9-11-2011

Never Forget.

The Reckoning

Beyond 911

8 Years

9/11: Disturbing and Real

History Channel: 102 minutes that change America

A Biased Juxtaposition

What do the 9/11 attacks and US military funerals have to do with one another?

Little Green Footballs asks the same question of the Associated Press.

Progress that you don't see

Sometimes no news is good news. With regard to the number of terrorist plots foiled since 9/11, the long list should reassure Americans that their government is doing something right:

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking “dirty bomb,” convicted of conspiracy.
• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.
• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).
• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York’s Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.
• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.
• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.
• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.
• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.
• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.
• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.
• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.
• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.
• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Recent news of an al Qaeda plot to attack a US embassy in Yemen only highlight the need for continued vigilance.

Liberal Bloggers Defend Ahmadinejad Visit To Ground Zero

The "progressive" CarpetBagger Report second guesses the decision to bar Ahmadinejad from Ground Zero:

I appreciate the fact that blogging does not lend itself to mixed emotions, which I admit to feeling in a case like this. My first instinct was to reflexively oppose Ahmadinejad’s request. The man is a dangerous nut, and it’s hardly a stretch to assume that he wants to appear at Ground Zero to improve his own image on the international stage. Given the hostilities between his country and ours, there’s no reason for the U.S. to accommodate his public-relations campaign. If Ahmadinejad wants to appear more responsible as an international leader, there are several constructive steps he can take in his own country.

But the more I think about it, the more I second guess this reaction.

CarpetBagger goes on to quote other liberals with conciliatory attitudes. The liberal Booman Tribune writes:

[H]ere this man comes, to make an ostensibly good-faith gesture and to pay respects to our dead. Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy so he can better understand why his country is under such a threat.

Is it really a ‘good faith’ gesture? Maybe not. Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.

The ignorant credulity is astounding. "Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy?" The same man who directs his Revolutionary Guard to actively kill Americans in Iraq? CarpetBagger also quotes another blogger by the name of Anonymous Liberal:

Look, I realize Ahmadinejad is not a good guy and has said some scary things, but let’s get a grip. It’s not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He’s a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They’re not allies. Never have been. They don’t even have similar goals or aims.

Moreover, don’t we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn’t that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn’t it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.

But this is all too complicated for today’s Republican Party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an “Islamofascist” and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.

CarpetBaggers sums it up by saying:

If security and safety concerns make the visit impossible, all of this is a moot point. But as a matter of principle, it’s worth considering what the U.S. reaction should be if, say, there were no logistical concerns. After all, Ahmadinejad is a foe, but that hasn’t stopped the Bush administration from sitting down the Iranians to discuss Iraq policy. Doesn’t that mean we have some kind of diplomatic relationship with Tehran?

No, the leader of the largest state sponsor of Islmic terror should not be allowed to visit Ground Zero. This would be an offense to every casualty of 9/11, to their families, and to every ordinary American citizen that was attacked that day.

It is appalling that all the while acknowledging Ahmadinejad probably has ulterior motives, and likely using the trip as a "stunt," it's worth dirtying the memory of our dead for something that may be "a 'good faith' gesture."

Why is this about Republicans? Bush Derangement Syndrome and multilateral political correctness has reached new heights among the morally bankrupt and excusatory left.

Al Qaeda's Mistakes

Among its many blunders: Videotaping decapitations, the overzealous killing of Muslims (resulting in Sunni's and Shi'ites rejecting its murderous ways), and of course perpetrating 9/11, which awoke the sleeping giant, al Qaeda has fumbled again.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two "boasted that the U.S. was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts."

Interesting that Zawahiri should state this position when Muslims in Iraq are now offering bounties for the capture of al Qaeda leaders.

But as Gateway Pundit noted, Zawahiri stole Harry Reid's talking points. In fact, he stole the Democrats' talking points on the war. In preaching America's defeat, Zawahiri is only reinforcing the well-established Democratic Party line, and strengthening the resolve of those who are determined to see through to victory.

When Zawahiri says:

"The Crusaders themselves have testified to their defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the lions of the Taliban," he said. "The Crusaders have testified to their own defeat in Iraq at the hands of the mujahideen, who have taken the battle of Islam to the heart of the Islam world."

