,000	3,500
Pennsylvania	H	2	Fattah, Chaka	D	I	-5,000	1,500	A
	H	6	Gerlach, Jim	R	I	2,500	2,700
	H	10	Sherwood, Donald	R	I	1,000	2,250	A
	H	11	Kanjorski, Paul	D	I	1,000	16,600
	H	13	Torsella, Joseph	D	O	750	750
	H	15	Dent, Charles	R	O	5,000	5,000
	H	17	Holden, Tim	D	I	1,000	9,500
	H	18	Murphy, Tim	R	I	-1,000	1,000
Rhode Island	H	1	Kennedy, Patrick	D	I	2,000	27,650	A
	H	2	Langevin, James	D	I	3,000	10,500	AS
South Carolina	S		DeMint, James*#	R	O	1,000	1,000
	S		Tenenbaum, Inez Moore*	D	O	2,500	2,500
South Dakota	S		Daschle, Tom*	D	I	70,500	533,635	I
	S		Thune, John*	R	C	1,000	6,480
	S		Johnson, Tim	D	I	1,000	159,837	A(FO), B
	H	At-L.	Herseth, Stephanie†	D	O	8,000	12,900
Tennessee	H	3	Wamp, Zach	R	I	2,000	2,000	A
	H	4	Davis, Lincoln	D	I	1,000	3,000
	H	6	Gordon, Barton	D	I	500	56,400
	H	9	Ford, Harold, Jr.	D	I	1,000	10,000	B
Texas	H	1	Sandlin, Max	D	I	2,000	2,000	W
	H	2	Lampson, Nicolas	D	I	2,000	18,506
	H	7	Culberson, John	R	I	1,500	1,500	A
	H	11	Edwards, Chet	D	I	5,500	18,350	A, B
	H	17	Stenholm, Charlie	D	I	1,000	3,250
	H	22	DeLay, Tom	R	I	23,000	81,050	A
	H	23	Bonilla, Henry	R	I	1,000	5,000	A(D, FO)
	H	24	Frost, Martin	D	I	31,300	165,414
	H	25	Bell, R. Christopher	D	I	13,500	15,000	IR(NE)
	H	25	Doggett, Lloyd	D	I	1,500	4,500	W
	H	28	Rodriguez, Ciro	D	I	17,000	17,000	AS
	H	32	Sessions, Pete	R	I	1,000	2,000
Utah	S		Bennett, Robert*	R	I	55,750	97,750	A(FO)
	H	1	Bishop, Robert	R	I	1,500	2,500	AS
	H	2	Matheson, James	D	I	4,500	19,000
Virginia	S		Allen, George	R	I	2,000	10,400	C, FR
	H	3	Scott, Robert	D	I	1,000	1,500	B
	H	4	Forbes, J. Randy	R	I	1,500	2,000	AS
	H	7	Cantor, Eric	R	I	23,750	74,980	W
	H	8	Hanley, Kate	D	C	250	250
	H	8	Rosenberg, Andrew	D	C	1,250	1,250
	H	11	Davis, Thomas	R	I	1,000	16,000
Washington	S		Murray, Patty*	D	I	72,495	146,293	A, B
	H	2	Larsen, Richard	D	I	1,500	8,500	AS
	H	5	Barbieri, Donald	D	O	2,000	2,000
	H	6	Dicks, Norm	D	I	1,000	23,850	A(D)
	H	8	Alben, Alex	D	C	1,000	1,000
	H	9	Smith, D. Adam	D	I	1,000	8,075	AS, IR
West Virginia	H	2	Capito, Shelley Moore	R	I	1,500	4,250
Wisconsin	S		Feingold, Russell*	D	I	29,500	123,310	B, FR
	H	2	Baldwin, Tammy	D	I	1,000	4,000	B

S=Senate, H=House of Representatives. Party affiliation: D=Democrat, R=Republican, Ref=Reform, DFL=Democratic Farmers Labor, Ind=Independent, Lib=Libertarian. Status: C=Challenger, I=Incumbent, N=Not Running, O=Open Seat (no incumbent). *=Senate election year, #=House member running for Senate seat, †=Special Election. Committees: A=Appropriations (D=Defense subcommittee, FO=Foreign Operations subcommittee, NS=National Security subcommittee), AS=Armed Services, B=Budget, C=Commerce, FR=Foreign Relations (NE=Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs subcommittee), I=Intelligence, IR=International Relations, NS=National Security, W=Ways and Means. “–” indicates money returned by candidate, “0” that all money received was returned.

Controlling the News

New York City, August 13, 2006:” Probably the most classic example of the iron control over the American media can now be seen in the frenzy over the alleged “Liquid Explosive Bombers” in England.

