Re: Sheehan, check out HuffPo. There are 15 posts at the top of the page comparing her to, among other things, the civil rights protesters who marched in Selma ... and the guy who stared down the tanks in Tiananmen Square.

No joke.

My prediction is that this will get grudging mainstream coverage only after the blogs talk it up; it still will somehow become the Bush Adminstration's fault. 9/11 is ancient history to these fools. As far as the left is concerned, the war in Afghanistan is over, Iraq is Vietnam, therefore a hopeless failure, and all that matters is GET BUSH. It's irrelevant that the 9/11 commission was little more than a collection of egos trying to yak everyone to death or that our intelligence services are still in dire need of repair. No, we have to have round the clock coverage of one misguided woman's selfish crusade and the evil jackals who goaded her into it. Swear to Christ, I think I'm on a different planet sometimes.

What Allah is suggesting, then, is that the Crawford fire department hit her with a deluge from a couple of 2" fire hoses, the Crawford police department sic their dogs on her, and then bring out the old Sherman tank, the one Jim keeps running, from out front of the Crawford VFW post, you know, the one that they use in the Crawford July 4th and Memorial Day parades and see if Cindy Sheehan flinches or lets it roll past.

Hell, Bush has been fulfilling the wishes of Afghanis and Iraqis over the past two years ... he might as well do the same with the Moonbat Left.

Allah, where've you been? You didn't go and get, gasp, a job, did you?

Ha ha ha! I looked at the Huffington blog. Column after column glorifying this woman. This is what kills me about the left. The are so fucking phony. They always pick an icon or a historical moment and try to make their sorry ass modern counterpart to fit it. It doesn't. It just looks silly. I wonder what happens when the elite abandon cindy in a couple of months. Will she flip out? Will she be bitter? Will she park her butt outside of Arianna's in Brentwood?

I think the Able Danger story is going to be the biggest of the year.

A. A SOCOM unit, run by Gen. Shelton himself, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, identifies Atta and the Brooklyn cell as a threat as early as 1999. (It doesn't hurt that the unit has a cool sounding name, too.)

B. A year before 9/11, they recommend that that the FBI close down the cell. (Who was president a year before 9/11 again?)

C. DOD lawyers (lawyers!) overrule this recommendation, and refuse to allow the Able Danger guys to pass this information on to the FBI, because Atta has a legal immigration status, and they are worried about political fallout after Waco. They put Post-It notes over Atta's face so that all reference to him is kept secret (a nice touch, dont' you think?).

D. The 9/11 Commission chose to omit any reference to it or investigate. This is inexcusible, regardless of how accurate the story is. It clearly deserves to be addressed and the facts explored, to be proved or disproved.

Un-fucking-believable.

If I'm furious at these fools for playing partisan games during a time of war, and yet also kind of getting excited about a possible scalp, does that make me some kind of hypocrite?

Don't answer that.

It seems pretty clear what Sandy "socks" Berger was sanitizing out of the record now doesn't it...

The running for cover action makes the predictions very interesting.

I'm inclined to agree.

Break out the guillotines, drag the commisioner's sorry asses up the steps of the capital, and lop their treasonous fucking heads off on national television. The NYT too while we're at it.

If the Atta timeline comes unraveled, and the Prague story gains credence, that's dynamite. Because on its own, the Prague story is internally convincing and unimpeachably sourced.

If Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence, there's no innocent explanation, no benefit of the doubt. Saddam was operationally involved in 9/11.

That conclusion would threaten the MSM's official version. It would upend their house of cards. They will ignore, mischaracterize, conceal, muddy, and misreport the story.

This could be the next decisive war between Old Media and New.

The MSM and Clintonistas will be spinning at warp speed that Atta couldn't have been here because we had no State Dept record he was here, blah, blah.

But one next has to ask the question - does that really mean anything? If millions of illegal aliens can enter this country without being documented, why couldn't Atta have come and gone undetected as an illegal at some point in stay and under visa during others?

Its not like its difficult to enter this country undetected - particularly in Florida. Illegals are washing up on the beaches down here every day. Some are caught, most aren't. If you don't look like a waterlogged Hatian bobbing around on a barely seaworthy raft, you're not going to get much attention at all if you drive up in a nice looking pleasure boat.

This could be the story of the year - maybe even the story of the decade.

"If Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence, there's no innocent explanation, no benefit of the doubt. Saddam was operationally involved in 9/11."

You folks want SOOOO much for there to be some connection between Saddam and 9-11, despite all the facts that bin Laden called for his over throw. It has already been established that Al Queda members approached Saddam for Chemical weapons and Saddam found it too risky. I thought the mantra was that it made no difference, yet the WEAKEST of possible connections, doesn't even have to have happened as long as it is possible that it happened, and you freaks are pissing yourself in excitement. Face reality, No WMD's, no terror link. Saudi Arabia wanted the US military out of Iraq and the US was not going to leave with Saddam still in power. paul Wolfowitz SAID as much. Christ you people are thick.

I just want the truth thomas. Right now that appears to be Democrats on the committee wanted SOOOO much for there not to be a connection, they ignored Able Danger evidence, and lied about it later.

We'll see, won't we?

There's plenty of terror links thomas - you simply deny them in your world view because they are inconvenient.

Zarquawi was IN Iraq prior to the invasion - was he simply taking a nice vacation from the stress of international terrorism? You see you can't beat W up for NOT taking Zarquawi camps out PRIOR to the invasion, then in the same breath claim no links exist.

Of course its well established that Iraq was a defacto Club Med retirement spot for elder terrorists too.

Thomas don't be a jackass - Israel sold mil gear to the Iranians who would love nothing better than to blow them up with nukes.

Alliances shift like the blowing sands in that part of the world based expediency of the moment.

Sure OBL may have called for Saddam overthrow - that doesn't preclude Saddam cooperating with OBL on some issue of momentary mutual interest - kinda like how we armed the Soviets in WWII. Its not like we were wet kissing butt buddies or anything - it was expedient to do so.

Saddam is/was many things, a complete moron is not one of them.