...he is speaking specifically of Harry Reid's "war is lost" comments from April 2007.

Ironically, as Zawahiri professes America's "failure," regurgitating Harry Reid's shameful politicking, the AP reports:

The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday that a seven-month-old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate...

On Thursday, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of about 32 to 12 per day.

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

The AP beat me to it. I was on the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count earlier today, and noted that September's total Iraqi Security Force and Civilian deaths stood at 530 so far, whereas the entire month of August totaled 1,674.

Additionally, a look at U.S. military fatalities reveals that as of today, September deaths are the lowest this year by far, and at the lowest pace since August 2006.

The effectiveness of al Qaeda's killing machine is clearly diminished. I can't wait to see what DailyKos writes about the casualty count... probably something to the effect of "Iraqi civilian deaths greater in September than September 2002 under Saddam!"

Then again, Kos bloggers have already declared that they don't support the troops, what more needs to be said?

It is at least heartening that some liberal bloggers are openly disgusted with the Demcorats' weak opposition and squandered opportunities. Democrats can hardly lead a majority in Congress, how would they fight a war? For these reasons, many political observers are asking: Who bears blame for anti-war failures?:

For many in Washington, the biggest unanswered question from Army. Gen. David Petraeus’ high-profile, low-satisfaction testimony last week was not about military strategy but about political tactics. Why has the anti-war movement been unable to translate the clear public mandate they claim into any clear change in our government’s Iraq policy?

To most war opponents, the blame increasingly lies with the Democratic leadership in Congress, for not taking a hard enough line with President Bush and not fighting to cut off war funding. And their frustration is visibly bubbling over — the provocative group Code Pink, for example, has actually taken to protesting outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in San Francisco in recent days.

But there is a growing feeling among many Democrats, particularly within the D.C. establishment, that just the opposite is true. They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath, but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that there’s too much Bush Left.

Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive results.

H/T Instapundit.

And what "change in course" do the Democrats even propose? Answer: Stop training the Iraqi Police and Army.

We also learn that al Qaeda, in its hubris, has decided to open yet another front in its war: Al Qaeda Bin Laden Message Declares War on Pakistan President Musharraf.

Enemies of al Qaeda should welcome this declaration. If bin Laden and Zawahiri are delusional enough to think that while losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can open a third front in their war, American and Pakistan should seize the opportunity and welcome the excuse to kill more terrorists.

The convergence of al Qaeda's goals, and that of the pusillanimous Democrats is as ironic as it is sad. Worse, still for the Democrats, they don't even appear aware that they are being played.

What Year Were The 9/11 Attacks?

"It doesn't really matter."

That sums up the collective coma.

The names of Brad Pitt's children, though? Well, that's easy.

Wretchard at The Belmont Club put it best:

I recalled the saying, in an earlier post, that everyone dies two deaths. The first is the physical death. The second and more lasting death is when the dead are forgotten

H/T Instapundit

Technology Can Be A Scary Thing

We learn that there is very good reason to doubt the most recent Osama bin Laden videos timed for release around the sixth anniversary of 9/11. The doubt does not stem from bin Laden's fake looking beard or nonsensical left-wing remarks.

Rather, it is because others have proven just how easy it is to create a phony bin Laden video. No wonder bin Laden's a miserable failure.

But there are far more shocking developments in the war on terror yet. This time - good news for the good guys. The Belmont Club writes: The Wizard War

The National Science Foundation's "Darkweb" project is developing a variety of technologies to automate what only a few online sleuths can do: find Jihadis online and track them, even when they post under different names. It can perform content and traffic analysis and "profile" the style of authors.

Read the rest.

Some Bank On Withdrawal And Defeat

Obama wants American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible:

CLINTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

The presidential hopeful would have us relinquish the advantage built on hard fought victories, just as AQI miscalculates:

If al-Qaeda hoped to win the Sunni tribes in western Iraq back to their banner, they severely miscalculated in their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Instead of cowing his tribesmen and intimidating them back into submission, 1500 of them defiantly lined the road for his funeral, swearing revenge on AQI

To heighten the degree of America's successful pursuit of victory since 9/11, Larry Kudlow writes:

Since September 11, the economy hasn’t suffered a single down quarter. In fact, it has notched 23 straight quarters of economic growth … Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What’s more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

H/T Dr. Sanity


Even the marginally liberal Economist argues that the United States must stay.