From our Paris and especially, our London bureaus, we know for a fact that all of this was concocted by the British MI-6 with the grateful encouragement and assistance from the U.S. Embassy in London. What we really have, are a group of young, impressionable Pakistani Muslims who were infiltrated by at least two British agents, one of whom actually was a renegade Pakistani.

They were coaxed into thinking they were taking part in a massive plot against the evil British and Americans when in fact, like the dreadful 9/11 attacks, the actual controllers were intelligence agents. Once the British, again with the firm encourage of our leadership, had enough evidence to convince others, they pounced.

This is part and parcel of the Republican pre-election strategy to take the public’s growing anger at the deadly Iraqi war and shift it to vague threats of “terror attacks” that Bush himself can take the credit for defending America against.

This is such an obvious concocted ploy that it speaks volumes towards the utter contempt the Bush/Cheney people have for the intelligence of their voters.

We in the media are flooded every day with reams of boilerplate crap from government writers that we have been “strongly requested” to publish in full to “heighten the awareness of the American people, not only to terrorism aimed at them but the successful efforts of our President and his British allies” to protect and defend them.

And because of the hype, we have to publish although this subject is causing much merriment amongst the members of the media who are in the know.

The problem with this Alice in Wonderland garbage is that the Bush people pulled it off far too soon. If, as they say, the American public is stupid beyond belief and can be led like a sheep to slaughter, they should have waited until late in October.

By November, none of this will be remembered. Who now recalls the farcical FBI essay into terrorism termination dealing with teenaged Musim boys in the Miami ghetto? “They were actually going to blow up the Sears Tower!” one “suggested” headline said.

Like the recent aircraft bombing scare with liquid shoe polish, this Miami joke passed quickly from the front pages to the truss ads and now can be found nowhere.

Instead of building up a great American cheering section for the sagacity and abilities of the shoddy Administration, all this will do, once the public realizes they have been taken to the cleaners, again, will be a very negative reaction come November. After this, the right wing Republicans can go back to torturing kittens in the microwave and leave matters to more responsible, and sane, people”

Bush Seeks Political Gains from “Foiled Plot “

August 11, 2006
Agence France Presse

US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.

The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin.

"It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America," he said. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't completely safe."

Leading Democrats praised the dismantling of the plot but said it showed how the war in Iraq has siphoned resources from the war on Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, which carried out the strikes in 2001.

"The war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction, and a profound drain on our financial and military resources," said Senator John Kerry, Bush's rival for the White House in 2004. "Osama bin Laden is still on the loose."

Bush's remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break.

Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.

But Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice.

"The comments were purely and simply a reaction" to Democratic voters who "removed a pro-defense Senator and sent the message that the party would not tolerate candidates with such views," said Snow.

"It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming," the spokesman said.

Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.

On Wednesday, Cheney had suggested that Democrats believe "that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't, we can't, be," he said.

While some Democrats have opposed some steps in the war on terrorism, and more and more are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, no major figures in the party have called for a wholesale retreat in the broader conflict.

"Terrorism remains the greatest threat to our security," said Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the US Senate. "As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be."

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

Republican barrage aims to halt advance of anti-war Democrats

The White House election strategists hope to duck criticism over domestic failures by emphasising the need to fight terrorism

August 13, 2006
Paul Harris in New York
the Obwerver/UK

The Republican party has launched a major attack to portray the Democrats as against the Iraq war and caught in the grip of an extremist fringe that wants to pull out of the conflict.

In television ads, newspaper columns and television interviews Republican politicians and conservative commentators have branded Democrats as weak in the 'war on terror'.

The move is paving the way for the vital November mid-term elections to be fought on national security with a bitter campaign echoing the 1968 presidential election fought against the background of the Vietnam war.

The shift in gear comes in the wake of last week's stunning defeat of Democrat Joe Lieberman in a primary election for Lieberman's Connecticut seat in the Senate. A former vice-presidential candidate, Lieberman was a high-profile supporter of the invasion of Iraq. But he was defeated by an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont, sending shock waves through the Democratic party and prompting celebrations among anti-war Democrats.

Many in the party believe there is a powerful vote-winning argument in turning against the conflict. It has seen a number of politicians, including Hillary Clinton, shift from supporting the war to being much more critical. If the Democrats do well in November with an anti-war stance, it will probably define the party's position on Iraq in the 2008 race for the White House.

But senior Republican strategists, including political guru Karl Rove, have long favoured fighting the November mid-term elections on the issues of terrorism and the war. Polls consistently show that voters favour the Republicans on national security, even as the Iraq conflict appears to be collapsing into a civil war. It will also allow Republicans to deflect Democratic criticisms over the economy, growing poverty and scandals ranging from lobbyist corruption to the lax response to Hurricane Katrina.

Republicans believe that focusing on terrorism and the war will allow them to keep control of Congress, despite a huge Democratic push and record disapproval levels of President George Bush. Vice-president Dick Cheney arranged a rare conference call with journalists to push the new message that Democrats were anti-war. '[Terrorists are] betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task,' he said.

'Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war against terror,' wrote columnist Michael Goodwin in the New York Daily News. Lieberman's main public support now is coming from Republicans such as Cheney, who have been quick to praise a man who has openly supported Bush on Iraq. This mirrors the way top Democrats quickly abandoned Lieberman after his defeat. Party leaders have now rushed to back Lamont.

But some in the anti-war wing of the party are still deeply suspicious of recent converts. In particular, Clinton's recent shifts of position on Iraq have not convinced many of her critics.

Jonathan Tasini, an anti-war Democrat running against Clinton for her New York Senate seat, criticised her shift as a 'quick makeover and cover-up act' and attacked her previous support for the war. 'The war was wrong from the outset, should never have been fought and was an unnecessary waste of human life and valuable economic resources,' he said. He contrasted that with Clinton's view, which officially is still that invading Iraq was justified but poorly carried out. 'Iraq was no threat to our country,' Tasini said.

As the Democrats' anti-war wing grows in power in the run-up to the November mid-term polls, so has the influence of the 'netroots', made up of leftwing activists and driven largely by organisation on the internet. The movement had lobbied hard to support and raise money for Lamont's bid and is generally anti-war and also supported a host of other anti-war candidates around the country.

However, far from being just a web-based phenomenon, it has also reflected a growing sentiment in America that the Iraq war has been a terrible mistake. After all, the bloggers still had to persuade ordinary citizens to abandon Lieberman. 'The rank-and-file voters were the ones who put Lamont over the top,' said Scott McLean, a political scientist at Connecticut's Quinnipiac University.

The Republican attack machine is well practised in taking apart Democratic candidates based on their perceived weakness on defence. They even managed to portray John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, as too soft on national security, despite the Democrats putting his war record at the centre of their campaign. Many Republicans hope that the Democrats are repeating their miscalculations of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when many spoke out against Vietnam and were trounced by Richard Nixon. 'Democrats went down this road in the late 1960s with Vietnam and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn,' said John McIntyre, co-founder of the influential political website RealClearPolitics.

August 13, 2006
by Scott Shane
New York Times

WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 — When American and Pakistani officials said this week that one conspirator in the foiled plan to bomb trans-Atlantic airliners was a “liaison” to Al Qaeda, they suggested that his arrest proved the group was linked to the scheme. Rashid Rauf, a Briton, had trained in the group’s camps in the 1990’s and was “a key Al Qaeda operative,” one Pakistani official said.

But counterterrorism experts said Saturday that the focus of government officials and the public on Al Qaeda, a term today with deep connotations but elusive meaning, may be misplaced.

They say the Qaeda label remains useful shorthand for the news media and for officials who want to tap the powerful emotions associated with the Sept. 11 attacks. But to suggest that the terrorist threat today is represented by the organization directly commanded by Osama bin Laden is to oversimplify a complex international movement, the specialists say.

“If you think of Al Qaeda as the group that did 9/11, I don’t think it’s a very useful question,” said Marc S. Sageman, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer and author of a 2004 book closely studied in intelligence agencies, “Understanding Terror Networks.”

“There is no such thing as Al Qaeda as it existed before we went to Afghanistan and destroyed it,” Mr. Sageman said.

As the latest plot suggests, he said, that does not mean total victory is at hand. “We won the war against the old Al Qaeda. But we’re not winning against the global social movement that Al Qaeda was part of, because more and more kids are joining the movement,” he said.

Michael Scheuer, a former head of the C.I.A. unit that focuses on Mr. bin Laden, says there may be more left of the old Al Qaeda than Mr. Sageman thinks. But he, too, doubts that Mr. bin Laden had anything to do with the airliner plot and emphasizes Al Qaeda’s role as the inspiration and support for a broader movement.

“There are an amazing number of people who are connected to Al Qaeda” through training or funding, Mr. Scheuer said. “But the connection is not command and control.”

Some government officials acknowledge privately that Washington has been slow to consider the possibility that the international jihad movement is without any central organization.

“We’re still wrapped up in thinking that this is a hierarchical organization,” said one intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We have a major problem out there, because the fact is that there is no command and control, and there are so many copycats out there.”

Top American officials said in their first comments after news of the arrests in Britain that the scheme bore “the hallmarks” of Al Qaeda. Media coverage dwelt at length on the possibility of ties to the group. The identification on Friday of Mr. Rauf appeared to nail down a connection.

Speculation about a possible role of another suspected militant still being sought in Pakistan, Matiur Rehman, an explosives expert, has added to the notion of a Qaeda role, though few agree on whether he is linked with the group’s operations in Pakistan.