However, for a Democratic presidential victory, those who would downplay American success in the war on terror have not only ignored the fact that al Qaeda is on the run around the world and in Iraq, but even resort to launching a character assassination attack on the General. Hillary Clinton is guilty as well.


My party, the Democrats, need Petraeus to lose. It's unfortunate, although perhaps a necessity within the political sphere that one side take the contrary view for the sake of it. And in doing so, they group themselves with American enemies such as Iran and the ousted Iraq Baath party.


Too bad for Democrats this view banks on American defeat. Too bad for America, as well.

An American Ally In Iraq Is Killed

...by al Qaeda.

Via Pat Dollard: Breaking: Leader Of Anbar Awakening Killed - Petraeus: “A Tragic Loss”

The most prominent figure in a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed Thursday in an explosion near his home in Anbar province, police said. Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha was leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, also known as the Anbar Awakening—an alliance of clans backing the Iraqi government and U.S. forces.

Bill Roggio:

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan has begun with a grim attack against the leader of the movement that actively opposes al Qaeda in Iraq. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the founder of the Anbar Awakening movement, was murdered in a car bomb attack outside of his home in Ramadi.

Sattar's murder is a serious blow to the Anbar Awakening and the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq beyond the borders of Anbar province. Sheikh Sattar has been instrumental in organizing tribal sheikhs and former Sunni insurgent groups such as the 1920s Revolution Brigades and the Mujahideen Army to band together and fight al Qaeda in Iraq.

Ace: Key Figure In "Anbar Awakening" Killed By Al Qaeda Roadside Bomb

An attempt at a mini, high-impact Tet. Important is the symbolism, that Al Qaeda can continue to operate in Anbar, even with security improvements. Though it has to be noted no one ever said Al Qaeda was utterly expelled from that province.

Sheik Sattar abu Risha had just signed a letter dedicating their success in Anbar to the victims of 9/11. Yes, that's right. A group of Sunni Muslims signed a letter dedicating the success in their mission to hunt and kill al Qaeda to the innocent dead Americans killed by fanatical Muslim terrorists on September 11th. Risha had given the letter to president Bush when he visit Anbar.

And the reaction from the "progressive" DailyKos?: Bush's Golden Boy of Anbar Assassinated.

However, the good news is that Iraqis vow to fight al Qaeda after sheikh's death.

9-11-2001

Michelle Malkin remembers.

Glenn Reynolds remembers.

Bryan from Hot Air remembers.

Gateway Pundit remembers.

Classical Values remembers.

The Ranks Of Our Military

Not all service members are high school drop-outs, eh?

“Do you know the Weekly Standard magazine?” Captain Covey asked me.

“Of course,” I said.

“My buddy Tom Cotton was just written up there,” he said. “It was pretty cool seeing him in that magazine.”

“What did he do to get in the magazine?” I said.

“He’s like me,” he said. “He’s a Harvard Law grad who joined the Army after 9/11. I’m an attorney.”

“You’re an attorney?” I said. “What are you doing out here in Iraq?”

“I practiced law for three years,” he said, “then got into investment banking. When 9/11 happened I just had to sign up with the Army. Investment banking is a lot more stressful than this.”

“You’re kidding, right?” I said.

“No,” he said and laughed. “I am totally serious.”

We're at war, aren't we? Not all Americans understand that. And though our voluntary military is not entirely made up of citizens looking to get revenge for 9/11, or to fight the war on terror, or to promote American democracy from the barrel of a gun, it's hopeful to see that some are that honorable, idealistic, and patriotic.

A Hint Of Progress

Despite the fact that liberal bloggers and Democrats contend that "no progress" has been made with the surge, The New York Times: Hints of Progress, and Questions, in Iraq Data

The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population. Data on car bombs, suicide attacks, civilian casualties and other measures of the bloodshed in Iraq indicate that violence has been on the decline, though the levels generally remain higher than in 2004 and 2005.

Not great news, but encouraging. Osama bin Laden's new tape has frankly only helped bolster my view that he is increasingly marginalized and weak. The passing shots he took at Democrats and suggestions for the direction or national and domestic policy should take also read like Democratic talking points. The bin Laden tape was essentially a victory for the White House.

And I don't know about you, but so far this September, I haven't read many reports of car bombs and troop fatalities. But that may only be due to the fact that many have been scrambling to discredit Petraeus and his report.

Update: Another NY Times report says the surge has failed. (H/T Hot Air)

Osama Bin Hidin'

Rather than take him seriously, bin Laden's latest video is being met with ambivalence, derision and sarcasm.

John Podhoretz links to a Family Guy episode which satirizes the sheik.

Time's Rober Baer writes that Bin Laden Fights to Stay Relevant.

Even fellow Muslims have criticized Osama:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A doctor who treated wounded al-Qaida fighters at Tora Bora in Afghanistan has confirmed Osama bin Laden was at the mountain stronghold as U.S. and Afghan forces attacked — and said the al-Qaida chieftain seemed concerned about only his own welfare.

Victor Davis Hanson adds:

And often friends supposedly asked bin Laden why after 1988, he did not locate to the West Bank or Gaza to wage his war against the hated Israelis, whom he had identified as the real enemies. The unspoken answer, of course, is that he thought it safer to attack the U.S. in the 1990s than to strike head-on Israel from next-door, something perceived tantamount to a death sentence.

And

even a brief scan of Peter Bergen’s The Osama bin Laden I Know will reveal dozens of various reasons why al Qaeda (in bin Laden’s own words) chose to attack—Jewish women walking around in Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, a general Western decadence, supposed massacres of Muslims in Burma, Kashmir, Somalia, and the Philippines; the arrests and detentions of Muslim “scholars;” attacks on Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan; theft of petroleum; support for the Saudi and Egyptian governments. In Raymond Ibrahim’s recent The al Qaeda Reader we even learn of furor over our financing of elections, and failure to sign Kyoto.

Others suggest bin Laden's new look places him in the category of "metrosexual."

Among conservatives, bin Laden's tape is even being derisively compared to rants by "lefty bloggers" or even Keith Olbermann: "Does Osama bin Laden sound like a Democrat, or do the Democrats sound like Osama?"

Meanwhile, "progressive" blogs whine that the media "continue to equate progressives with terrorists." and complain that:

Right-wing bloggers have also joined in. At Hot Air, Allahpundit claimed bin Laden sounded like a “socialist icon,” invoking many of the same passages Brooks did. At Political Vindication, Uncle Seth the Noble went further, claiming bin Laden sounded like Daily Kos’s Markos Moulitsas. Frank J, a Pajamas Media blogger, concluded “Kos has to get this guy as a diarist before HuffPo does.”

Two things in all this discussion are clear. 1) Whether bin Laden was sending a secret message, or has picked up some new fashion tips, he has now become a failure and a laughing stock. And 2) Osama (and al Qaeda) monitors Western media and commentary, which makes it all the more critical that the United States present a united front on the war on terror, rather than give moral comfort or aid to the enemy.

Update: More from Instapundit here, and the Beltway Blogroll here.

It's Cool To Be 'Highly educated people'

...just like Mos Def.

Why is the truth so hard to come by for celebrities? Perhaps when one's livelihood is predicated on convincing others to suspend their disbelief, blind credulity comes easy.

In a series of incredulous, half-baked, moonbatty conspiracy theory nonsense on Bill Maher's show, rapper/actor Mos Def declared himself the poster child for irrational "9/11 trutherism" and the like:

DEF: I don't believe it was bin Laden today, I don't believe it was never him. I think it's some dude just standing, I don't even, I can't even believe. I don't even, I'm sorry, I'm from the projects, I know danger. I don't feel no danger from that shit, those mother-fuckers.

BILL MAHER: But you don't think bin Laden knocked down the Word Trade Center?

DEF: Absolutely not.

MAHER: Come on.

DEF: I don't. I don't. You know what, I don't.

MAHER: That's where you lose me, my friend, and I'm so on your side, but you know what.

DEF: In any barbershop I am so not alone, I'm so not alone.

MAHER: That doesn't mean you're right.

DEF: That don't mean it is not valid neither. Highly-educated people in all areas of science have spoken on the fishiness around the whole 9/11 theory. It's like the magic-bullet and all that shit.