Mr. Rehman is a “person of interest” in the airliner plot but it is unclear whether he played a role, the intelligence official said. Even top intelligence officials are uncertain about what is left of Al Qaeda beyond its top two leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, who are believed to be in hiding in Pakistan.

“Those of us in the counterterrorism community debate this all the time: what do we mean when we say ‘Al Qaeda’?” said Brian Fishman, of the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy. “There’s a lot of disagreement.”

The West Point center has published a study of Al Qaeda documents that include an almost comically bureaucratic set of personnel rules on salary and vacation. One reads: “The salary of a married Mujahed brother is 1,000 Pakistani rupee. The bachelor Mujahed qualifies for a round-trip ticket to his country after one year from joining the organization.”

The date of the documents is uncertain, but they clearly were written when Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 and had the greatest freedom of action, Mr. Fishman said.

“It really looked like a corporate organization,” he said. “But even then, bin Laden and Zawahiri saw their job as inspiring a movement of youth around the world. They were under no illusion that they could topple the United States on their own.”

In fact, Al Qaeda was not for long the stable and hierarchical organization implied by its personnel policies. Much of the discussion of the group this week focused on the similarities between the foiled trans-Atlantic plot and an earlier failed scheme dating from 1994, the so-called Bojinka plan to bring down 11 airliners over the Pacific.

But contrary to widespread belief, said Paul R. Pillar, a former C.I.A. analyst now at Georgetown University, neither the Bojinka plot nor the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center were, strictly speaking, Al Qaeda operations. Both took place before Mr. bin Laden moved from Sudan to establish his base in Afghanistan in 1996 and intelligence officials believe neither was directed by him.

Ramzi Yousef, who is now imprisoned in Colorado, was involved in both the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Bojinka plot, in which Mr. Yousef’s uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, also played a role. Only in 1998 did Mr. Mohammed formally join Al Qaeda, but his later role as the chief architect of the Sept. 11 attacks has led to the association of the group with the earlier plots.

Nonetheless, the invocation of Al Qaeda, and the still-chilling image of Mr. bin Laden, have provided an effective way to encapsulate and personalize the otherwise overwhelming threat of terrorism. In the same way, the image of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the loosely affiliated branch of Al Qaeda in Iraq, came to stand for the entire Iraqi insurgency.

But the insurgency has continued uninterrupted since Mr. Zarqawi was killed in June. Similarly, the larger terrorist threat would likely not be significantly diminished if Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri were killed, most specialists believe.

References to Al Qaeda by American officials have unmistakable political implications, as demonstrated by the Bush administration’s bitterly disputed attempts to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq. There are also legal implications, stemming in part from the Congressional authorization of military force approved days after the Sept. 11 attacks, which targeted those who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” those attacks rather than terrorists generally.

But the focus on Al Qaeda reflects a natural human tendency to paint the enemy in understandable terms, Mr. Fishman said.

“The world is simpler when we have one enemy,” he said. “When we talk about a social movement and self-radicalizing, homegrown groups, that’s nothing like we have faced in the past.”

Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting for this article.

Letters to the Editor

From:  "Kevin Boyle"
To:  "walter storch" tbrnews@hotmail.com
Subject:  Article: Phone Call
Date:  Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:45:37 +0100
Hi Walter,

Thanks for your article today. People over here are catching on to the 'false terror threat' thing. People on phone-ins, and even BBC news reporters say that if this is another false alarm then these alerts will "come to be seen as government scare tactics. Many of the public are already saying as much."

Apparently one of the arrested suspects is an MI5 'plant'. What are odds that the whole thing was his idea and he led on a bunch of dozy fools, getting them to search the internet for flights, look up liquid explosives etc. It would appear from TV reports that this is the type of evidence held against the accused. It almost makes you laugh.

The worrying thing is that if this type of propaganda becomes ineffective we know they are capable of much worse.

What hope of a coup in the USA? How do the Cheney cabal hold on to power after Iraq? Is everybody 'bought' over there?

By the way, I just watched a film on 911 Blogger called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" made by a charming Jewish guy. It was expressing his concern at the naked anti-semitism that is increasingly being expressed. For a while I had a sense that this fellow was genuinely investigating the phenomenon but when it came to crucial issues that merited serious inspection he 'didn't go there'. The money creation issue was not mentioned and 911 'conspiracies' were basically sneered at. Depressing.

Thanks again,

Kevin.

Response:

One of our leading contributors, the so-called' Voice of the White House,' has obtained hundreds upon hundreds of transcripts of telephone and email communications dealing with subjects such as these. Some are from foreign embassies in the U.S. and others from various official functionaries here in the United States with a number of messages between this country and others. These all show, with great clarity, the degree and extent of Israeli penetration and subversion in this country, on the one hand, and appaling official corruption on the other. We will publish, or cause to be published, a selection of these for the edification of the public.

Anent the "international liquid bomb threat," we have known f