MAHER: Then what happened?

DEF: I don't believe these mother-fuckers have been to the moon either, but that's just me.

Yo, yo, yo, dats mos def da troof, yo.

He laughably views himself as a circumspect, adroit observer. The guy is 'mos def' far from the truth.

I give Maher credit for calling him out, and somehow keeping himself from choking the fool across the desk.

For any 'highly educated people' out there, there is much more to be learned about 9/11, and even the moon landing from Bill Whittle.

Pre-9/11 Intelligence and the CIA

NRO, from the report, which reviewed the CIA's anti-terrorism activities before 9/11:

"counterterrorism funds and personnel were diverted from FY '97- FY'01 to "other Agency priorities." It notes that the DCI on 6 occasions in the 5 years prior to 9/11 used his authorities to move IC funds and personnel but none of these transfers supported programs to counter Osama bin Ladin or al Qaeda. The report is especially hard on the "former DCI" (George Tenet)."

Captain's Quarters has more:

"Despite Tenet's claims that he had sounded the alarm on Osama bin Laden, the CIA hadn't produced a comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden since 1993. Osama and AQ conducted a number of attacks on American assets around the world over the next eight years prior to 9/11, and yet they never revisited their analysis of bin Laden after the first World Trade Center attack."

This isn't good for George Tenet, but neither is it good for American national security, or the intelligence community. Have we learned from our mistakes?

Preventing Future Attacks

WSJ: The Cheney Imperative

With intelligence officials in Washington increasingly alarmed about the prospect of another major attack on the U.S. homeland, and public support for the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts reclaiming lost ground, we need more Dick Cheney.

The policies he has advocated have been controversial. But they have also been effective. Consider the procedures put in place to extract information from hardcore terrorists. Mr. Cheney did not dream up these interrogation methods, but when intelligence officials insisted that they would work, the vice president championed them in internal White House debates and on Capitol Hill. Former CIA Director George Tenet--a Clinton-era appointee and certainly no Cheney fan--was asked about the value of those interrogation programs in a recent television appearance. His response, ignored by virtually everyone in the media, was extraordinary.

"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the Untied States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. . . . I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."

Surveillance may come at a modest price, but it pays dividends...

And what about the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program? Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush instructed his top intelligence officials to be aggressive in their efforts to track terrorists and disrupt their plots. Michael Hayden, NSA director at the time, took that opportunity to propose changes to the ways his agency monitored terrorist communications. A little more than a year before the 9/11 attacks, while Bill Clinton was still president, Mr. Hayden dramatized the NSA's dilemma in congressional testimony.

"If, as we are speaking here this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking . . . from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as he gets to the New York side, he is an 'American person.' And my agency must respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution."

Once President Bush took office, Messrs. Hayden and Tenet took the problem to Dick Cheney. The vice president walked them in to see Mr. Bush and in short order the changes were implemented. The results were almost immediate. The New York Times article that exposed the surveillance program in December 2005 also reported that "the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program."

H/T: Pat Dollard.

Whatever You Think Of Jon Stewart

... this is really inappropriate of Fox News' John Gibson.

Totally unproffessional, out of line, and immature:

GIBSON: Oh, Jon Stewart sobbing.
STEWART: The view from my apartment --
GIBSON: Sobbing.
STEWART: -- was the World Trade Center.
GIBSON: Oh, God, Jon. Just tell me it's not true.
STEWART: And now it's gone.
GIBSON: It's gone.
STEWART: And they attacked it.
GIBSON: They attacked it.
STEWART: This symbol --
GIBSON: This symbol.
STEWART: -- of American ingenuity --
GIBSON: American ingenuity.
STEWART: -- and strength --
GIBSON: And strength.
STEWART: -- and --
GIBSON: Determination.
STEWART: -- and labor and imagination and commerce, and it is gone.
GIBSON: Gone.
STEWART: But you know what the view is now?
ANGRY RICH: What is it, Jon?
GIBSON: What is it, Jon?
STEWART: The Statue of Liberty.
GIBSON: Oh! That's great. I'm -- God, I'm touched.
STEWART: The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty.
GIBSON: I'm touched.

You would hope for more class than that. Who's more of a creep, Gibson, or Chris Matthews.

You decide.